Rajasthan Court April 2002 Judgments
Cit Vs. Bhawan Va Path Nirman (Bohra) and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)160
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.These two appeals filed by the revenue relate to assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97.The core question raised before us, as is apparent from the question framed at the time of admission, whether the Tribunal was justified in law allowing interest paid to third parties.Reference to CIT v. Jain Construction Company (1999) 156 CTR (Raj) 290 is primarily for the purpose of showing that whether on reaching this conclusion, reliance can be placed on that judgment laying down any such rate.2. Having perused the judgment under appeal and other material, which has been referred to by both the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of M/s. Jain Construction Company referred to above which was rendered in application under section 256 really does not call for any consideration in this case as the finding has been reached on appreciation of facts concerning the assessment in questio...
Tag this Judgment!Abhijit Sutradhar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN175
Arun Kumar, C.J.1. A large number of writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by one common judgment dated 19th July, 2000, dismissing the writ petitions. These appeals have been filed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Briefly, the facts are that the Animal Husbandry Department of the State Government had a large number of vacancies in the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. The State Government was not in a position to fill the posts of regular basis because the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the RPSC'), was not in a position to take necessary steps for regular appointments to the posts. Therefore, in pursuance of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 ad hoc short term appointments were made, Rule 26 provides as under:Urgent Temporary Appointment: (1) A vacancy in the service which cannot be filled in immediately either by direct recru...
Tag this Judgment!Sampati Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN708
Parihar, J.1. On a complaint been filed by the petitioner, a charge sheet for offence under Section 406/34 IPC was filed against three persons namely Chhiman, Harkesh and Smt. Kalli. After completion of the trial, the trial court convicted the accused persons under Section 406 IPC. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, the accused preferred an appeal before the appellate court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for compounding the offence under which the accused were convicted. On the basis of a compromise between the parties. The appellate court vide order dated 10.5.2000 dismissed the application. Hence, the present petition challenging the order dated 10.5.2000.2. After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.3. Though at times the offences provided under provisions of Indian Penal Code may not be compoundable, however, each case have to be seen on its own facts. There has been a consistent approach o...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. L/Nk Rameshwar Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj216; 2002(3)WLN653; 2002(3)WLN653
Garg, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 8.5.1991 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction the discharge orders of the Public Prosecutor dated 20.2.91 Annex. P/11 at page 46 and Annex. P/12 at page 47 be quashed and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits etc. etc.2. It arises in the following circumstances :(i) The petitioner joined the Indian Army as a Combatant (Barber) on 28.4.1982 for a term of 20 years regular engagement with a reserve liability for 3 years. (ii) The petitioner after completion of training at ASC Centre, Gaya was posted to 508 ASC BN. (iii) The petitioner was promoted to the Rank of Lance Naik during January 1990 while serving under respondent No. 7. (iv) That while serving under Respondent No. 7, the petitioner was found to be involved in some case and was a security suspect and therefore, he was called upon by res...
Tag this Judgment!Dushyant A. Gadgil Vs. Smt. Shanta Godika
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC13; [2004]118CompCas318(Raj); 2003(1)WLC539
A.C. Goyal, J.1. Both the petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are being decided vide common order as point involved is common.Brief facts giving rise to the petitions are that, complainant-respondent No. 1, Smt. Shanta and her husband Shri Tarachand filed separate complaints in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur against the accused petitioner and the other 10 accused-respondents with the averments that Shri Ashok Kumar Ajmera is the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent No. 2 company, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, M.K. Agarwal and Kanti Kumar were authorised signatories of the company and respondent Nos. 4 to 11 were the Directors of this company. Two cheques each of Rs. 50,0007-in each case were issued in favour of both the complainants on behalf of respondents company under signatures of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. All the four cheques were returned unpaid for want of funds. These cheques were issued with knowledge and consent of all the ...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Bhanwarlal Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)284
N.N. Mathur, J.The Tribunal, Jaipur, has made this reference under section 271(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), seeking opinion of this court on the following questions :'(i) holding in its order, dated 18-8-1993, that the right of the assessee of seeking application of rules contained in Schedule III of the Act was discretionary and such right could have been and was waived off by the applicants;(ii) holding that the order, dated 18-8-1993, was an interlocutory order,(iii) in entertaining on 3-1-1994, the additional ground relating to application of the rules contained in Schedule III of the Act, and(iv) in allowing the additional ground after ignoring the order, dated 18-8-1993, and in requiring the Wealth Tax Officer to value the property in question as per provisions of rules in Schedule III of the Act.'2. It appears that the assessee-respondents are the co-owners of the immovable property at C-92, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi, is named and ...
Tag this Judgment!Umrao Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN516
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants were the accused on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar bearing Sessions Case No. 44/93. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found them guilty under Sections 302 and 201, IPC and convicted and sentenced them under each section to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Assailing the said judgment the appellants have preferred the instant appeals.2. In nut shell the prosecution case is that informant Chhigan Lal (PW-5) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 7) on 7.8.1993 at 1.45 p.m. to he SHO Police Station, Raghunathgarh to the effect that at around 10.00 a.m. on the said day when Bhagwana Ram Balai was ploughing his field the found something concealed underneath the fresh soil near the public well adjacent to his field. He then gathered the villagers and when soil was removed in the presence of informant...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyam Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN584
Garg, J. 1. In this writ petition, the only question to be considered is whether the seniority of the petitioner should be reckoned from the date of initial appointment or from the date of confirmation. 2. The petitioner was appointed as LDC vide order dated 5.3.1973 (Annex. 1 to the writ petition) and he was confirmed with effect from 28.2.1977 vide Annex. 4. The case of the petitioner is that some of the respondents have been made senior to him though they were initially appointed subsequent to his appointment and, therefore, he should have been made senior to them. Hence, it was prayed by the petitioner that the order dated 31.10.1991 (Annex. 17 to the writ petition) by which seniority of the respondents No. 3 to 8 over the petitioner was made, be declared illegal and be quashed. The petitioner has also prayed that the expression 'from the date of confirmation' in Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Officers Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bilas Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj200; 2002(3)WLC703; 2002(4)WLN28
Garg, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents with the prayer that the order dated 21.9.1988 (Ex.6 to the writ petition) by which punishment was awarded to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority be declared illegal and be quashed and the petitioner be granted all consequential benefits as if no such order dated 21.9.1988 (Ex.6) was ever passed against the petitioner.2. It arises in the following circumstances :-The petitioner was Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department and through Memorandum dated 15.12.1983 (Ex.1), the statement of allegations and charges were served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was facing enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules'). The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the respondent No. 1 on 7.10.1987, but the copy of the enquiry report was not given to ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Lal Vs. Khandu Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj207; RLW2003(1)Raj213; 2002(3)WLN687
Chauhan, J. 1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 19.3.2002 rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code').2. Petitioner had filed an application under the said provisions to permit him to examine the witnesses who could prove the signatures of attesting witnesses on the document. The same has been rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that there was no occasion for the Court to allow the same as the petitioner had not been diligent in prosecution of his case.3. Admittedly, the suit was filed in 1976; issues were framed on 29.10.77; recording of statement of plaintiff's witnesses started in 1980 but no evidence was led, however as he failed to examine the witnesses, the last opportunity was given to him vide order dated 17.8.2001. Vide order dated 10.12.2001, the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff was closed on his own statement that he did not want to examine any other wi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »