Rajasthan Court January 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Abhay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC796
Madam, J. 1. The matter has been taken up on the second stay application moved by the learned counsel for the petition. Since the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the maintainability of the second stay petition are touching upon the merits of the case, and the matter has been heard at length and it was thought proper to hear the arguments finally on the writ petition itself instead of keeping it pending as the writ petition pertains to the year 1998. 2. The first contention which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no prescription of different pay scales in the Rules. Second argument is that the impugned order has been passed retrospectively to the disadvantage of the petitioner particularly when the Rules do not permit retrospective effect to the matter. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has laidemphasis on the contentions made especially in para 14, 15, 17 and 18 of the w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Boring Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR734(Raj)
1. This is a reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, seeking reference of the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the fact that in the case quoted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, i.e., CIT v. Popular Borewell Service : [1992]194ITR12(Mad) , the Madras High Court had held that depreciation of 30 per cent. was not allowable on rig and compressor used in drilling borewell, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that depreciation at 30 per cent. was allowable on rig and compressor used in drilling borewells ?'The respondent-assessee claimed depreciation at 30 per cent. on the rig and compressor machines which was granted by the Assessing Officer, However, later on the Assessing Officer, rectified the order and reduced the depreciation benefit to 15 per cent. only. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim o...
Suresh Chandra Vs. General Manager Raj. State Bridge and Construction ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR843]; RLW2003(1)Raj281; 2002(3)WLC67; 2002(2)WLN671
Chauhan, J. 1. Both these writ petitions have been filed agains! the same impugned award dated 25.4.2000 made by the Labour Court, Udaipur. The workman has filed it on the ground that the Labour Court ought to have reinstated him instead of granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The other petition has been filed by the employer on the ground that the award is nullity for want of jurisdiction and even the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court are perverse, hence it is liable to be quashed. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that the workman raised an industrial dispute that he had worked from 26.9.1979 to 28.2.1987 continuously with the employer and his services stood terminated w.e.f. 1.3.1987 withoutcomplying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). The Appropriate Government made a reference, vide order dated 29.7.1995, to the Labour Court as to whether the termination of services of workman Suresh C...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohd. Bux Sokat Ali
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: [2004]265ITR326(Raj)
1. This is a reference application at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated May 1, 1998.2. The assessing authority made the assessment at the total income of Rs. 5,90,300 against the returned income of Rs. 2,45,224. The assessing authority also passed an order under Section 186(1) of the Act refusing the continuation of registration. He also made an addition of Rs. 3,30,232 on account of clubbing the income of M/s. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali. The Tribunal vide order dated January 8, 1991, granted registration and deleted the addition. However, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000 under Section 271(1)(c) vide order dated February 22, 1990. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelled the penalty on the ground that the firm has been granted registration and the addition has been deleted. The order was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the v...
Cit Vs. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN238(Raj)
ORDERThis is a reference application at the instance of the revenue under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act arising from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 7-5-1998.2. The assessing authority made the assessment at the total income of Rs. 5,90,300 against the returned income of Rs. 2,45,224. The assessing authority also passed an order under section 186(1) of the Act refusing the continuation of registration. He also made an addition of Rs. 3,30,232 on account of clubbing the income of M/s. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali. The Tribunal vide order dated 8-1-1991 granted registration and deleted the addition. However, the assessing officer imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000 under section 272(1)(b) vide order dated 22-2-1990. Commissioner (Appeals) cancelled the penalty on the ground that the firm has been granted registration and the addition has been deleted. The order was upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the very basis for levying penalty did not surv...
Mahendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1667; 2002WLC(Raj)UC647; 2002(2)WLN653
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner Mahendra Kumar against the order dated 5-7-2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra in Criminal Case No. 7/96 in which he came to the conclusion that the sanction of SP, Barmer for prosecuting accused respondents Guman Singh and Karan Singh for the offence under Sections 451 and 323, IPC was not proper and thus, by invoking the provisions of Section 258, Cr. P. C, he dropped the proceedings against the accused respondents and discharged them of the said offences.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-On 18-12-1995 a report was lodged by the complainant-petitioner in the Police Station Balotra stating inter alia that some police officials entered in his shop illegally and, thereafter, they gave beating to him and some other persons.On this report, police registered the case and started investigation and during investigation, Mahendra Kumar (present petitioner-...
Cit Vs. National Boring Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)676
By the courtThis is a reference application under section 256(2) at the instance of the revenue, seeking reference of the following question for the opinion of this court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the fact that in the case quoted by the Tribunal, i.e., CIT v. Popular Borewell Services & Ors. : [1992]194ITR12(Mad) , the Madras High Court had held that depreciation of 30 per cent was not allowable on rig and compressor used in drilling borewell, the Tribunal was justified in holding that depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent was allowable on rig and compressor used in drilling borewells ?'2. The respondent- assessee claimed depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent on the rig and compressor machines which was granted by the assessing officer. However, later on assessing officer rectified the order and reduced the depreciation benefit to 15 per cent only. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee and restored 30 per cent...
Shanti Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1719; 2003WLC(Raj)UC570
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 30-1-1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 152/85 whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellants for offence under Section 342, I.P.C. and Section 323, I.P.C. in place of Section 302, I.P.C. sentence each of them as under :Name of Convicted SentenceAccused under Section Awarded__________________________________________________Snanti lal } 323 IPC 6 months' R.I.Rajnikant }Sardar Khan }Shantilal } 342 IPC 6 months' R.I.Rajnikant }Sardar Khan }Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It arises in the following circum-stances:_________________________________________________(i) On 12-3-1985 a report was lodged by PW 1 Rooplal with the police Station Fateh Nagar, Dist. Udaipur stating that his brother Mangi Lal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was beaten by the accused appellants.3. On t...
Narula and Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN5
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The only ground raised in this appeal is about the limitation of the counter claim filed by the State in a suit filed by the appellant. The counter claim relating to a money claim of the State has been entertained by the trial Court by treating the limitation in filing a counter claim in a suit by the State in any matter to be 30 years in accordance with the provisions of Article 112 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963.2. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge as well as before us that limitation for filing of a suit for the plaintiff-appellant had been three years and necessarily for that reason the limitation for entertaining any counter claim in such suit can only be three years and not different from the limitation of the suit in which counter claim has been filed. It was also contended by learned Counsel that Article 112 is restricted to the suit in relation to the immovable properties as accor...
Jawahar Sons Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC627
ORDERRajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This litigation has little chequered history, The petitioner which is a private limited company has purchased the land in question from Shri Balveer Kumar Jain, Smt. Manju Jain, Dr. Gautam Jain and Dr. Veena Jain, which originally formed a part of Patta No. 53 Issued in Case No. 635/30-31 by the erstwhile Ruler of Jodhpur in favour of Sarva Shri Anand Swaroop, Niranjan Swaroop and Vishambar Swaroop. The Patta while entailed a condition that the land shall be used for the purposes of construction of a building, contained no condition as to the nature of the use for which the construction could be used. At the time when the petitioner had purchased the land, the constructed building was already there which was occupied by a privately run school viz. Lal Bahadur Shastri School. The petitioner, desirous of constructing a Hotel on the land in question, submitted a plan for approval and permission for construction on the land ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »