Rajasthan Court February 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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kesu Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN609
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.8.1999 passed by learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Rajsamand, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') in W.C. Case No. 8/97, whereby the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 1,29,136/- as compensation in favour of respondent-claimant.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case which are relevant and necessary for the decision of this appeal, are that a claim petition was filed by the respondent-claimant claiming compensation on account of death of his wife Smt. Manaki due to employment injuries sustained by her on 29.2.1996. In the claim petition the respondent claimant specifically pleaded that the deceased Smt. Manaki wife of the respondent, was working as labourer in the employment of the appellant. She was engaged in raising a wall with the help of stones on 29.2.1996. During the course of her employment, personal injuries were caused to her by an accident, as a heavy stone fell o...
Laxman Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan Maharao Brijraj Singh and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN54
Madan, J. 1. A writ of certiorari is sought by the petitioners for quashing & setting aside judgments dt. 12.6.84 of the Assistant Collector, Kota (Ann. 5), affirmed by Revenue Appellate Authority Kota by judgment dt. 8.1286 (Ann. 6) and upheld by the Board of Revenue by judgment dated 23.12.94 (Ann, 7). 2. Laxman Singh, Gajendra Singh & Kamlabai, petitioners had instituted revenue suit No. 62/74 under Sections 88 & 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'Tenancy Act') for declaration and perpetual injunction, before the Assistant Collector Kota claiming that agricultural lands bearing various khasras and measuring 160 bighas 11 biswas (detailed out in plaint) situated in village Arampura of Ladpura Tehsil of Kota owned by Maharao Bhim Singh (defendant No. 1) Ex-ruler of Kota, have been in possession of the plaintiffs (petitioners) for cultivation on payment of rent worth Rs. 1200/- per year since the year 1963 at the time when the suit lands were under the management of def...
H.H. Maharao Brij Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC391; 2002(5)WLN136
Madan, J.1. Maharao Brij Singh, Ex-Ruler of Kota has sought a writ of certiorari in this petition for : (1) quashing & setting aside an order dated 26.12.96 (Annex.22); (2) holding (a) survey done by the defence authority and (b) declaration of land being short fall area & Sawai Chak, as void and unconstitutional; and further sought a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to (i) refund a sum of Rs. 14,13,127/- (already deducted) plus Rs. 1,50,330/- (deposited by him) and (ii) to pay admitted recurring compensation amount without any deduction in respect of a requisitioned land situated at Umaid Bhawan Palace Kota recognised as official residence of the petitioner.2. Reducing chequered history of facts having been complexed, only facts relevant for the controversy are epitomised in a concise manner. Total campus area of official residence of the petitioner- Umaid Bhawan Palace is 973 acres out of which 918.26 acres (2295 bighas & 13 biswas) were requisitioned by the Collector K...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Autolite (i) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Raj)341; [2002]256ITR303(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that for charging of interest under Sections 139 and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a direction to this effect in the assessment order itself was necessary particularly when the Income-tax Officer under his own signatures in the assessment form of even date has charged the interest under Sections 139 and 217 of the Act ?' 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. Mathur, submits that this issue is covered by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Mahendra Singh , as well as by the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Ranchi Club Limited : [2001]247ITR209(SC) . 3. In the case of CIT v. Ranchi Club Limited : [2001]247ITR209(SC) , the appeal was filed against the decision of the High Court wherein the High Court has taken the view that when the Asses...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahavir Rubber Works
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR667(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that since the relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the new industrial undertaking had been allowed to the assessee in the initial assessment year, the Income-tax Officer was not entitled to refuse the same relief in respect of that undertaking in the subsequent assessment year unless the relief allowed for the initial year is withdrawn by the Income-tax Officer ?'2. The assessee derives income from manufacture and sale of plastic and rubber goods. The relevant assessment year is 1979-80. Year ended on December 31, 1978. The income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 20,411. The benefit of Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been denied to the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not fu...
Mst. Ananchi and ors. Vs. Ram Chandra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ213; AIR2003Raj50; 2002(3)WLC121; 2003(2)WLN595
Misra, J.1. The appellants-herein are the claimants who have been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rs. One lac seventy thousand) on account of death of the husband of respondent No. l Ananchi in a motor accident. While the matter was pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Sikar Lok Adalat was held on 6.5.99 and the appellants and the Insurance Company entered into a compromise by which an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rs. One Lac seventy thousand) was accepted by the appellants as a reasonable amount towards compensation.2. One would have thought that the matter finally came to an end in regard to this claim-case but it appears that the appellants-claimants gave a second thought regarding the amount of compensation and preferred to file an appeal before this court in the year 2000, curiously after more than a year since the appellants appear to have given a second thought about the amount of compensation. Hence an appeal against the aforesaid award which had been arrived afte...
H.H. Maharao Brijraj Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Raj)474; [2003]261ITR741(Raj)
Madam, J.1. Brijraj Singh (petitioner) is son of Maharao Bhim Singh Ex-ruler of Kota whose property renowned as Ummed Bhawan Palace having 973 acres of land duly recognised as his official residence and in his occupation, is subject matter of the assessment and reassessment by order dated 27.3.97 (Ann. 6) of the respondent No. 2 for the year 1983-84 passed under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'WT Act').2. Albeit wealth tax assessment of year 1983-84 admittedly had been completed under Section 16(3) on 15.3.88 on total wealth of Rs. 41,41,000/- but has subsequently been revised under Section 35 on net wealth of Rs. 2,38,000/- by reduction of Land & Building Tax of Rs. 40,62,200/-. However, this assessment dated 15.3.88 was reopened by the Revenue by initiating proceedings under Section 17(2)/16(3) of the WT Act while issuing notice to the assessee (petitioner) to show cause as to why additions/disallowances on the following points be not made in his wealth:-1. Land and building tax...
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Etc. Vs. Abdul Wahid and anr. Etc ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj61; 2002WLC(Raj)UC412; 2003(1)WLN69
Arun Kumar, C.J. 1. This batch of cases has been placed before us in view of a reference order made by the learned single Judge. The following issue was referred to a larger Bench: 'Whether the decision in S. B. Civil First Appeal No, 40 of 1998, Central Bank of India v. Aman Travels and Ors., decided on August 9, 1988 correctly decides the question of payment of interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure?' 2. When this matter had earlier been placed before this Court orders had been passed for issuance of notice to the High Court Bar Association, Jodhpur for assisting the Court in deciding the issue. However, at the time of hearing none has appeared for the High Court Bar Association or from the side of the respondents. 3. We have heard learned counsel. The issue involved is of a purely legal nature and, therefore, individual facts of the cases arenot material. The basic facts necessary for purposes of appreciating the controversy which are common in all the cases are th...
Gopa Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj376; 2002(3)WLN364; 2002(3)WLN364
Kumar, C.J.1. Two writ petitions were filed; one by Prahlad Singh and another by Gopa Ram challenging the legality and validity of order dated 8.7.1997 which were decided by common judgment and order dated 21.4.1998 by the learned Single Judge. These appeals involve common question of law and, therefore, both the appeals are heard together.2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.3. Prahlad Singh, petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2892/98 was the Junior Engineer whereas Gopa Ram, petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2893/98 was the Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State. Certain famine works were sanctioned for different villages for which order was issued by the Collector (Relief), Jodhpur on 27,12.1985. This famine work was to be executed through the Irrigation Department. The petitioner Gopa Ram was Assistant Engineer of Sub-Division (II) and the work in dispute was in the area assigned to the petiti...
Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3260
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order dated 2-8-2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 40/2000 by which he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the following manner:--All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short are as follows:On 25-6-2000 at about 6.00 p.m. P.W. 1 Kalawati (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) wife of Kanaram lodged an oral report Ex. P/1 with the Police Station Rawatsar before P.W. 3 Maonhar Lal stating inter alia that her husband (Kanaram) had gone towards the side of Hanumangarh along with the Revad and in the morning of 25-6-2000 at about 9.00 a.m. she went towards the north tibba for the purpose of satisfying nature's call and when she sat for the above work along with the lotta, a person came behind her and after hearing some sound, she stood up an...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »