Rajasthan Court July 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.
Ramakant Saxena (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj586; 2002(4)WLC123; 2003(2)WLN634
Arun Kumar, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 77 (8) of the SalesTax Act, 1994 on the ground that the same is violative of Articles 14 and 19 of theConstitution of India.2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner is a medical practitioner. According to the petitioner, in the usual course of his profession certain articles and medicines remain lying at his residence. These articles are meant to be used in treatment of patients. On 24th January 2000, a survey was conducted at the residential premises of the petitioner in which certain surgical items and medicines were found. The petitioner was served with a notice for imposing penalty under Section 77 (8) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, of 1994). The petitioner replied to the notice. After further enquiry, the respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, passed an ord...
Mangi Lal Ojha and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN460
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Instant writ petition has been filed in the representative capacity by the erstwhile employees of Bundi Nagar Palika with the prayer that the pensionary benefits should be accorded to the retired employees of Nagar Palika, Bundi after adjusting contribution in the Provident Fund paid to them by the Municipality against the arrears of total amount of pension, to which they are found entitled from the date of their retirement. The further prayer is that future pension should also be allowed in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 with the benefit of commutation of pension etc. including all other facilities which are given to the Government servants. It is also prayed that Rules 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan Municipal Service (Pension) Rules, 1989 be declared ultravires and all erstwhile employees be declared eligible for pension.2. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, has placed on record the judgment dated Fe...
Suresh Kumar Koli Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC444; 2003(2)WLN636
1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:(i) to quash the order dated 20.12.1999.(ii) to consider the petitioner for appointment as Sub-Inspector/ Platoon Commander, as per his merit, considering his chest to be 82-87.(iii) to direct the respondents that the petitioner be appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander, if his chest measurement comes as required after re-examination and re-measurement of his chest by Medical Board.2. Brief 'resume', of the fact is that the petitioner submitted application pursuant to the advertisement dated 6.9.1997 for the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander. After getting success in written examination, physical test and interview a Medical Board was constituted and the petitioner was called at Haribux Canvatia Hospital on 1.12.1999 for medical test. Thereafter vide communication 20.12.1999, the petitioner was informed that he was not found fit for the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander. In the instant w...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Hanju Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN359
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, who is the insurer of the vehicle involved in an accident.2. On 12.12.1993, at about 6.15 A.M., a Government Jeep bearing No. RNY 2667 was going from Kherwara towards Udaipur and there was a head on collision with truck No. HR-02A/0843. The driver of the jeep Rameshwar Lal died on account of the injuries received during the accident. The respondents No. 1 to 6 preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Accident Claims Act and prayer was made to award Rs. 15,01,000/- as damages. The respondent No. 1 is the widow of the deceased and the respondents No. 2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. The other three respondents are the minor daughters of the deceased. The respondent No. 7 Praveen Baxi was the owner of the said truck, which was involved in the accident. It is not in dispute that the said truck was insured by the appellant. The claim petition was not seriously contested by the ...
Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj197
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 16-12-1992 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the show cause notice dated 21-7-1992 (Annexure 3) issued by the Regional Forest Officer, Gadi (Partapur) be quashed.It arises in the following circumstances :i) That the petitioner applied for quarry licence in the year 1981 and the same was granted to him on 4-1-1982 and right from that date, every year this quarry licence was renewed according to the provisions contained in Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. A copy of the licence is Annexure 1.ii) That the petitioner applied for renewal of licence on 23-12-1991 for 1-1-1992 to 31-12-1992 and the same was granted to the petitioner and he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 275/- for the same which was deposited by him on 23-12-1991.(iii) The further case of the petitioner is t...
Nisar Mohd. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN463
Harbans Lal, J.1. This bail application under Section 439, CrPC has been filed on behalf of the petitioner against whom investigation is pending in F.I.R. No. 58/2002 of P.S. Siriyari for the offences under Section 363, 366 and 376, IPC wherein the allegation against the petitioner is that he abducted Mst. Raisa Banu who is reported to be of age of more than 17 years but less than 19 years and committed rape with her.2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. and upon a perusal of the papers placed before me and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as also the expert opinion of Radiologist regarding age of prosecutrix, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.3. In the result, (his bail application is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Nisar Mohd. shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Cour...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arawali Constructions Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)79; [2003]259ITR30(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in treating the expenditure in the acquisition of software of Rs. 1,38,360 as of revenue nature ?' 2. The assessee-company had acquired computer software which had cost Rs. 1,38,360 which the assessee claimed as revenue expenditure. However, the Assessing Officer had taken it as a capital expenditure and allowed depreciation as per rules. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has taken a view that the expenditure incurred on technical know-how is a revenue expenditure. Inappeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal decided the issue against the Revenue relying upon the decisions of the Delhi and Bombay High Courts and confirmed the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 3. None appeared on ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ruby Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR54(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding in law that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in Section 54E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 and in holding that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ?'2. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee-company held 4,945 shares of Colaba Land and Mills Co. Ltd., since 1954. The company, ColabaLand and Mills Co. Ltd., went into liquidation and the assessee-company realised the face value of the shares in the assessment year...
Central Stores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR195(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 the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 25,875 paid as gratuity to Shri G. P. Periwal, former sales manager of the assessee, was not admissible as business expenditure ?'2. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has paid Rs. 25,875 as gratuity to one Shri G. P. Periwal, sales manager of the assessee, and claimed deduction. The Assessing Officer, rejected the claim on the ground that there is no practice nor is there any law nor there is any justification for making payment of gratuity to Mr. Periwal. The view taken by the Assessing Officer has been affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal has also affirmed the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.4. Mr. Agarwa...
Mewar Anchalik GramIn Bank and ors. Vs. Mewar Anchalik GramIn Bank Off ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ903Raj; RLW2003(3)Raj1813; 2003(1)WLC55; 2002(5)WLN410
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree, dated September 7, 2000, passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4347 of 1998, which reads as under:'The case is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajnesh Pareak v. Bhilwarar Ajmer Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors. reportedin 1998(1) R.L. W 74. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits as remained in that case.' 3. This takes us to the facts of the case and the declaration of principle in Rajneesh Pareak's case.4. The petitioner, which is an association of officers, has challenged the validity of Annexure 6, the seniority list of confirmed officers, as on April 1, 1995 published by the respondent No. 1. The seniority list was prepared in accordance with the terms of Rules 13(2) and 13(3) of the Mewar Anchalik Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1983, and the clarifications receive...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »