Rajasthan Court September 2002 Judgments
Smt. Kanchan Devi Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC781; 2003(1)WLN22
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 28.8.1992 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction the Rule 9(11) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas, Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps), Rules 1978 be declared illegal and be struck down and further it may be declared that the petitioner is not liable to pay lease rent again under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas, Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps) Rules, 1978 and further the impugned notice dtd. 21/24.6.1992 (Annex. 8) be quashed and set aside.2. The facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under:(i) That the petitioner purchased a land measuring 3/4 bighas falling in Khasra No. 618/1 from one Shri Dharam Raj by a registered sale-d...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kanija and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC373; 2003(2)WLN43
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 19.6.1989 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction,(a) the respondents be directed to commute and third of pension of Shri Gani Mohammed (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and the amount of commutation of pension be paid to the petitioners, who are heirs of deceased.(b) in case the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1981') come in the way of the petitioners, then the same may be struck down as being unconstitutional.(c) the respondents be further directed to make payment of the amount towards earned leave due of deceased.(d) the order dated 29.1.1987 (Annex. 15) passed by the respondent No. 2 Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara by which payment made to the deceased in excess was ordered to be deducted from the gra...
Tag this Judgment!Hazarilal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC240; 2003(3)WLN594
M.R. Calla, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.5.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge.2. The appellants herein i.e. No. 1 and 2 were employed as Driver and Agriculture Assistant, respectively. A Govt. Vehicle i.e. Jeep No. RNI 7178 of Sheep Breeding Farm, Fatehpur was stolen on 3.9.1998. Appellant No. 1 was the Driver of the Jeep. The FIR was lodged at the Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur. At the time of theft of the Jeep, one Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Agriculture Assistant, Sheep Breeding Farm was also there with appellant No. 1 i.e. the Driver. Both the employees were subjected to an enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and an enquiry report was made on 29.12.1990. On 23.7.1992, the Director, Sheep & Wool wrote a letter to the Controller of the Rajasthan State Motor Garage, Jaipur for assessment of the Jeep in respect of which the theft had been committed and Controller of the State Motor Garage assessed the value of the Jeep at Rs. 50,000/-. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gambhir Mal Pandey (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)540; [2004]266ITR274(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, this Court has directed the Tribunal to refer the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of the assessee is assessable under Section 28 of the Act, 1961?'2. The assessment years involved in this question are from 1973-74 to 1976-77.The background of this case is that a mill, which was leased out in asst. yr.1972-73 at one time was known as John Mills and belonged to family concernknown as A. John & Co., who sold the same to a company known as AgraUnited Mills Co. Ltd. In part consideration of the sale price, the company issueddebentures and these debentures were purchased by various persons. One ofthe debenture-holders was this assessee i.e., Gambhir Mal Pandey, whosubsequently formed a company and transferred the debentures to thecompany so formed.These debentures represented l/5th of the entire debentures issued...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Narayan Gehlot Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN540
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 2.6.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 19.6.2000 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 1 Principal Chief Conversator of Forests, Rajasthan, Jaipur by which under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ruels of 1996'), the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service in public interest with effect from the date of receipt of that order, be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC on 27.7.1965 and thereafter, he was selected for the post of Forester with effect from 26.5.1971. Thereafter, on 9.1.1987, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger by the order of Chief Conservator of Forests. How...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Gambhir Mal Pandey (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN807(Raj)
ORDEROn an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, this court has directed the Tribunal to refer the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of the assessee is assessable under section 28 of the Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessment years involved in this question are from 1973-74 to 1976-77. The background of this case is that a Mill, which was leased out in assessment year 1972-73 at one time was known as John Mills and belonged to family concern known as A. John & Co., who sold the same to a company known as Agra United Mills Co. Ltd. In part consideration of the sale price, the company issued debentures and these debentures were purchased by various persons. One of the debenture holder was this assessee, i.e., Gambhir Mal Pandey, who subsequently formed a company and transferred the debentures to the company so formed.3. These debentures represented 1/5 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Vikas Soni Vs. Malaviya Regional Engineering College
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj158; 2003(1)WLC793
ORDERK.S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioner applied for admission in Engineering Colleges of Rajasthan and Rajasthan seats of other regional engineering colleges. The petitioner submitted this form in the category of 'children of defence personnel killed' and in this regard he also submitted the certificate in the prescribed format along with the form which was duly verified by the Zila Sainik Welfare Officer, Sikar.2. The petitioner was informed by the Co-ordinator, RPET that as per the certificate which has been produced by him for claiming as children of defence kill personnel category the date of death of father was mentioned 20-9-1965 whereas date of birth of the petitioner is 2-7-1983 and the petitioner was asked to justify the claim for category of reservation in view of this fact.3. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the aforesaid letter before the Coordinator wherein it was submitted that when the petitioner was of five years of age, his mother Smt. Sushila Devi widow of late...
Tag this Judgment!Chand Mal Regar Vs. Mds University and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1233
Jagat Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner appeared in B.Sc. 1st year Examinations, 2001 conducted by the respondent University and was declared failed in two subjects vide marksheet Annex. 1. The petitioner applied for re-evaluation in three subjects and deposited requisite fee vide Annex.2 After the re-evaluation, petitioner was declared passed vide Annex. 3 dated 9.3.2002 and corrected marksheet Annex.4 was issued on 5th March, 2002. Meanwhile petitioner was permitted to appear in B.Sc. Part II Examination and he deposited requisite fee vide Annex.5 and 7. The respondents also issued identity card Annex.8 but the University has shown the petitioner absent in IIIrd paper of Chemistry vide Annex.9.3. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are that the University issued corrected marksheet on 16.8.2002 (Annex.10) where as B.Sc. II examination was held in April, 2002. Similarly, practical examination of B.Sc. II examinations was held in firs...
Tag this Judgment!Kisan Traders Vs. Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: [2003]132STC443(Raj); 2003(1)WLC291; 2003(2)WLN143
J.P. Bansal, Judicial Member1. Since all these four revision applications involve the consideration of common questions of law and fact they are being disposed by this common judgment.2. The non-applicant-firm carries on the business of ginning and pressing of cotton in the course of its job-work which involves the delivery to the awarder of the contract of ginned and pressed cotton bales fastened with iron strips and hooks. On October 13, 1992 the applicant framed the assessment orders for the year 1990-91 and 1991-92. Later it was discovered that the tax had not been paid on the value of the iron strips and hooks which were used for fastening the cotton bales. Notices under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act') were issued. Subsequently, on April 22, 1994 the reassessment orders were passed thereby creating the liability as hereunder :For the year 1990-91: (i) Tax Rs. 21,222.00 (ii) Penalty undersection 16(l)(i) Rs. 42,444.00 (iii) Interest undersec...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC680; 2003(2)WLN8
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Both the above mentioned petitions have been received from jail and both of them have been registered by the office under Section 482, CrPC and since in both the petitions, common point of interpretation of Section 428, CrPC is involved, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.S.B. Cr. Misc. Jail Appeal. No. 668/20022. It arises in the following circumstances:In this case, the accused petitioner Ram Chandra in Sessions Case No. 241/1994 was convicted by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Udaipur for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') vide judgment dated 13.9.1995 and vide order of sentence dated 13.9.1995, he was sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years RI.In compliance of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 13.9.1995, warrant of commitmen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »