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.
Prahlad and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN723
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The present application for cancellation of bail has been filed for cancelling the bail granted to the accused-respondent by the trial court vide order dated 7.9.2001 Under Section 438 Cr.P.C.2. As has come on record and as per the reply filed on behalf of the accused-respondent, after investigation a chargesheet Under Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC has already been filed by the police on 1.2.2002 before the trial court and subsequently regular bail has also been granted to the accused-respondent.3. Under the circumstances, since a chargesheet has already been filed and accused-respondent has also been granted bail by the court concerned, no further interference is called for by this court in the present application for cancellation of bail. The same is rejected accordingly....
Vena Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC291; 2002(2)WLN628
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dated 19.7.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Criminal Original Case No. 43/2001 whereby the learned Magistrate ordered to frame charges for offence under Sections 384 and 506 I.P.C. against the present accused petitioners.2. It arises in the following circumstances:(i) That Sohan Lal lodged a written report on 17.7.2000 before the S.P. Pali stating that dispute arose between him and one Nema Ram over striking of the tractor and upon that Nema Ram called meeting of Panchas of Ghanchi Samaj and members of that Panchas threatened the complainant Sohan Lal that either he should deposit Rs. 5000/- within 1/2 hours, otherwise, he would be outcasted and since he was not in a position to pay that amount, he was humiliated by the accused petitioners and he was outcasted etc.3. On this report, police registered a case for offence under Sections 143, 327...
Mahaveer Singh Jayas Vs. the Presiding Officer Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR840]; 2002(3)WLC55; 2002(5)WLN53
Madan, J.1. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he served as a workman in the services of the Managing Director, Kothari Global Limited, Kota (respondent No. 2). He was initially appointed as Electrical Supervisor in the establishment of respondent No. 2 with effect from 22.4.1996, till then he had discharged his duties without interruption with the respondents upto 29.3.1997.2. Thereafter on 30.3.97 he was prevented from joining the duties as he had been placed under suspension with effect from the said date, he could not be permitted to attend the duty. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer on 25.9.97 by the petitioner himself. Consequent upon the failure report, the workman filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') for non-payment of subsistence allowance which was registered as Case No. 174/1997. The said petition was disposed of by the Labour Court as being not maintainable.3. Thereafter formal en...
Dinesh Kumar Vs. Gurbendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1568; 2002(3)WLC303; 2003(2)WLN608
Misra, J.1. This appeal is for enhancement of the amount of compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant on his right leg due to the accident caused by the jeep bearing No. MRH-152 owned by the respondent No.2-Indian Air Lines. The amount which has been awarded to the appellant is Rs. 18,000/- only which has been assailed by the appellant on the plea that although the medical evidence indicates that the appellant had sustained severe injuries on his right leg and the bones were broken into pieces as a result of which he is not in a position to sit cross-legged or squat on the floor and his leg has also been amputated a sum of Rs. 18,000/- only has been awarded to him.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been able to prove that he had spent Rs. 10,000/- on his treatment and only Rs. 3,000/- has been awarded towards loss of income although he has been able to prove after adduccing evidence to the effect that he was running a cloth-shop whe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shiv Dayal Radhey Shyam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR147(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in setting aside the matters to the AssessingOfficer with directions that no disallowances were to be made under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of Rs. 6,570, Rs. 5,303, Rs. 24,672 and Rs. 13,459, if such payments had been made on or before the due date applicable for furnishing of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessees are registered firms. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had collected sales tax from the customers during the relevant assessment years, which were not deposited during the accounting year in question and, therefore, the claim of deduction of sales tax paid after the accounting year though during the grace period has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer, In appeal before the ...
Alcobex Metals Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR1178]; RLW2003(1)Raj109; 2002(3)WLN1
Chauhan, J.1. Though the matter was listed today on the application moved under Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter was heard finally.2. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 8.10.2001 (Annex. 4) by which the appropriate Government has withdrawn the case from Labour Court, Jodhpur and transferred the same to Labour Court, Kota in exercise of its powers under Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1947). The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the order impugned has been passed without issuing any notice to him and no reason has been recorded by the appropriate Government while transferring the said case. Thus, the order is liable to be quashed.3. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that even in administrative matters, the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speak...
Smt. Premlata Jalani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR615(Raj)
1. This comes on application filed by the petitioner for the amendment of the writ petition. The petitioner wants to incorporate the prayer to challenge the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated November 1, 2001. It is admitted by learned counsel that an appeal has been preferred against the said order before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending.2. It is submitted by learned counsel that since the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of a proviso to Section 234C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it has become necessary to challenge the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well.3. In our view the amendment cannot be granted, as challenge to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) will amount to permitting to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel that an appeal has already been preferred and the same is pending before t...
Cit Vs. Vimal Chand Golecha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Raj)638
By the courtOn the 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 right in holding that the loan accounts of the minors in the books of the firm M/s Ratnalay will not lose its character and will not partake the character of capital account by virtue of the fact that the share incomes of the minors were credited to their loan account ?'2. The partnership firm styled as M/s Ratnalaya started vide partnership deed dated 31-7-1968, and it was constituted by the two major partners namely, Smt. Kanchan Devi Golecha and Shri Satish Chandra Bothra. Two minors Master Pankaj Kumar and Peeyush Kumar were admitted in the partnership to the benefit of the partnership. These minors are sons of the assessee. Shri Peeyush Kumar Golecha according to the assessee deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000 on 15-10-1968, and a sum of Rs. 10,0...
Cit Vs. Shiv Dayal Radhey Shyam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)171
By the courtOn an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in setting aside the matters to the assessing officer with directions that no disallowances were to be made under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs. 6,570, Rs. 5,303, Rs. 24,672, Rs. 13,459 if such payments had been made on or before the due date applicable for furnishing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee are registered firms. The Income Tax Officer found that the assessee had collected sales-tax from the customers during the relevant assessment years, which were not deposited during the accounting year in question and, therefore, the claim of deduction of sales-tax paid after the accounting year though during grace period has been disallowed by the assessing officer. In appeal before the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Mahendra and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: [2004]268ITR500(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in setting aside the masters to the Assessing Officer with the directions that no disallowances were to be made under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of Rs. 6,570/-Rs. 5,303/- Rs. 24,672/- Rs. 13,459 if such payments had been made on or before the due date applicable for furnishing of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessees are registered firms. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had collected sales tax from the customers during the relevant assessment years, which were not deposited during the accounting year in question and, therefore, the claim of deduction of sales tax paid after the accounting year though during the grace period has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer. In appeal before th...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »