Rajasthan Court September 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.
Chander Shekhar and anr. Vs. Roop Shanker
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj102; 2003(1)WLC250
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 10-3-1997 accepting the application under O. 13, R.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') filed by the plaintiff/non-petitioner.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that plaintiff/non-petitioner filed a suit for declaration of ownership of the suit property and permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff/non-petitioner. The suit was contested by the petitioner-defendants on various grounds. There had been criminal proceedings also as an F.I.R. had been lodged in respect of the same dispute and the property had also been attached under the provisions of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At a belated stage, on 22-1-1994, plaintiff/non-petitioner filed an application under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code on the ground that the original document has been lost during the miscellaneous pro...
Pyare Lal Vs. Executive Engineer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR722]; (2003)IILLJ1037Raj
ORDER1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents on November 16, 2000 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated July 28, 2000 (Annexure P/4) passed by the District Judge, Chum by which the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 was partly allowed and order of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,236/- passed by the Payment of Wages Authority, Churu through order dated October 16, 1998 (Annexure 3) was set aside, be quashed and set aside and the order dated October 16, 1998 (Annexure 3) passed by the Payment of Wages Authority, Churu be accepted in toto.2. The facts of the case in short are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent No. 1 with effect from May 21, 1981 and thereafter his services were terminated on June 30, 1983 without following the procedure as provided in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hazarimal Milapchand Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: [2003]262ITR573(Raj)
Y.R. Meena J. 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 holding that Hazari Mal Milap Chand Surana and Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana and Co. could not in law be treated as one firm for the purposes of assessment ?''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assets declared under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1975, were capital assets of the assessee-firm ?''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,936 from the total income of the assessee ?'2. The business of the assessee-firm had commenced on November 9, 1969, and the partnership deed was executed on November 11, 1969, There were four partners in the firm, namely, Mannalal Surana, N...
Ram Niwas Bera Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1235
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 18.1.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the enquiry report (Annex. 14) by which the Enquiry Officer found the charges in respect of criminal) conspiracy and theft of material proved against the petitioner and the final order dated 18.6.2000 (Annex. 16) passed by the respondent No. 4 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Chennai Port Trust, Chennai by which on the basis of the Charges proved, the petitioner was removed from service and the appellate order dated 27.11.2000 (Annex. 18) passed by the respondent No. 3 Dy. Inspector General. CISF (SZ), Chennai by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, 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 joined the Central Industrial Security Force (for Short 'C.I.S.F.') as a Constable...
Cit Vs. Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Raj)55
Y.R. Meena, J.On 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 right in holding that M/s Hazari Mal Milap Chand Surana and M/s Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Surana & Co. could not in law be treated as one firm for purposes of assessment'.2. Whether M/s Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana & Co. and assessee-firm M/s Hazarimal Milapchand should be treated as one or not that issue has been considered by us in length in the case of Hazarimal Milapchand Surana in D.B. IT Ref. No. 11/85 wherein, we have taken the view that M/s Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana & Co. is not an extension of assessee-firm M/s Hazarimal Milapchand but an independent firm and genuine firm and the income of M/s Mannalal Nirmalkumar cannot be included in the income of M/s Hazarimal Milapchand Surana.Following our view in D.B. IT Ref. No. 11/85 we find no infirmity in the...
Cit Vs. Hazarimal Milapchand Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN115(Raj)
ORDERY.R. Meena, J. On 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 questions for our opinion:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Hazari Mal Milap Chand Surana and Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana & Co. could not in law be treated as one firm for the purposes of assessment ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assets declared under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1975 were capital assets of the assessee-firm ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,936 from total income of the assessee ?'2. The business of the assessee-firm had commenced on 9-11-1969 and the partnership deed was executed on 11-11-1969. There were 4 partners in the firm, namely, M...
Laxman Das Vs. Deoji Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj74; 2002(4)WLC297; 2002(4)WLN664
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 19-8-2002, by which the incomplete examination-in-chief of a witness had been allowed to be completed by filing an affidavit.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that in the suit No. 279/ 1993, Deoji Mal v. Laxman Das, the examination-in-chief of PW 8 Murli was recorded but could not be completed for paucity of time on 16-3-2002. When he again appeared on 17-4-2002, some questions were asked in examination-in-chief, but there had been dispute as to whether such questions can be asked and the same could not be concluded. Same-position remained on 16-5-2002, 20-5-2002, 1-6-2002 and 22-7-2002 and the remaining examination-in-chief wasfiled in the form of an affidavit by the plaintiff-respondent. The petitioner-defendant sought time to argue on the acceptability of an affidavit for the purpose of concluding the examination-in-chief and ultimately the case was adjourned time and again ...
Prem Chand Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR630]; (2003)IILLJ119Raj; 2003(1)WLC282
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioner filed this writ petition stating that he is a registered A-Class Contractor and the work which he performed is not of much high value, hence he does not require more than 8-10 permanent employees in his Establishment and even these employees include his family members as well and requests that the notices dated April 12, 1991 and May 11, 1993 and the order dated June 8, 1994 which was passed in pursuance of these notices, may kindly be quashed and set aside. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner dated April 12, 1991 whereby the petitioner was informed that he is required to deposit the amount in accordance with the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the Act of 1952) for the period between November, 1980 to February, 1991 and this amount is to be deposited within the period of ten days failing which the respondent would be free to initiate action under S...
Bhagwana Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC385; 2003(1)WLN102
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 8.2.2000 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Physical Education Teacher as per merit list prepared by the respondent No. 2 (The Dist. Education Officer (Secondary), Jalore) in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the year 1998 and further more the respondents may be directed to assign seniority to the petitioner where he stood in the original seniority list i.e. above the person who were junior to the petitioner.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:(i) That the petitioner after passing secondary and Higher Secondary Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer obtained Bachelor's degree from the University of Ajmer.(ii) That in the year 1996, the petitioner entered in the Freedom Fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›