Rajasthan Court September 2002 Judgments
Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Raj)145
Y.R. Meena, J.This appeal is directed against the order and judgment of the Tribunal dated 31-1-2001. The issue for our consideration in this appeal is whether unabsorbed loss can be carry forward and allowed in case of this assessee when the loss suffered by four co-operative societies in the preceding year ?2. There were four co-operative societies duly registered with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for Rajasthan, Jaipur. The co-operative societies are : (i) Rajasthan Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Gulabpura; (ii) Gangapur Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Gulabpura; (iii) Ganganagar Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Hanumangarh; and (iv) Gulabpura Cotton Ginning & Pressing Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Gulabpura. The Government of Rajasthan had major shareholding in the aforesaid co-operative societies. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur, made an order under section 17 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 read with Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Soci...
Tag this Judgment!Golden Tringle Fort and Palace Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajkumari Sidhi Kumari an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC354; 2003(2)WLN197
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 11.7.2002 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') on the ground that the court fee ought to have been paid by the plaintiff/non-petitioners in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Rajasthan Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') and the Court below has committed material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in holding that it could have been valued under Section 27 of the Act and the court fee paid thereon was sufficient for the reason that it was a suit for declaration that the lease deed executed by the defendant/non-petitioner Shri Narendra Singh Maharaj in favour of defendant-petitioner was void and there was a further prayer for possession of the suit property.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had been leas...
Tag this Judgment!Vikramajeet Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN705
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 22.7.2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the circular dated 12.7.2002 (Annex. 2) issued by the respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan by which it was directed that on becoming the post of Sarpanch vacant belonging to reserved category, if the Vice-Chairman does not belong to reserved category, in that event, State Government could nominate any member of reserved category for taking over the charge of that vacant post and the order dated 12.7.2002 (Annex. 4) by which in compliance of circular Annex. 2 dated 12.7.2002, the respondent No. 5 Sohan Lal, who belongs to reserved category (OBC) was nominated and given charge of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Chunagarh, Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar till further orders or till vacancy is filled-in up by election, whichever is earlier, be quashed and set aside.2. The case...
Tag this Judgment!Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Oil India Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLC224; 2003(2)WLN20
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This appeal is against the order dated 23.12.1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 17/93 by which the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dismissed the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the appellant against the respondent.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant and respondent No. 1 both are Companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent carries on its business of extracting natural oil/gas and allied products. The respondent desired to award a contract for charter-hire of an on-shore drilling Rig in the region of Rajasthan. The appellant was one of the parties who gave the bid for the said contract. It is alleged by the appellant in his application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act that before letter of intent was issued by the respondent, certain meetings took place, at which the representatives of the appellant were present and...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC269; 2003(1)WLN571
N.N. Mathur, J.1. These three writ petitions have been filed by M/s Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. engaged in manufacture of Synthetic Yarn. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Udaipur served a notice dated 2.12.1996 on the petitioner under Section 28 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the RST Act) mentioning therein that the business premises of the petitioner Company was checked and surveyed on 14.5.1996 and on inquiry as contemplated under Section 71 of the RST, it came to his notice that in the year 1996-97 the petitioner Company had given on lease machineries worth Rs. 12,95,99,530/- to M/s Rajasthan Texchem Ltd. As per the agreement petitioner Company received Rs. 21,79,890-/- as a lease rent for the period onwards April 1996, but with an intention to evade tax the said figure was concealed. The petitioner was further asked to show cause under Section 64 as to why the penalty double the amount of tax be also not imposed.2. The petitioner by way ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Panchi and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ712; 2003(1)WLC609
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. These two appeals-under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30th May, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputali by which he has convicted both the appellants under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Smt. Panchi appellant has filed the appeal through Shri V. R. Bajwa while Jai Ram appellant has filed the appeal through jail and this Court while admitting the jail appeal vide order dated 24-7-1998 appointed Shri V. P. Bishnoi Amicus Curiae. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that P.W. 14 Ratan Lal submitted a written report. Ex. P-18 at Police Station Virat Nagar, District Jaipur in the interv...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Chand Nahar Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)77TTJ(NULL)169
ORDERB.L. Khatri, A.M.This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, for the assessment year 1991-92. The appellant has agitated on various grounds which are discussed and decided through this consolidated order.2. First of all, we shall take up the additional ground regarding charging of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act.3. The learned authorised representative contended that the additional ground may be taken in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. CIT : [1998]229ITR383(SC) . The additional ground has been raised against levy of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act by the assessing officer. The learned authorised representative has contended that the charging of interest has been held as unsustainable in the cases of CIT v. Ranchi Club : [2001]247ITR209(SC) , Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT (2000) 164 CTR (Pat) 201 and Udai Mistan Bhandar v. C...
Tag this Judgment!Bheraj Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLC80; 2003(2)WLN212
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 30.9.1991 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, Annex. 2 dated 20.8.1991 by which the possession of the disputed land was taken over from the petitioner and the same was given to the respondent No. 3 Moola Ram, be declared nullity and the respondents No. 2 to 8 be directed to restore the possession of the land, which was taken through Annex. 2, to the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:The land, details of which are mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition, was in actual physical possession of the petitioner as agricultural land and one Moola, who was earlier Khatedar tenant of the disputed land died in the Samvat Year 2008 and after his death, Khatedari rights over the disputed land were conferred on the petitioner by Tehsildar on 28.12.1977 and sin...
Tag this Judgment!Shekhawat Brothers Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2585; 2003(1)WLC164
Rathore, J. 1. This Court issued notice to the respondents on 10.7.2002 and also passed interim order to this effect that the operation of the order dated 29.6.2002 to the extent it relates to the termination of the contract agreement, shall remain terminated.2. On 24.7.2002, Mr. Bapna appearing on behalf of Taxation Department, filed a reply and the counsel for the applicant Mr. K.K. Sharma submitted the application for impleadment as a party which was allowed and the applicant Banas Enterprises was impleaded as a party respondent.3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.6.2002 (annexure-2) passed by the respondent No. 3.4. Brief facts of the case are that the agreement for collection of sales tax on bazri under Section 79(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, the Act of 1994) has executed between the State of Rajasthan and the petitioner on 29.9.2001 as the bid offer by the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was permitted to collect the sales...
Tag this Judgment!Chitra Devi Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)77TTJ(NULL)640
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.As the above appeals are inter-related and involve common points, so we are disposing them of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITSSA No. 7, 4 and 3/Jp/97 are appeals by three assessees, namely, Smt. Chitra Devi (hereinafter referred to as the CD), Shri Prem Prakash Soni (hereinafter referred to as PPS) and Shri Raj Kumar (herenafter referred to as RK) for the block period 1-4-1985, to 5-1-1996, and are directed against three separate assessment orders each dated 30-1-1997, passed by assessing officer in their respective cases, under section 158BC.3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records including the written statement of assessee furnished on record before us.4. First we take up ITSSA Nos. 7/Jp/97 being in the case of CD ground No. 1 disputes the legal validity of the assessment order and the same being violative of principles of natural justice. The learned authorised representative of assessee has contende...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »