Rajasthan Court November 2002 Judgments
Champalal Vs. Jasnath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLC90; 2003(2)WLN156
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 31.3.2001 by which it has affirmed the judgment and decree of the tiral Court dated 15.7.1996 by which the learned trial Court has passed the decree of eviction of the defendant appellant from the suit premises.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant on various grounds, including second default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide need etc. The defendant-appellant contested the suit denying the averments made in the plaint and in view of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed. Thereafter, the parties were permitted to lead evidence. The evidence of the plaintiff-respondent was over, subsequently when the defendant-appellant was asked to lead evidence, inspite of giving several opportunities he could not examine even a single witness and therefore h...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushalya Devi Vs. District Judge, Tonk and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLC19; 2003(3)WLN228
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The matter has been heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties.2. The husband of the petitioner was a Class-IV employee who died on 30 May, 2000 while working in the office of District and Sessions Judge, Tonk. The petitioner thereafter moved an application seeking employment on compassionate ground in place of her husband and she was appointed against vacant post of Class-IV in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Tonk under the provisions contained in Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short '1996 Rules') vide order dated 3.7.2000.3. The petitioner thereafter was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk vide order dated 17.8.2000. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 4.9.2000, but subsequently vide order dated 16.9.2000 the suspension order was revoked. A charge sheet under Rule 17 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Ram Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC600; 2003(2)WLC347
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. This review petition arises out of the common judgment and order dated 13.12.1994 passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 4274/1988 (Bhola Ram v. State and Ors.) and five other connected matters i.e. SBCWP Nos. 112/85, 1439/86,456/86, 1433/85 and 1195/85. 2. Since the questions raised in the present review petition are pure legal questions of law, I need not advert to the facts of the writ petition separately.3. The grounds of review of the order dated 13.12.1994 which have been urged by Mr. N.S. Rathore, learned Counsel representing the petitioner are : (i) It was not the case of the petitioner that the demand has been raised by the respondent though the adequate supply of liquor was not made by respondents themselves while, the case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that though the petitioner was not even a licensee, no licence whatsoever was issued in his favour and, therefore, he was nowhere concerned with the sale and purchase of liquor but desp...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Fabrico Saraf House
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: [2006]143STC141(Raj)
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The department of Commercial Taxes through the Commercial Taxes Officer has challenged the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, dated March 10, 1998 by which the penalty imposed on the respondent--M/s. Fabrico Saraf House, M.I. Road, Jaipur, for non-user of the power-loom for his personal use and letting it out on rent to someone else incurring imposition of penalty, has been set aside. From the impugned order itself it is borne out that the respondent although had purchased the power-loom for his personal use in order to set it up on a plot of land which was to be allotted to him by the Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation ('RIICO', for short), could not be allotted in his favour and thus for reasons beyond the control of the respondent, he had to let out the machine on rent to someone else. The Rajasthan Tax Board accepted the justification offered by the respondent and set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent due to non...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aravali Swachalya Vahan (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Raj)436
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, referred following questions for the opinion of the Court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the findings of CIT(A) in allowing expenditure of Rs. 6,52,605 as revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee-company from 1st April, 1976 to 20th Nov., 1976, on design and development.2. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of subsidy received from the Central/State Government is not to be deducted from the cost of plant and machinery, buildings, etc. for working out the cost for the purpose of depreciation, investment allowance, etc.'The matter arises out of ITA No. 386/Jp/83 for the asst. yr. 1977-78.2. The learned counsel for the CIT, Jaipur conceded that the question No. 2 referred for the opinion of this Court by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, is concluded in favour of the assessee by decision of the Supreme Court and he does not press for...
Tag this Judgment!Banke Lal Vs. Avtar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: 2003WLC(Raj)UC196; 2003(2)WLN152
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This revision petition has been addressed against an order dated 26.3.1999 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (JD) (West), Ajmer, whereby an order determining the provisional rent was passed. The plaintiff filed a suit for rent and ejectment on various grounds including legal default in the payment of rent. The contention was to the effect that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 350/- p.m. and no rent was paid after 31.8.1992. The defendant in his written statement came with a contention that the agreed monthly rent was Rs. 180/- only.2. On 3.2.1999, the Court was to determine the provisional rent and the cousnel for the plaintiff was present. Till 12.45 P.M., learned Counsel for the defendant did not turn up and the Court passed the impugned order whereby provisional rent was determined at the rate of Rs. 350/- P.M. Before the order could be completed, the learned Counsel for the defendant appeared and moved an application to the effect that he be heard before passing t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Raj)209
S.K. Keshote, J.1. These IT references between the parties are in respect of asst. yr. 1988-89 arising out of the IT Ref. No. 1349/Jp/1991 and 1387/Jp/1994. 2. On the request of the assessee and the Revenue, by common order, the Tribunal made reference to as many as six questions for the opinion of the Court. The assessee in the IT references, filed an application and prayed that the references in the facts and substance enumerated therein have become infructuous. Prayer is made in the application for disposal of these references in terms of 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS).'3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that it is not in dispute that the Government of India introduced 'Kar Vivad Samadan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS)', by the Finance (2) Act, 1998. It is also not in dispute that the assessee in accordance with this Scheme made a declaration on 24th Dec., 1998, under Section 89 of the Finance (2) Act, 1998, to the designated authority, CIT, Jaipur. It is also not in dispute ...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN148
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. The appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 CrPC against the judgment and order dated 30.10.1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer, thereby convicting and sentencing them for offence under Section 326 and 324 IPC in the following manner:326324The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The trial Court ordered that the period spent by the appellants in judicial/police custody shall be adjusted as per the provisions of Section 428, CrPC. It was further ordered that the sentences awarded in default of payment of fine shall be undergone severally.2. As per the prosecution case on 8.6.1983, PW-7 Mahendra Singh informed the police at Police Station, Alwar Gate, Ajmer of the incident alleged to have taken place in the morning. The information was in regard to the beating with his father and brother. This information was recorded as Ex. P. 3 in the Rojnamcha. Having received the information, police along with t...
Tag this Judgment!Singhal Industries Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Raj)41
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Considering his submissions, the appeal is admitted in terms of the following questions.:'Whether the CBDT Instruction No. 1942, dt. 11th July, 1997, is an instruction issued under Section 119 of the IT Act, 1961?''Whether the notice under Section 143(2) issued by the assessing authority is against Instructions of CBDT was illegal and as such the assessment framed thereupon and further orders issued are annulled/void?'2. Issue notice to the other side. Notices be made returnable within six weeks. Paper book be filed within 3 months.3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the stay application also.4. Considering his submissions, no case in made out for staying the operation of the order dt. 28th March, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. Consequently the stay application is rejected.5. List the appeal itself for hearing after 3 months. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwini Kumar Krishniya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN328
F.C. Bansal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and have also perused the impugned order.2. In view of the fact that an application for exemption from personal attendance was moved by the counsel on behalf of the accused-petitioner, but it was not allowed by the trial Court without assigning proper and cogent reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed in part.3. The petition is partly allowed and the trial Court is directed to summon the accused-petitioner by bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. two thousand only) with a surety in the like amount instead of non-bailable warrant.4. Order dated May 8, 2002 passed by the trial Court stands modified accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »