Rajasthan Court April 2002 Judgments
Jaydoor Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar Kanjan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ150
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is directed against the judgment/order/award dated 7.6.2001 of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Alwar in Case No. WCA/NF/26/98. Under this judgment/order/award the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has awarded to the claimants the compensation of Rs. 41,960. This compensation has been awarded for the injury which has been suffered by the claimant-respondent No. 2 in the accident arising out of and during the course of his employment. Learned counsel for the appellant raised only contention that the injured was the employee of the contractor and for the injury which is sustained in the course and during the employment for which liability to pay compensation is of the contractor who is his employer.2. Ms. Manju Dave, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that the claimant sustained injuries while working for the appellant on his machine.3. Having given my thoughtful considera...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Mahabaleshwar Gas and Chemicals
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: [2003]132STC592(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. This case relates to the claim made by the respondent-assessee for sanctioning the incentives for its new unit under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987 (for short, 'the Scheme of 1987').2. At the first instance, incentives were sanctioned for the new unit of the respondent-assessee by the District Level Screening Committee in its meeting held on August 29, 1996 and December 20, 1996. However, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle D, Alwar by his application dated July 1, 1997 requested for reconsideration of the grant of sanction in favour of the respondent-assessee. That application for review was allowed by the District Level Screening Committee holding that since the assessee-company is engaged in the processing of hydrogen gas, the processing of hydrogen gas does not fall in the manufacturing activity and, therefore, the benefit of the Scheme of 1987 cannot be granted to the respondent-assessee. The aforesaid conclusio...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Rastogi Steel Furniture
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: [2004]135STC117(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These three revision petitions are directed against the orders dated October 22, 1997 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeals Nos. 1071, 1072 and 1073 of 1996 pertaining to the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91.2. A very short question is involved in these three revision petitions about the liability of the respondent-assessee to pay interest on the amount of tax, which was found due against it as a result of reassessment proceedings.3. During the aforesaid three assessment years, the respondent-assessee sold furniture to the defence department of the Government of India on the basis of obtaining C form and paid tax at the concessional rate of 5 per cent on the turnover relating to furniture sold to the defence department of the Government of India. The aforesaid claims of the respondent-assessee were accepted by the assessing officer in the regular assessments made under Section 10 of the Act on June 20, 1992, May 15, 1993 and March 1, 1994,...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(NULL)1045
ORDERB.L. Khatri, A.M.This appeal by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1977-78. The appellant has agitated on various grounds which are being discussed and decided in this order.2. The appellant is a public limited company engaged in mining, processing and distribution of Zinc and Lead.3. Ground No. 1(i). This ground pertains to the non-allowance of expenses incurred on deprivation charges paid to M/s Metal Corporation of India for the takeover of the said undertaking. Observations of the assessing officer in this regard may be perused at page 6 para 14 of the assessment order, and those of the Commissioner (Appeals) from page 1 of his order. The facts of the case are that the Central Government appointed the appellant, Hindustan Zinc Ltd., as administrator of the undertaking known as Metal Corporation of India Ltd. from 10-1-1966 to 2-8-1976. vide Notification S.O. 526(E) dt, 3-8-1996. The notification reads as under :'S.O. 526(E)-In exerc...
Tag this Judgment!Onkarlal Kachoria Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(NULL)378
ORDERB.L. Khatri, A.M.This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, for assessment year 1994-95. The appellant agitated on the ground that the assessing officer erred in passing the assessment order on the basis of non est return of income filed on 17-2-1997, which ought to have been annulled by Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) grossly erred in holding that the assessment completed on the basis of said return of income was valid.2. The brief facts of the case are that the due date for filing the return was on 31-8-1994. The return can be filed under section 139(4) on 31-3-1996. Notice under section 142(l)(i) was issued on 9-3-1995, and the return was filed on 17-2-1997. The assessment was completed on 31-3-1997. In this case no return of income by 31-8-1994, was filed and thereafter by 31-3-1996, the return was filed.3. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Udaipur, issued notice under section 142(l)(i) of the Act dated 9-3-1995, ca...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Vs. District Judge
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN576
Garg, J. 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 16.12.91 against the respondents with a prayer that order dated 28.2.84 passed by the Estate Officer, DevasthanDepartment (Annex. 5) at page 24 by which eviction of the petitioner from the temple in question was ordered under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1964 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1964) and the judgment dated 3.12.91 passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur in appeal No. 34/85 (Annex. 6) by which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed be quashed. 2. It arises in the following circumstances: (i) In the city of Udaipur, there is temple known as mandir Shri Naval Shyamji. (ii) On 15.4.83 a notice in file No. 5/83 issued by the respondent No. 2 purporting to be under Sec. 4(1) of the Act of 1964 was received by the petitioner and by that notice, the petitioner was intended to be evicte...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC455
Sharma, J. 1. The appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausain Sessions Case No. 182/94 for having committed murder of his brother Ramesh Chand. Vide judgment dated July 10, 1996, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-in default to further suffer one month imprisonment. In the instant appeal the appellant has called in question the said judgment of the learned trial judge.2. The incident as per written report Ex. P.I occurred on May 20, 1994 when Sunita (PW. 1) the wife of deceased Ramesh Chand was away from her in laws house and had gone to her parental house. She received the information of death of her husband Ramesh Chand after two days of the occurrence. Where upon she and her parents rushed to her in laws house and came to know that Satya Prakash (appellant), the real elder brother of Ramesh Chand, poured kerosine on Ramesh Chand while he was sleeping in the night of May 20...
Tag this Judgment!Mahatama Gandhi National Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. State of Ra ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj884
Madan, J.1. Mahatma Gandhi National Institute of Medical Sciences (MGNIMS) (for short, petitioner institute) has sought an appropriate writ inter alia for (1) setting aside order dated 7.11.2001 (Ann. 17) having been passed upon counselling conducted on 2.11.2001 and thereby further directing the respondents to fill up remaining vacancies as per waiting list prepared after conducting admission exercise on 28.9.2001; (2) declaring that Principal of the petitioner Institute is entitled to be included in the Central UG Admission Board for admission in the medical colleges in future courses and (3) holding that the University, State Government so also Central UG admission Board are bound to follow the Medical Council of India Regulations (for brevity declaring cut off date as laid down in Unni Krishnan's case (1), and consequently for directing the respondents to complete all Central UG admission exercise with three months after declaration of the result so as to complete medical courses w...
Tag this Judgment!Hadoti Kshetriya GramIn Bank Vs. Himmat Singh Hada and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR110]; (2002)IIILLJ431Raj; RLW2003(2)Raj980; 2002(3)WLC499
Naolekar, J. 1. The appellant is a banking institution and the respondent No. 1 Himmat Singh Hada is its employee. The respondent filed a claim petition under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act of 1947') in the Central Labour Court, Jaipur, claiming certain dues. The appellant without filing any reply to the claim petition filed preliminary objections contending that the Central Labour Court, Jaipur has no territorial jurisdiction to hear the claim petition since the Labour Court, Kota is the specified Court in this regard.2. The Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge dismissed the preliminary objection, interpreting the notifications issued by the Central Government on 26th of November, 1966 and 7th of December, 1982 whereunder the Ministry of Labour, Employment & Rehabilitation (Department of Labour & Employment), Government of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C of th...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Tax Officer Vs. Ganapati Trading Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: [2004]134STC53(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This case relates to levy of tax on the packing material contained in which principal goods were sold as one single sale transaction. The tax has been imposed separately on the principal commodity and the packing material by assuming an implied sale of packing material independent of principal commodity by invoking Sub-section (1) of last proviso to Section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.2. The assessee raised an objection about levying of tax on such deemed sale by invoking the said proviso which is only a part of the rate structure and not a part of charging tax for levying tax by assuming the sales of packing material to exist which in fact have not taken place independent of the principal commodity.3. Ultimately, the Tax Board has found in favour of the assessee that tax cannot be levied separately on packing material solely by invoking the last proviso to Section 5(1) by treating it to be a deemed separate sale of the commodity independent of the princip...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »