Rajasthan Court September 2002 Judgments
Mewar Motors Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR218(Raj); [2003]132STC298(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the ITAT'), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court which has arisen out of the order of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 2322/JP of 1994, dated April 30, 1996, in respect of the assessment year 1987-88 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and proper interpretation of law, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the interest payable to the Sales Tax Department is also 'tax' and the provisions of Section 43B of the Act are applicable therein ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Mewar Motors, Udaipur, is a partnership firm engaged in purchase and sale of scooters, motor-cycles, cars and accessories. The assessee filed the return showing total income of Rs. 1,96,045. The assessment was completed at the returned income. A notice under Section 148 was issued on March 26, 1991, in response to which the assessee-fir...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Jat Vs. Gheesa Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj312; 2003WLC(Raj)UC141
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 31-7-2000, by which the learned trial Court refused to hear the matter at Shahpura Camp and directed that the hearing of the case shall be at Gulabpura.2. The, facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that a suit had been filed in Gulabpura in respect of the property which is situated at Shahpura and defendant-petitioner also resides at Shahpura. He filed an application during the trial that the case may be heard at Shahpura whenever the learned trial Court holds camp therein. The said application has been rejected only on the ground that the matter was within the territorial jurisdiction of Gulabpura and as the plaintiff/non-petitioner also resides at Gulabpura. Hence this revision.3. The application has been rejected mainly on the ground that the plaintiff was residing at Gulabpura. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for filing a suit at the place where the defendant resides and w...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuvaneshwar Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLC128; 2003(2)WLN561
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 7.11.2000 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to declare the result of the petitioner as he has already appeared for interview on 15.11.2000 by virtue of the interim order of this Court dated 10.11.2000 and if he is found successful, he be given appointment, with all consequential benefits and furthermore, the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as' the Rules of 1976') be declared ultra vires.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:The petitioner is having total blindness of 98% having a residual vision of right eye F. Cat 5' and for the left eye No. P.L. and for that, Certificate Annex. P-1 dated 16.3.1993 may be referred to. Annex. P-2 is a Ceritificate dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN129
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Punishment of dismissal from services was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 28.1.1977 in a departmental inquiry initiated under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the CCA Rules). After unsuccessful appeal and review, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer to quash his dismissal order and seeking reinstatement in the services with all consequential reliefs.2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner was appointed as LDC vide order dated 28.9.1961 and posted in the office of Sales Tax Officer Kota. He was promoted to the post of UDC oon ad hoc basis vide order dated 26.9.1975 and reverted to the post of LDC vide order dated 26.2.1976. The petitioner was placed under suspension and charge memo was served on him by the Commercial Taxes Officer Circle A Kota under Rule 16 CCA Rules on 14.4.1976. Since the appointing authority of the petitioner was Deputy Commissioner Commer...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Hiraram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC605; 2005ACJ1339; AIR2003Raj188; 2003(2)WLC669; 2003(1)WLN495
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This Misc. Appeal has been preferred against the impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called as the Tribunal) Merta dated 10-12-98 by which a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-along with interest @ 12% P.A. has been awarded to the claimants due to death of Jagdish.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that on 6-11-95, Jeep No. RJS 8647 collided with Bikaner-Jaipur Intercity 2467 (U) and 18 persons including the Driver thereof died in the accident. The dependents and other claimants filed 18 separate claim petitions before the Tribunal. However, as there had been the same facts and same issues involved, the learned Tribunal decided all the claims by a common award.3. Shri Ravi Bhansali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is settled legal proposition that where there is sole and exclusive negligence on the part of Railways in accident cases, the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Ram Chhugani Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)77TTJ(NULL)339
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.ITA Nos. 1267/Jp/94 and 1405/Jp/94 are two cross-appeals by assessee and revenue respectively for assessment year 1990-91 and are directed against the common order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 6-4-1994.2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also perused the records including the written statement of assessee placed on record.3. First I take up ITA No.1267/Jp/94 being assessee's appeal. Ground No. (a) and (b) dispute of the addition of Rs. 50,000 on account of surrender in respect of debtors. The learned authorised representative of assessee, has relied on his written statement. In the written statement of assessee, it has been contended that the addition has been made solely on the basis of surrender made by assessee during search conducted from 17-8-1990 to 23-8-1990. It has been contended that in assessee's statement recorded on 23-8-1990, the assessee surrendered Rs. 50,000 towards deposits with the parties, but the surrender was...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN692
Sunil 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 16.7.1998 with a prayer that by a appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 15.7.1997 (Annex. A/4) passed by the Executive Officer, Ganganagar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 5) by which the petitioner was removed from the service be quashed and set aside and further more, the judgment dated 22.4.1998 passed by the Selection Committee (respondent No. 4) by which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed be quashed and set aside. 2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioners are as under:(i) That the petitioner was appointed on the post of Manager in the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Nohar on 26.10.1979.(ii) That the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 17.4.1997. Copy of memorandum of charges levelled against the petitioner is marked as Annex. A/2.(iii) the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Amraram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC242; 2003(1)WLN5
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 11.5.2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 19.4.2002 (Annex. 6) passed by the respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police, Sirohi by which respondents No. 6 and 7 Kanaram and Babulal respectively and others were given promotions from the post of Constable to Head Constable, be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to conduct fresh selections for the post of Head Constable for the vacancies of the year, 2002.2. The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows:Facts pertaining to petitioner No. 1 AmraramThe petitioner No. 1 Amraram was appointed in the Rajasthan Police on the post of Constable w.e.f. 10.11.1979 and since then he is serving the Department with utmost dedication and satisfaction to his higher authorities and he is presently pos...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjan Singh Jodha Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC219; 2002(4)WLN661
Sunil 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 3.10.1991 with a prayer that respondent be directed to regularise the period w.e.f. 1.10,1951 to 31.7.1959 as his service period for the purpose of pension, leave, gratuity etc. and further the respondents be directed to make payment of salary of the petitioner for the period from 1.10.1956 to 31.7.1959 @ Rs. 160/- per month with an interest @ 12%.2. The fasts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under '?(i) That the petitioner was initially appointed as Kamdar in the then Jagir Artiyan Kala we.f. 1.10.1951. The Jagir Artiyan Kala was resumed with effect from 30.9.1956.(ii) The case of the petitioner is that he was working on the post of Kamdar upto resumption of Jagir. After resumption of Jagir, the staff working under the Jagir was required to submit their option as to whether they wanted to be absorbed in the services of...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC596; 2003(2)WLN551
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The two appellants Sohan Singh and Kalyan Singh have been convicted by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) cum Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner by the impugned judgment dt. 13.7.99 passed in Sessions Case No. 20/95, for the offence under Section 457 and 376, IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months S.I. under Section 376, IPC, for the offence under Section 457, IPC with a sentence of four years R.I., and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 months.2. Facts of the case are that on 21.2.1995, one Smt. Genu Devi lodged a report at Police Station Gajner alleging inter alia that in village Hadla Bhatiyan she along with her husband lives separately from her father-in-l...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »