Rajasthan Court January 2003 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.
Municipal Council Udaipur Vs. Nand Kishore and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)WLC694; 2003(1)WLN498
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20th Sept. 1993, copy of which is placed on record as Annex. 6 by which the Labour Court allowed the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the I.D. Act') filed by the non-petitioner No. 1 claiming over-time wages from 1st Jan., 1971 to 31st Dec., 1980 amounting to Rs. 51,444/-3. The brief facts of the case are that the non-petitioner employee agitated his claim for overtime by filing application under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and ultimately rights were determined when the Writ Petition No. 934/1982 was filed by the petitioner against the order of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act dated 21st August, 1981. this Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 934/1982 on 15th March, 1983 held as under:It is directed that (i) the Fire Brigade Employees are entitled to overtime wages and the authority ha...
Cit Vs. Taj Oil Traders
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN585(Raj)
ORDEROn a reference under section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that in a protective assessment returned income should be accepted and any addition proposed to be made, should be made only where the substantive assessment is framed ?'2. The assessee has shown a deriving income from the trading of edible oils. The books of the assessee were seized under section 131(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. From the record it was found that the firm was only on papers as it did not carry any business. The business was found to have been conducted by Shri Chula Ram, one of the partners of the firm. Therefore, the assessee-firm was taxed on protective basis and income in the name of M/s. Taj Oil Trading was taxed in the hands of Chula Ram.3. None appeared for the assessee. Heard the learned counsel for the ...
Cit Vs. Jewels Emporium
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN266(Raj)
On a reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Jaipur has referred the following question for our opinion'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating sales made to foreign visitors at the assessee's counter located in India as export sales for the purpose of allowing deduction under section 80HHC?'2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the revenue has fairly admitted that the issue is directly covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Silver & Arts Palace (Civil Appeal No. 4478 of 2001, dated 18-12-2002) wherein their Lordships have taken a view that any sale of an article on counter-shop, emporium or other establishment situated in India against foreign currency and if ultimately that article has been taken out of India, the assessee is entitled to the special deduction under section 80HHC.3. Following the view taken by the Apex Court, we answer the re...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhanwar Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN407
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. All these appeals arise out of the same judgment and award, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The only contention raised is that, the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle, while it was carrying passengers, for hire or reward, which was in violation of the terms of the policy, therefore the Insurance Company is not liable.4. This contention was not raised before the learned Court below, as the only contention raised before the learned Tribunal was that the policy does not cover the risk of passenger travelling in a private jeep, as no premium had been charged.5. I was read over the statement of one of the victim passenger PW-2 Bhanwarlal whose relations were travelling in the Jeep, and some of whom have died. He has clearly deposed in cross-examination that no hire or reward was paid whether to the owner, or to the driver of the Jeep. Thus, it cannot be said that the victims were travelling in...
Sandeep Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: 2003WLC(Raj)UC386; 2003(3)WLN115
A.C. Gogal, J.1. This petition under Section 482, CrPC is directed against the impugned order dated 1.8.2000, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer, upheld the order Dated 28.4.1997, whereby Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Ajmer, ordered to frame charge under Section 420 IPC against the accused petitioner.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against accused-petitioner and one Smt. Meena Kumari to the effect that the accused-petitioner executed an agreement on 13.1.1996 for the sale of plot No. A-96, in favour of respondent No. 2 and received an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. The accused-petitioner assured the complainant that this plot was free from all encumbrances and he would hand-over the possession at the time of sale-deed being registered. Subsequently all these facts were found untrue as a litigation regarding this plot was already going on between the previous owner Smt. Meena Kumari and Ravi Kumar and other person Vije...
Mohammed Jafar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1062; 2003(1)WLC759; 2003(2)WLN1
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 15.5.1991 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents No. 1 to 4 be directed to consider the petitioner as LDC against the Class (V quota for the year 1984-85 by making rectification in the order dated 16.7.1988 (Ex.2) and similarly, he be considered for promotion to the post of UDC from the same date when the respondents No. 5 to 8 were promoted vide order dated 22.8.1990 (Ex.18), with all consequential benefits.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :-Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Class IV servant on 23.4.1962 and during his service, the petitioner passed Prathma examination held by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad in the year 1983 and, thereafter, he moved an application for making entry in his service record and the Chief Medical and Health Offic...
Raj Kumar Birla Vs. S.N. Thanvi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1661; RLW2003(2)Raj1388; 2003(1)WLC762; 2003(1)WLN1
Garg, J. 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents with a prayer that the respondents be punished for committing contempt of this Court's order dtd. 13.12.2000 (Annex. 1) passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 979/99. 2. The facts narrated in the contempt petition are as under: (1) That the respondents issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade III. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application along with relevant particulars. After complete scrutiny of the documents, a provisional seniority list was issued in which name of the petitioner was placed at serial No.3. (ii) That thereafter petitioner came to know that persons junior to him in the merit list had been offered appointment, but the petitioner was not given the appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade III. (iii...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Koja Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(5)WLC757; 2003(2)WLN587
N.P. Gupta, J.1. All these four appeals arise from the same award, they are being heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. The only question argued is that the learned Tribunal has wrongly decided issue No. 3 while concluding that the insurer has failed to prove that the driver was not holding valid driving license. The learned Tribunal has held that the insurer has not any evidence to show that the vehicle in question was a vehicle of category other than 'light motor vehicle' as the driver was holding license for driving the light motor vehicle.3. learned Counsel for the appellant was not able to point out to me any material on record from which it may be spelt out that, within the meaning of Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(17) & 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the vehicle in question was not a 'light motor vehicle'.4. In that view of the matter. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award.5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily.6. Co...
Harbans Singh Vs. Chandra Prabha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj183
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful husband, against the judgment and decree, of District Judge Banswara, dt. 19-1-91 dismissing the appellant's petition for dissolution of marriage.2. Facts of the case are that the parties belong to Hindu religion and were married according to Hindu rites on 7-2-1981. Out of the wedlock one son is born. The case of the husband is that on 21-8-83 the respondent went along with her father, under the pretext of celebrating Rakhi, with an assurance to return within a month, and since then has not returned to the matrimonial home. According to the appellant he wrote many letters, himself went to fetch her, sent his brother Bharat Singh, father Gulab Singh, and one Manohar Singh 2-3 times to fetch her, but all in vain. Thus according to the appellant the respondent has deserted the matrimonial home without any justifiable cause, and she is not discharging her conjugal obligations. It was also contended that, the wife submitted ap...
Ashok Kumar Karola Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)622
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. To cut short, Mr. M'athur, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the matter has to be referred back to the AO for following the correct procedure before making the assessment. The Tribunal has found that the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the IT Act is bad in law as the income shown by the assessee in the return was below the taxable income. Therefore, the return should be treated as non est and the Tribunal has ultimately directed for fresh assessment after, following the due process of law i.e., the correct procedure for assessment in search case specially when the assessee has shown the income below taxable rates.3. Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that he is not seriously agitating the proposal given by Mr, Mathur but the decision of the Allahabad High Court should not be followed in view of the latest decision of their Lordships in the case of CIT v. Piara Singh : [1980]124ITR40(SC) .4. Consi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »