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.
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Ram Kishan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj726
Sharma, J. 1. Since the order dated August 14, 2001 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Jaipur is under challenge in this batch of six writ petitions, it was heard analogously and is being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Learned Tribunal in the impugned order held that the respondents No. 1 in all the six writ petitions (for short the employees) were entitled to get the benefit of selection scale by counting the services from the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners were given two months time to comply with the order.3. According to the petitioners the impugned order is contrary to the scheme of the Notification dated January 25, 1992 under which the selection scale is granted. The employees were appointed on the permanent post of L.D.Cs. and their services were governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules 1957 (for short 1957 Rules). As per Rule 7 of 1957 Rules, the direct recruitment to the post of LDC can only be made on t...
Mahaveer Prasad Vs. Roshni Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1898; 2002(5)WLC142; 2002(5)WLN407
Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 27.8.97 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 6,08,000/- in favour of respondent claimants No. 1 to 4 (for short 'the claimants' hereinafter) and against the appellant. Respondent No. 5 National Insurance Company Ltd., insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident was exonerated from the liability and the claim filed against the Insurance Company was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, the appellant owner of jeep No. RJ 23/G 0312 filed this appeal.2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal are that on 10.10.93 at about 2.00 PM Prathvi Ram was travelling in a Jeep bearing number RJ 23/G 0312 from Sikar to Ratangarh on National Highway No. 11. The said jeep was owned and driven by the appellant Mahaveer Prasad at a great speed, rashly and negligently. Due to rash and negligent...
Cit Vs. Smt. Gulnar N. Marfatia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN480(Raj)
On an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), 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 holding that salary of Rs. 18,000 paid to the husband of the assessee by the firm in which assessee and the husband both are partners, was not includible in her hands under section 64(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submits that identical question has been considered by this court in the case of very assessee in CIT v. Smt. Gulnar Marfatia wherein this court has taken the view that the salary paid to husband is includible in the hands of the assessee under section 64(1)(i) of the Act. Considering the submissions and after perusal of audit report Nos. 2 to 6, we find no justification in the order of the Tribunal, the view taken by the Tribunal has been reversed by this c...
Bindu Prasad Soni Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Raj)165
The Government of India introduced the scheme in the name of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, under Chapter IV of Finance Act, 1998, with a view to provide a quick and voluntary settlement of tax dues as on 31-3-1998, both in various direct tax enactments as well as indirect taxes enactment by offering waiver of a part of the arrear taxes and interest and providing immunity against institution of prosecution and imposition of penalty. The assessee on his part was required to withdraw the appeals pending before the various appellate authorities and courts. The scheme came into force on 1-9-1998, and ended on 31-1-1999.2. The petitioner is a goldsmith by profession. He derives income mainly from manufacturing of gold ornaments on job basis. The house and business premises of the petitioner was searched on 18-11-1988. He filed the return in response to notice under section 148 on 23-1-1992, on a total income of Rs. 14,863. The assessing officer assessed the income of the petitioner for Rs...
Cwt Vs. Kedar Nath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN141(Raj)
ORDEROn an application under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred following questions for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 from the interest of the assessee in the immovable property held by the firm ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration is not validly reopened under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?'2. The assessment order relates to the year 1974-75. The original assessment was framed on 3-11-1974. In the original assessment, exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act was allowed to the assessee, i.e., 1/3rd interest of the assets of the...
Smt. Umi Devi and anr. Vs. Mohd. Ali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN339
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dt. 10.7.2001 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- in favour of appellant-claimants (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') and against the respondents.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned.3. By this appeal, the claimants seek enhancement of compensation. learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. Deceased Biru Ram, a minor aged 15 years died in the accident, which was caused by truck No. RRF-4839 driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 1 Mohammed Ali. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that deceased was a labour and earning Rs. 50/- per day. Contention raised by the learned Counsel was not accepted by the Tribunal and the Tribuna...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Hukali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN352
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dt. 15.11.1995 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- in favour of respondents No. 1 to 7, who were claimants before the Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants'). This appeal has been filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurance company') by joining the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident as appellant.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned and also the record of the Tribunal.3. learned Counsel for the claimants contended that a joint appeal by the insurance company joining the owner as appellant is not maintainable. The insurance company by jointly filing the appeal may not maintain it for a simple reason that appeal by the insurance company may stand on different footing tha...
Sumerpur Truck Operators Union Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR749(Raj)
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, dated February 22, 2002. The appellant has framed as many as nine substantial questions of law in para. No. 10 of the memo of appeal. However, learned counsel has pressed only question Nos. (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v). The said questions as reproduced are as under :'(ii) Whether the income of the excess of receipts over expenditure of the appellant-union was not exempt under Section 10(24) of the Income-tax Act, particularly when the appellant-union was duly registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 ?(iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-union, a union of truck owners was not a union of workers within the meaning of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (primarily formed with the view to regulate the relations between its members and the employers, namely, the transporters), was not entitled to claim exemption o...
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. VipIn Doshi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR438(Raj)
1. Heard. The following substantial question of law is involved in this appeal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the drilling machines used by the assessee should be treated as earth-moving machinery, falling under entry (4)of item No. III-D of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and, therefore, entitled to depreciation at 30 per cent. ?' 2. Admit. 3. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken this matter for final disposal.4. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated October 26, 1998, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. The respondent-assessee is the proprietor of Mewar Trading Company, Udaipur. He filed a return declaring a loss of Rs. 7,41,062. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on March 30, 1987, on loss of Rs. 3,23,531. It was observed that an investment allowance shall be al...
S.K. Chakrabarty Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj589
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner while working as Spinning master with the respondent No. 2 and 3, was served with the articles of charges vide memorandum dated April 13, 1994. The first charge related to absence from duty from February 26, 1994 to March 3, 1994 without permission and second was with regard to lack of devotion towards duty and to spoil the working environment of the Mill by instigating the staff members. A departmental enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was dismissed form service vide order dated January 18/24, 1995. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has impugned the aforesaid charge sheet and the orders and sought all consequential benefits.2. The first ground of challenge is that there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner as defined under Clause (5) of Rule 16.33 of the Rajasthan State Cooperative Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Employees Service Rules 1994 (for short 1994 rules).3. The petitioner's second contention is that as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »