Rajasthan Court November 2002 Judgments
Rajhans Marmo and Mines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLC459; 2003(2)WLN450
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Facts of the case are that Marble Policy has been framed by the State Govt. by issuing Notification dated 1.3.2002 exercising powers conferred under Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. According to petitioner, as per Sub-clause (5) of Clause 13 of the Marble Policy, 2002 where the Govt. land is available, a strip of land upto 100 mtrs. wide is requried to be kept reserved around the existing mining boundaries for allotment to the adjoining lessees/quarry licensees to facilitate increase in the size of existing mining lease/quarry licence. It is also provided in Sub-clause (5) that the area of the strip shall be allotted to the adjoining lessees/licensees by application on merit and may be added to their existing mining lease/quarry licence. It is stated that M/s. J.K. Marbles and Minerals was holding an industrial plot near the petitioner's mining lease Plot No. 23. M/s. J.K. Marbles and Minerals ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLC642; 2003(2)WLN502
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 8.6.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 31.5.2001 (Annex. 4) passed by the Sarpanch. Gram Panchayat Ninan (respondent No. 4) by which the petitioner was reomved from service, be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:The petitioner is by caste a member of scheduled caste category and is resident of Ward No. 5 of village Ninan District Hanumangarh.The Government of Rajasthan floated a Scheme for appointing Shiksha Sahayogi in the newly introduced Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Schools under the Panchayati Raj Department and formulated a Scheme to that effect in the month of April, 1999. In pursuance of that the respondent No. 4 Gram Panchayat Ninan also resolved to open a ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Singh Rathore Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)WLC503; 2003(2)WLN433
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that he has been wrongly deprived of promotion on the post of Deputy Commandant, while persons junior to him have been promoted vide order dated 13.2.1993. Initially, the petitioner approached to the Jammu & Kashmir High Court by way of writ petition for redressal of the said grievance. The respondent BSF took the stand that the petitioner was not considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee because of adverse entry in the ACR for the year 1989-90. However, it was admitted that the said adverse entry was not communicated to the petitioner. In view of this, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to communicate the adverse entry to the petitioner. A liberty was also given to the petitioner to make a representation against the said advese entry. It was observed that if the adverse entry con...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. AmIn Vs. S.N. Thanvi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLC367; 2003(2)WLN491
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents with the prayer that since respondents have committed contempt of court's orders dated 9.7.1999 (Annex. 1) passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1480/99 and 18.5.2001 (Annex. 2) passed in S.B. Civil Review Petition No. DR(J) 1834/2000 and therefore, they be punished accordingly.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this contempt petition is as follows:The petitioner served the Education Department on the post of Senior Teacher Grade II and retired from the said post on 19.3.2001.While the petitioner was in service, the Government of Rajasthan passed an order dated 25.1.1992 by which the Government employees were granted Selection Grade on completion of 9.18.27 years of service.According to the petitioner, he was granted two selection grades on completion of 9 and 1...
Tag this Judgment!Jasraj Ganeshmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Raj)57; [2003]260ITR347(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This reference application at the instance of the asses-see, Jasraj Ganeshmal, is filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction to call for questions of law formulated in para. 12 of the application arising from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur, dated April 12, 2001.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-firm is mainly a commission agent selling deshi ghee of various brands on arhat/commission basis. During the year under consideration, the assessee made sales of deshi ghee on arhat/ commission to the tune of Rs. 191.61 lakhs. The assessee also made sales on the assessee's own account during the year to the tune of Rs. 110.97 lakhs. The assessee showed commission receipts of Rs. 4,22,391 as against Rs. 2,45,000 for the immediately preceding year. According to the assessee, immediately on effecting sale of consignor, the assessee sends sale list containing various details like date of sale, name of arti...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Deewan Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: [2003]132STC211(Raj)
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This sales tax revision has been filed against the order of the Rajasthan Taxation Board, Ajmer, dated November 26, 2001 by which the Board has been pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur who had set aside the order imposing penalty for not carrying form No. 18A along with the goods which were transported from one State to another.2. Thus the controversy which arises herein is whether the respondent-dealer could be penalised for not carrying form No. S.T. 18A which is a declaration for importing the goods from another State and whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent-dealer could be held to have violated the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 read with the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995. The respondent-dealer admittedly was carrying goods which included tyre, tubes which were transported from Delhi to Jaipur when the vehicle carrying these goods was checked a...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Shree Singhvi Brothers and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR618(Raj); 2003(2)WLN536
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The Union of India being aggrieved by part of the order of the learned single judge dated May 9, 1990 (Shree Singhvi Brothers v. Union of India ), has preferred this special appeal.2. The material facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the respondent Shree Singhvi Brothers, the original writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') is a registered partnership firm. It is alleged that a search was conducted at the business premises as well as the residential premises of the partners, namely, Kushal Singh and Laxman Singh, under the provisions of Section 132(1) of the Act on May 6, 1981. During the course of the search 65 kgs. of silver was found, out of which 16 kgs of silver/silver ornaments were treated as unexplained by the authorised officers of the Income-tax Department. Therefore, the Department included its value amounting to Rs. 32,000 in their income for the assessment year 1982-83 while making the regular assessment. The respondent-a...
Tag this Judgment!Anantrai Joshi and Co. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: [2004]265ITR672(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment or the learned single judge dated December 14, 1994, whereby the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition in limine.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant, original petitioner No. 1, M/s. Anantrai Joshi and Co., is a partnership firm. The said firm did not file its return of income for the assessment year 1982-83, which was due to be filed on or before June 30, 1982, as required by the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The return was filed on June 20, 1983, declaring its income at Rs. 93,327.65. No explanation was given by the assessee for the late filing of the return. The assessment was made and a demand notice for depositing a sum of Rs. 13,307 was issued. It is alleged that as the appellant-assessee failed to file the return within the stipulated period under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Income-tax Act it were liable to be prosecu...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. Shree Singhvi Brothers and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Raj)297; 2003(2)WLC82
N.N. Mathur, J.The Union of India being aggrieved of part of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9-5-1990 has preferred this special appeal.2. The material facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the respondent M/s Shree Singhvi Brothers the original writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) is a registered partnership firm. It is alleged that a search was conducted at the business premises as well as the residential premises of the partners namely Kushal Singh and Laxman Singh under the provisions of section 132(1) of the Act on 6-5-1981. During the course of the search 65 kg. silver was found., out of which 16 Kg. silver/silver ornaments were treated as unexplained by the authorised officers of the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the department included its value amounting to Rs. 32,000 in their income for the assessment year 1982-83 while making regular assessment. The respondent-assessee explained that the said silver belonged to Shri Mohansingh...
Tag this Judgment!Shameem Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLC638; 2003(2)WLN40
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 29.8.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the orders dated 13.11.1997 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 3 Dy. Forest Conservator, Aravali Plantation Project, Banswara by which on conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 120-B, 201 & 302, IPC by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Banswara through judgment dated 22.11.1996, he was removed from service and dated 26.7.2001 (Annex. 7) passed by the respondent No. 2 Divisional Forest Officer, Banswara by which the prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement on his acquittal by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23.3.2001 (Annex. 4), was refused, be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »