Rajasthan Court September 2001 Judgments
Cit Vs. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)290
N.N. Mathur, J.By this common order three reference applications being D.B. Income Tax Reference No. 10 of 1992 (CIT v. Lake Palace Hotels & Motels (P) Ltd.) D.B. Income Tax Reference No. 102 of 1998 (Ajit Bhawan Hotel v. CIT (for assessment year 1984-85)) and D.B. Income Tax Reference No. 103 of 1998 (Ajit Bhawan Hotel v. CIT (for assessment year 1987-88)) are being disposed of.2. The common question involved in these three reference applications is as to whether hotel building can be treated as plant or industrial undertaking and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to investment amount (sic-allowance) under section 32A of the Income Tax Act. The controversy involved stands concluded by recent decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Anand Theatres : [2000]244ITR192(SC) , wherein the court has held that hotel building and theatre building are separate from industrial undertaking or the plant in spite of the fact that they are specially equipped for the purpose of business, they still rem...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwini Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN497
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 15.11.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in' appeal No. 37/96 by which he partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner in the manner that he maintained the conviction of the accused petitioner for the offence under Section F28(2) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') recorded by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur through his judgment dated 9.8.1994 in Criminal Case No. 98/91, but instead of sentencing him, he granted the benefit of probation to the accused petitioner and set aside the order of sentence dated 9.8.1994 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur sentencing accused petitioner to three months S.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further, under go one mo...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Singh and anr. Vs. Kan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN390
Arun Madan, J.1. By this revision petition, the defendant petitioners (Laxman Singh and Shivnarain Singh) have assailed the judgment dated 17.2.2001 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (SD) Sawaimadhopur decreeing the plaintiff respondent's Civil Suit seeking relief under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') for dispossession of the defendants from the suit property.2. In the suit, a decree was sought by the plaintiff on the assertions that the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 (present petitioners) had dispossessed forcibly on the intervening night of 11th and 12th July, 1996. This suit was contested by asserting in the written statement inter-alia that the suit property has since been valued at more than Rs. 30,000/-, the Court of Munsif where the plaintiff had filed suit on 21st July, 1976, had no jurisdiction and accordingly while deciding such an objection vide order dated 8th January, 1980 the Munsif Sawaimadhopur returned the aforesaid suit to the plaintiff for being...
Tag this Judgment!Yunus Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC386; 2002(4)WLN328
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 29.10.87 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh camp Sangaria in Sessions Case No. 70/85 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sections 307 and 341 I.P.C. and sentenced him as under:Name of accusedOffence u/Sec.Sentence awardedYunus307 I.P.C.4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default to furtherundergo 15 days' S.I.Yunus341 I.P.C.1 month's S.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/- In default to furtherundergo 7 days S.I.2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances:(i) On 17.7.85 P.W. 1 Jafar lodged an oral report, Ex.P/1 with Police Station Sangaria before P.W.5 Shri Krishna staling that on that day i.e. on 17.7.85, he and his elder brother Mustaq P.W.2 after taking food in their house were going to their field and he was 10 to 15 feet ahead of P.W.2 Mustaq and when he reached near the shop of Hussain Mo...
Tag this Judgment!Doongarpur Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Dhirendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR815]; (2002)IVLLJ75Raj; 2002WLC(Raj)UC61; 2002(2)WLN16
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. I have heard Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mridul Jain learned counsel for the respondent.2. The respondent Dhirendra Kumar was employed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier at Bohrawadi, Sagwara Branch of the petitioner Bank. An inquiry was instituted against him alongwith other employees on the charge of cheating, embezzlement and misfeasance. The Enquiry Officer found various charges of cheating and embezzlement proved against him. He was also found grossly negligent in discharge of his official duties. Thus, a penalty of removal from service was inflicted upon him. The respondent raised an Industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Udaipur.3. The respondent did not challenge the legality, validity and fairness of the domestic enquiry held against him, but he only addressed on the question of punishment. The Judge of Labour Court very generously took the view that respondent be given an opportunity to improve. Thus, by impugne...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Vijay Shanti Educational Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2568
Calla, J. 1. This Special Appeal (Writs), preferred by the State of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Minorities Commission, is directed against the judgment and order dated dated 15th of September, 2000, filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2684/2000, whereby the petition has been disposed of with certain.2. The original petition had been filed by Vijay Shanti Educational Trust, Chennai, against the respondents - State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan; the Secretary; Home Department, Government of Rajasthan, and the Rajasthan Minorities Commission, on 4th of August, 2000, seeking a declaration that the orders dated 1.8.2000 (Annex. 16) and 3.8.2000 (Annex. 17) with the petition, be declared to by illegal and be quashed, with consequential benefits to the petitioner and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, it may be declared that t...
Tag this Judgment!Manoharlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ394
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2000') has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dated 4-9-2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jodhpur by which the application filed by the accused petitioner for treating the accused petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 2000 and for releasing him on ball, was rejected.2. It arises in the following circumstances :On 23-5-2001, SHO, Police Station Jaltaran chalked out regular FIR No. 128/ 2001 for the offence under Sections 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') stating inter alia that on that day he conducted the search of Truck bearing No. RJ 19, G-5401 at Mauji Chouraya bye-pass and found 45 bags of doda post in that Truck and at that time, Kunaram was its driver and the present accused petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ramesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN664
Rajesh Balia, J.1.Heard learned Counsel for the parties on stay application.2. Prima-facie, I am of the view that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla 2001 AIR SCW-1340 makes out the distinction between the cases of the absolute liability of the insurer which may arise out of a contract and the right of the claimant party to recover compensation as a result of accident from Insurance Company. If the Insurance Company succeeds in establishing that there was breach of the policy condition, the right of the claimant to effect recovery from the Insurance Company remains unimpaired because it is a statutory liability of the Insurance Company under Section 147 of the Act of 1988 on the one hand and on the other hand the Insurance Company is absolved from absolute liability on the ground that relationship between the insurer and the insured arise from contract and in case breach of any condition by the insurer Insurance Company is absolved fro...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlesh Kumar Nankani Vs. Zonal Manager, Fci, Jaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC322; 2003(1)WLN641
Verma, J.1. Father of the petitioner Udha Ram, who was an employee of the respondent Food Corporation of India, died on 2.2.1981 while working at Jaipur. He left behind his widow and four minor children of the age of 2 years to 9 years. The petitioner was of the age of 9 years at the time of death of his father. The petitioner being so advised, moved an application through his mother on 16.5.1988 vide (An-nexure-1) after seven years of the death of the deceased employee to the respondent for giving him appointment on the suitable post as per the qualifications possessed by the petitioner. Request was repeated on number of dates with continued representations made vide (Annexure I to 5) right up to the year 1989. The request for appointment was rejected by the respondent Corporation vide its letter (Annexure-R l/2) dated 19.8.1989. Mrs. Savila Nankani, widow of the deceased also approached to Hon'ble the Prime Minister. The Office of the Hon'ble Prime Minister had sent her representatio...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Meera Granites Private Limited and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: [2002]127STC586(Raj); 2002(3)WLN252; 2002(3)WLN252
Mathur, J. 1. This revision petition at the instance of the Department under Section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan Tax Board dated 22nd February, 1999, whereby the Board while allowing the appeal has set aside the order of the District Level Screening Committee and directed to issue the eligibility certificate to the respondent M/s. Meera Granites Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for the Industries, 1989.2. The facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the respondent Unit moved an application to the District Level Screening Committee, Rajsamand(hereinafter referred to as the D.L.S.C.) for the grant of eligibility certificate under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme of 1989) as an expansion Unit. The D.L.S.C. rejected the application on the ground that the Unit was not doing manufacturing work but job work of ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »