Rajasthan Court May 2002 Judgments
Cit Vs. Ghewar Chand Soni
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)499
ORDERBy the CourtHeard learned counsel for the appellant.2. The appeal relates to assessment year 1988-89. The only question sought to be raised by the revenue in this appeal is that since the amendment made in section 139(8) where any regular assessment is made for the first time, whether under section 143 or under section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the purpose of levy of interest, it is still governed by provision of section 139(8)3. The Supreme Court has laid down in Modi Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT & Anr. : [1995]216ITR759(SC) that the 'Regular assessment' has been defined in section 2(40) to mean the assessment made under sections 143 or 144. In the context of sections 140A, 141 and 141A 'regular assessment' could only mean the original assessment made under section 143 or 144. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and use of the phrase 'regular assessment' in various sections of the Act. In section 214 'regular assessment' has been used in no other sense than the first orde...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(85)ECC760; 2002(146)ELT277(Raj); RLW2003(4)Raj2383; 2003(1)WLC605; 2003(1)WLN19
ORDERRajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The Union of India-applicant requires this Court to direct the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi to refer the following question of law :-(i) Whether the CEGAT has any authority to rule that the show cause notice could not be issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, who was, under the law, a 'Central Excise Officer' as defined in Section 2(b) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944? (ii) Whether in view of the contents declared by assessee being found totally different on testing of the samples, it would still not amount to mis-declaration/mis-statement under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944? 3. Both the above questions are said to be arising out of the Tribunal's order dated 10-3-1997, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee.4. The application filed by the Revenue under Section 35G(1) was rejected on the ground that as the dispute relates to the clas...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Virma Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj693; 2002(5)WLC399
Misra, J.1. This application for restoration has been filed against dismissal of the misc. appeal No. 865/95 by order dated 14.8.01 as the appeal was going unrepresented ever-since 17.11.97. This restoration application thereafter has been filed after a delay of 131 days on which a show cause notice was issued to the respondents in response to which they have appeared through their advocate Mr. Tripurari Sharma.2. Having heard the counsel for the parties, it appears that the misc. appeal was preferred by the appellant-Commandant 7th Battalion RAC Bharatpur against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bharatpur in favour of the respondents for Rs. 3,80,000/- (Rs. three lac eighty thousand) alongwith interest at the rale of 12% per annum which was awarded to them towards compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 on account of death of the husband of the respondent No. 1 Smt. Virma Devi. A show cause notice was issued in favour of the appellant- Commandant and an int...
Tag this Judgment!Pappu and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj813; 2002(3)WLC646
Sharma, J. 1. Appellants Pappu and Chopya have filed this criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order dated 22.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Tonk whereby he has convicted and sentenced the appellants for offence under Section 395 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default thereof, each to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 30.1.2001 at 6.30 AM, PW. 1 Girraj Kishore lodged a written report, Ex. P. 1 at Police Station, Devli allegingtherein that on 29.1.2001, under the orders of District Collector, Sawaimadhopur, he along with some officials were carrying various articles in Truck No. RCB 2004 for relief to the victims of earthquake in Gujrat. While on way near Devli, the tyre of the truck got punctured at about 4.30 AM, one person came there and demanded 'biri' fro...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. the Additional Registrar (ii) Co-operati ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1654; 2002(4)WLC511; 2002(5)WLN549
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 26.3.1991 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 19.1.1991 (Annex.8) passed by the respondent No. 1 Additional Registrar (II), Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur be quashed and set aside and further, the Resolutions No. 5 and 6 dated 30.8.1987 (Annex.5) and the ordered dated 18.1.1988 (Annex.6) passed by the respondent No. 2 Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur by which the Resolutions No. 5 and 6 were approved be also quashed and set aside etc. etc.2. It arises in the following circumstances:The petitioners are members of the Marudhar Gran Niram Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samiti') and since all the petitioners have common cause of action against the impugned order Annex.8 dated 19.1.1991 passed by the Additional Registrar (II), Cooperative Socie...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Patrika Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Raj)208
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Learned counsel Mr. Jain submits that whether there was a reasonable cause or not, it is (not) question of fact.3. We do not agree with Mr. Jain on this point. The facts in the case in hand are that for the earlier year 1978-79, the return was filed on 20th June, 1980. That was belated and penalty under Section 271(1)(a) was imposed.Now the reason given for filing of the late return in the year concerned on 24th July, 1980, as the earlier returns were not filed, therefore, the return in this year could not be filed.4. When the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) was imposed in the earlier year i.e., 1978-79 holding that there was no justified reason for not filing of the return in time when in the earlier year there was no reasonable cause for delay in filing the return, no benefit of that mistake or default can be given in the year under consideration i.e., 1979-80.5. Even otherwise not filing the return of year 1978-79 is not reasonable cause f...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4157; RLW2003(2)Raj765; 2002(3)WLC567
Sharma, J. 1. Appellant Nand Kishore has filed this criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order dated 11.4.2001 passed by the learned Special Judges, Mahila Utpidan and Dahej Prakaran Cases, Jaipur whereby he has convicted and sentenced the appellant as hereunder: Under Section 366 IPCto undergo imprisonmentfor 3 years with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default thereof, 3 months' rigorousimprisonment.Under Section 376 IPCto undergo imprisonmentfor 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default thereof-, six months'rigorous imprisment.2. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Briefly stated the facts leading to this appeal are that on 2.12.99 PW.2 Bhanwar Lal lodged a written report, Ex.P.4 at Police Station, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur alleging therein that on 21.11.99, his village neighbour Nand Kishore has taken away with him his daughter Mamta aged 13 years and that she could not be traced till date. It was further alleged that his daughte...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Dutt Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1185; 2002(4)WLC545; 2002(5)WLN589
Garg, J.1. The above writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both the writ petitions facts are similar in nature and the questions raised are also similar.Facts of Writ Petition No. 1164/922. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 25.2.92 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the orders dtd. 5.10.91 (Annex.6) and 7.10.91 (Annex.5) whereby respondents No. 4 and 5 have been promoted be quashed petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Officer, Municipal Board Gr. II in the post falling vacant after December, 1976 and for the post of Executive Officer, Gr. I, Municipal Board on the post falling vacant after December, 1981 and the State Government may be directed to allow the petitioner the emoluments of the post of Executive Officer Gr. II, Municipal Board with effect from 25.4.81 and any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued the may be ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Dayal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj806; 2002(3)WLC460
Kumar, C.J. 1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 9.11.2000 compulsorily retiring him from the post of Addl. District Judge in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. The petitioner was appointed as Munsiff Magistrate, vide order dated 6th May, 1970. He was confirmed in the Rajasthan Judicial Service w.e.f. 14th May 1972. Vide order dated 7th January, 1994, the petitioner was granted selection scale in the Rajasthan Judicial Service w.e.f. 2nd September, 1992. w.e.f. 1st January, 1993, he was granted super time scale in the Rajasthan Judicial Service vide order dated 25.6.99. On 26th May 1993, the petitioner was promoted to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge. On 9.11.2000, the impugned order of compulsory retirement from service was passed qua the petitioner under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (Old/Rule 53(1) of the Rajas...
Tag this Judgment!SatyanaraIn Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2368; 2003(1)WLC357
Misra, J. 1. The petitioner was in the service of the respondent No. 2-Hindustan Copper Limited where the remained absent form duty for a period of three years. Consequently, the order terminating his service was passed by the respondent on 5th August, 1988. Prior to the termination a charge sheet regarding willful absence from duty was also issued on 11.5.1988 which was served on the petitioner but the petitioner did not respond to this charge sheet and finally the order of termination was passed on 5th August, 1988 as already stated hereinbefore. The petitioner appears to have acquiesced with this situation and suddenly one fine morning in the year 1992 approached the Conciliation Officer raising a dispute about his termination. According to the respondents the petitioner did not approach the Conciliation Officer even in 1992, but it was for the first time in the year 1996 that the approached the Conciliation Officer. However, even if the year 1992 is taken to be the correct year in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »