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.
Fakir Mohammed Vs. Ajaj Ali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2615; 2002(4)WLC506; 2003(2)WLN318
Chauhan, J.1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court dated 10.5.02 by which it has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 25.8.99 by which the suit of the respondents for eviction of the appellant on the ground of bonafide need under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act), 1950 has been allowed.2. The main contention of the appellant before the court below as well as before the First Appellant Court had been that on the ground of bonafide need an earlier suit had been filed which was dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called 'the Code'). Respondents' application for restoration of the same under Order 9 Rule of the Code also stood dismissed by the Court. Therefore, the suit was barred by the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code Moreso, the principle of res judicta was also attracted.3. Before the First Appellate Court...
Cit Vs. Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN429(Raj)
ORDEROn an application filed 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 correct in law in allowing the assessee's claim for writing-off of the sum of Rs. 52,489 and litigation expenses at Rs. 12,000?'2. During the assessment year 1979-80, the assessing officer noticed that a sum of Rs. 52,489 was written off on account of advance made to the agriculturist for purchase of agriculture land. The intention of the assessee of course was to acquire the land to set-up a boiler factory, but ultimately that was not materialized. The agriculturist refused to refund the amount. The assessee filed a civil suit in the Court, where the assessee lost its claim. Then the assessee wrote off that amount in books of account and claimed deduction on the incurred amount as revenue loss. The assessing officer rejected his claim. According to the assessing off...
Ritesh Bhargava Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC22; 2003(3)WLN363
F.C. Bansal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 13.11.1997, passed by learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the appellant - Ritesh Bhargava @ Bunti has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 4 months' Rigorous Imprisonment.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that P.W. 1-Smt. Sita W/o Gulab Singh Choudhary resident of Plot No. 120, Shiv Colony, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur, made a verbal report (Ex. P. 1) to S.H.O. Police Station-Sodala on 24.6.1994 at 8.00 A.M. It was, inter alia, stated in the report that yesterday at 10.00 P.M. she alongwith her husband Gulab Singh, her son Manoj and Miss Prabhati, who is daughter of her Jeth was sitting in her house. Bunti and Raju: a pick-pocket, along with a person entered in the house. Her husband Gulab Singh made them to sit and asked her to prep...
Cit Vs. S.B. Properties Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN743(Raj)
ORDEROn an application filed 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 and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the depreciation on building should be allowed at the rate of 15 per cent treating it as a Plant ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1986-87. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submits that now the issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Anand Theatres : [2000]244ITR192(SC) , wherein the Lordships have taken in view that hotel buildings are not plant, therefore, normal depreciation should be allowed on the hotel building, which is permissible for building only.3. Following the view taken by their Lordships in the case of Anand Theatres (supra), we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.4....
Mahendra Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN464
Harbans Lal, J.1. This bail application under Section 438, CrPC has been filed on behalf of the petitioners who apprehend their arrest in F.I.R. No. 80/2002, P.S. Sadri wherein investigation for offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC is pending.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed before me a certified copy of the memo whereby the petitioners have deposited with the police the alleged stolen property. He has submitted that in this view of the matter, the petitioners may now be enlarged on anticipatory bail.3. Learned P.P. has also conceded that all the articles mentioned in the list filed with the F.I.R. have been deposited with the police but he has opposed the bail application.4. Having considered the submission made at the bar and upon a perusal of case diary and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners deserve to be granted anticipatory bail.5. In the result this application under Section 438, CrPC is allowed and it is directed that ...
Devaram Chaudhary Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association Man Structures Ltd ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj18
ORDERH.R. Panwar, J.1. These two revision petitions Under Section 115, C.P.C. involve common question of law and facts and are between the same parties, therefore, for convenience they are disposed of by this common order.2. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction before the trial Court against the respondents vide Civil Original Suit No. 9/2001, the suit was posted for recording of evidence on 2-1-2002. The witness Anant Vyas was present in the Court for his deposition. Earlier to this an application under Order 7. Rules 10 and 11. C.P.C. was filed before the trial Court by the defendant-respondents-Rajasthan Cricket Association Man Structures Ltd. Jaipur and others, which came to be rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 1-9-1999. against which dcfendant-respondents-Rajasthan Cricket Association and othersfiled S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1247/ 99. The said revision petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 18-7-2001. While dismissing...
Jaipur Oil Products Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Raj)50; [2003]260ITR188(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 8,000 out of the mess expenses incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the business were not allowable? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any material or any evidence in holding that the expenditure on consumption of stores and coal is disallowable to the extent of Rs. 30,000 ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the whether Tribunal had any material or evidence in disallowing a sum of Rs. 70,000 out of the expenditure under the head 'Consumption of hexine' ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76. The assessee declared a loss of Rs. 26,22,180. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has incurred excess expen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Registhan Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR757(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is admissible on technical director's salary amounting to Rs. 67,948 ?' 2. The assessee-company derives income from manufacturing and sale of ready made garments for the relevant assessment year 1976-77. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has noticed that the assessee has claimed weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of several items which includes salary paid to the technical director in the tune of Rs. 67,948. The Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of the assessee holding that it does not come under any of the sub-clauses of Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. In appeal before the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Registhan (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Raj)376
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion ;1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that weighted deduction under Section 35B of the IT Act, 1961, is admissible on technical director's salary amounting to Rs. 67,948 ?'2. The assessee-company derives income from manufacturing and sale of readymade garments for the relevant asst. yr. 1976-77. During the course of assessment, the AO has noticed that the assessee has claimed weighted deduction under Section 35B of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of several items which includes salary paid to the technical director in the tune of Rs. 67,948. The AO has rejected the claim of the assessee holding that it does not come under any of the clauses of Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 35B of the IT Act, 1961.3. In appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) has confirmed the view taken by the AO. In appeal befor...
Bajrang Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2612; 2002(4)WLC405; 2002(5)WLN450
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. According to petitioner, in pursuance of the instruction contained in letter dated 14th Oct. 1997, the Superintendent of Police issued Notification dated 4th Nov., 1997 inviting applications for recruitment and appointment of 36 Constable/Drivers in Jalore District. In response to the above Notification, written examinations were conducted on 8th Dec., 1997 and result was declared on 23.2.1998. The petitioner is said to be amongst those who were declared successful in the written examination. The petitioner alongwith other selected candidates were subjected to physical test on 9th March, 1998 and the final result was declared on the same date, i.e. on 9th March, 1998. According to the petitioner the vacancies were as under:-General 18, SC-6, ST-4, OBC-8 = Total 36 3. The select list contains the name of 22 in general category, 3 in SC category, 1 in ST category, 4 in OBC category. 18 candidates of general category were kept in main l...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »