Rajasthan Court March 2002 Judgments
S.D.O. (Phones) Vs. Ramesh Chandra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: 2003WLC(Raj)UC156; 2002(5)WLN556
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only grievance of the appellant at this stage is that when the order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.1.2000, none of the counsel was present and therefore, he had no opportunity of hearing to place his case before the learned Single Judge. The grievance appears to be justified to this extent.3. However looking to the age of the case and with the consent of the parties, we heard the appeal on the merit of the challenge to the award passed by the learned Labour Court.4. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant in respect to the merit of the award is that since the services of the respondent have been terminated in the year 1984 after about two years of service, the reference has been made in the year 1994 after about 10 years of the termination order, no order of reinstatement ought to have been made. It appears that in the ground of the appeal, the appellant has also challenged the va...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mool Chand Salecha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1303; 2002(5)WLN346
N.N. Mathur, J.1 . The D. B. Income-tax References Nos. 59 of 1998, 31 of 1999, 93 of 1999 and 27 of 1999 and S. B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2723 of 1997 and 1070 of 1997 are disposed of by the common order as they arise out of the survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, conducted on November 25, 1994, at the premises of the assesses, Mool Chand Salecha, impounding all the books of account, ex parte assessment order dated February 24, 1995, and the ultimate order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated March 12, 1996.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, Mool Chand Salecha, deals in cloth dyeing and trading business. He has been filing returns in his individual capacity showing share income from Praveen Cotton Mills, Jasol and as karta of a Hindu undivided family (in short the HUF'), Mool Chand Praveen Kumar and as partner of Parmeshwari Textile Mill, Jasol. As no return for the assessment year 1994-95 was filed, a survey under Section 133A o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manoj Lalwani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Raj)394; [2003]260ITR590(Raj); 2002(3)WLC249
Naolekar, J.1. Following substantial questions of law arise for adjudication by this Court :- 1. 'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the penalty under Section 271D for violation of provisions of Sections 269SS of the Act?' 2. 'Whether, for levying the penalty under Section 271D forviolation of Section 269SS of the Act is it required by the assessing officer to look into genuineness of loan or deposit?' The facts of this case are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s Viva Art Creation and engaged in the export business of garments. The assessment was completed Under Section 143(1)(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act of 1961') on 30.11.1998. Later on the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has taken loan of Rs. 2.5 lacs in cash. This was noted from page No. 3 of Tax Audit Report. As per para 10 of the said report Mukesh Kumar Manwani had advanced cash loan of Rs. 2.5 lacs to the assessee. On the basis of...
Tag this Judgment!Sugreev Alias Jagdish and ors. Vs. Smt. Sushila Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj149; RLW2003(4)Raj2409; 2002(5)WLC283
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the defendant petitioners, perused the revision petition and the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Kota passed on 6-11-2001 in Civil Misc. Application No, 95 of 2000. Under this order the application Filed by the plaintiff respondent No. 1 under Order 33, Rule 1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred as the Code) came to be allowed and she is permitted to file the suit as an indigent person.2. It is to be noticed that the defendant petitioners have not given out the detailed facts of the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent No. 1.3. The plaintiff respondent No. 1 undisputed is the wife of the defendant petitioner No. 1.4. The defendant petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the plaintiff respondent No. 1.5. The defendant petitioners No. 4 and 4 are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the plaintiff respondent No. 1.6. From the impugned order, it appears to be a matrimonial ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (the) Vs. Safi Mohd. @ Mohd. Safi and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ165; RLW2003(2)Raj1289; 2002(4)WLC262; 2002(5)WLN457
Tatia, J. 1. The notices of the respondent driver as well as owner were served in the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 188/98, which was filed by the claimant for enhancement of the claim, but none appeared for the driver and owner of the vehicle. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and learned counsel for the claimant on appeals filed by the claimant and insurance company both. The claimant has filed appeal for enhancement of the award amount whereas the insurance company has preferred the appeal challenging the award. 3. Learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently submitted that in this case accident took place on 18th Dec. 1989, the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force from 1.7.89. Period of filing claim petition was provided in the New Act was only six months with a power to tribunal to condone [he delay of further six months only. Provision providing limitation for filling claims was subsequently amended in the year 1994 by which ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam HussaIn Vs. Amina Bano and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1475; 2002(4)WLC236; 2002(5)WLN71
Garg, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-complainant against the order dated 8.11.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taranagar (Churu) by which he dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant against the respondents No. 1 to 8. 2. It arises in the following circumstances:- The petitioner-complainant filed a complaint on 31.10.2001 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar (Churu) against the accused respondents No. 1 to 8 for the offence under Sections 120-B, 302/109, 203 1PC stating inter-alia that on 15.8.1998, the accused respondents gave milk added with poison to his daughter Balkesh thereinafter referred to as the deceased) with an intention to kill her, but since deceased had suspicion, therefore, she did not accept that milk and this incident took place at Taranagar, a place of in-laws of deceased. However, the deceased was compelled to take milk added with poison and after a...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Mool Chand Salecha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Raj)1
N.N. Mathur, J.The D.B. Income Tax Reference Nos. 59/1998, 31/1999, 93/1999 & 27/1999 and S.B. Civil Writ Petns. Nos. 2723/1997 & 1070/1997 are disposed of by the common order as they arise out of the survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, conducted on 25-11-1994, at the premises of the assessee Mool Chand Salecha impounding all the books of accounts, ex parte assessment order dated 24-2-1995, and the ultimate order of the Tribunal dated 12-3-1996.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee Mool Chand Salecha deals in cloth dyeing and trading business. He has been filing return in his individual capacity showing share income from Praveen Cotton Mills, Jasol, and as Karta of Hindu undivided family (hereinafter referred to as 'the HUF') M/s. Mool Chand Praveen Kumar and as partner of M/s. Parmeshwari Textile Mills, Jasol. As no return for the assessment year 1994-95 was filed, a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ...
Tag this Judgment!Surat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC480; 2002(3)WLN352
Harbans Lal, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 28.1.1985 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 36/84 whereby the accused , appellant has been convicted for the offence Under Section 306 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with a fine of Rs. 50/- in default of payment to undergo further R.I. for 1 month.2. Briefly stated that indictment as disclosed from the F.I.R. is that i the appellant was married to the deceased Bhateri d/o Mukanda Ram ; P.W. 4 and she committed physical and mental cruelty with her soon after her marriage by stating that she was not suitable for him and if she dies, he would be able to re-marry and as a result of this, she committed suicide by jumping into the well on the night intervening 21.6.1984 and 22.6.1984. Her father Mukanda Ram on being informed of the death of her daughter reported the matter in writing to the S.H.O., Police Station Khetadi and alleged that ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Tulsi Dass
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR73(Raj); 2002(3)WLC479
P.P. Naolekar, J. 1. The following questions of law have been referred to the High Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act of 1957') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the valuation report was non est and should not have been taken note of in the present assessment 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that a partner was entitled to claim deduction under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of his interest in a firm which owned immovable properties ?' 2. The facts, in brief, relevant for the purpose of answering the questions are that Shri Tulsi Dass (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the assessee') is a partner in Gopal Talkies, Alwar, a partnership firm. The assessee submitted a return of his properties before the Wealth-tax Officer and had shown the credit balance in Gopal Talkies, A...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Metal and Tubes (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj915; 2002(3)WLN545; 2002(3)WLN545
Chauhan, J.1. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 31.8,2001 (Annex.5), by which the appeal against the order dated 6.8.97 rejecting the application of the petitioner-assessee by the District Level Scrutiny Committee (for short, 'DLSC') for exemption of sales tax on the ground of being filed at a belated stage, has been rejected by the Rajasthan Tax Board.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner established a new industry and on 31.5.97 he applied, in a prescribed form (Annex.3), for the benefit under the Sales Tax incentive Scheme, 1989 (Annex.2) (hereinafter called 'the Scheme'), which provided for exemption of tax etc. on fulfilling certain conditions in case the eligibility certificate is granted under Para 5 thereof. In Column 8 thereof, the date of commencement of commercial production was mentioned as 4.8.96. The said application had been rejected by the DLSC- the Competent Committee constituted under the said Scheme- vid...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »