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.
United Commercial Bank and anr. Vs. Rooparam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN12
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed against a judgment and decree dated 20.4.1995 by the learned Additional District Judge; No. 2, Jodhpur, whereby, the suit for ejectment filed by the respondent was decreed with costs.2. The respodnent Roopa Ram filed a suit for ejectment in respect of the suit-property situate on High Court Road Near Sojati Gate, Jodhpur and fully described in para 1 of the plaint.3. According to the plaint allegations, the suit-property was agreed to be taken on rent by the appellant-Bank vide an agreement dated 29.10.1966 at the rate of Rs. 1100/- per month and, a rent-note to that effect was executed between the parties on 20.10.1967.4. According to the conditions of the written agreement dated 29.10.1966, the property was to remain in the tenancy of the appellant-Bank for a period of 12 years with further option that the tenant shall be at liberty to retain the property in tenancy for further 10 years subject to the condition that the rate of rent shall...
Qazi Atta Mohd. Vs. Syed Fazal Ali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC681; 2004ACJ1012; 2004(5)WLC693
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. These four appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 28.4.1998 delivered by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaur.2. On 6.8.1992 at about 5.30 a.m. a jeep bearing No. RJ 19-4407 overturned, near Nagaur as a result of which one Abdul Kareem was fatally wounded. The appellant Qazi Atta Mohammed also received injuries. Sawai Singh was the driver of the said jeep at the time of accident and the appellant Fazal Ali was the owner of the said vehicle. The jeep was insured with the respondent United India Insurance Co. Ltd. at the relevant time.3. Qazi Atta Mohd. filed Claim Petition No. 6 of 1993 claiming Rs. 12,00,000/- as damages on account of injuries received by him. Claim Petition No. 47 of 1992 was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Kareem, who claimed Rs. 9,25,000/- as damages. Fazal Ali, who was the owner of the jeep filed Claim Petition No. 16 of 1993 and claimed Rs. 46,500/- on account of alleged damage caused to the jeep.4. Afte...
Ashok Kumar Karola Vs. Union of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN821(Raj)
ORDERHeard learned counsel for the parties.2. To cut short, Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the revenue submits that the matter has to be referred back to the assessing officer for following the correct procedure before making the assessment. The Tribunal has found that the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax 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 : [198...
Smt. Tipu Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1624; AIR2003Raj145; 2003(1)WLN560
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Arti-cle 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent on 11-12-90 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the communication dtd. 27-12-1989 (Annex. 3) by which the respondent informed the petitioner that in respect of cover note dtd. 21-12-89 (Annex. 1), premium was not received and, therefore, the same was going to be cancelled and the communication dtd. 17-1-90 (Annex. 4) by which cover note (Annex. 1) dtd. 21-12-89 was cancelled, be quashed and set aside.2. The facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under :(i) That Shri Ambalal, husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) owned a Fiat Car having registration No. RJN 5121. The deceased got the above Fiat Car insured with the New Indian Assurance Company Ltd. for a period of one year from 23-12-1989 to 22-12-1990, on 21-12-89 and in lieu of premium he gave a cheque of Rs. 1975/- to Shri...
Manna Lal Nirmal Kumar Surana Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)61; [2003]263ITR328(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-family had not really converted capital assets into stock-in-trade on January 4, 1976, for the purpose of carrying on business in jewellery or precious stones and that the ratio of the judgment in CIT v. Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka : [1962]46ITR86(SC) was not applicable Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sale of finished products of three items of jewellery was in the nature of realisation sale of capital assets and not a trading activity of conversion of capital assets into stock-in-trade Whether, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sale of the precious stones of the family firm of Manna Lal Nirmal Kumar Soorana and Co. wa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manna Lal Nirmal Kumar Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: [2003]264ITR116(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the gain of Rs. 11,650 resulting from the sale of jewellery, precious stones, etc., was not assessable as the business profit ?'2. The assessee-Hindu undivided family filed a return of income on September 11, 1979, declaring total income of Rs. 11,220. Notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The item, which has been sold was declared under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme showing value of Rs. 4,350. The Special Bench of the Tribunal as well as the Tribunal in this case found that the assessee has not carried on any business in jewellery, precious stones, etc., and when the asset was declared, the item in question was treated as capital asset. Unless the asset is converted into stock-in-trade acc...
Cit Vs. Manna Lal Nirmal Kumar Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN892(Raj)
ORDEROn an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the gain of Rs. 11,650 resulting from the sale of jewellery, precious stones etc. was not assessable as the business profit ?'2. The assessee HUF filed return of income on 11-9-1979 declaring total income of Rs. 11,220. Notice was issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The item, which has been sold was declared under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme showing value of Rs. 4,350. The special bench of the Tribunal as well as Tribunal in this case found that assessee has not carried on any business in jewellery, precious stone etc. and when the asset was declared, the item in question was treated as capital asset. Unless the asset is converted into stock-in-trade account, there is no question of treating t...
Cit Vs. Vimal Kumar and Nirmal Kumar Soorana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN264(Raj)
On an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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 justified in holding that M/s. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Soorana & Co. was an independent, separate and distinct firm and that the assessee was a partner in that firm as a representative of his Hindu undivided family2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) to exclude the share income earned by the assessee-firm M/s. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar & Company?'2. At the outset, learned counsel for the revenue fairly admits that the similar issues have been considered by this court in CIT v. Hazarimal Milapchand Surana (P.B. IT Reference No. 11 of 1985), wherein the questions have been answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.3. Following our order in Hazarimal Milapchand Surana's case (supra...
Smt. Sharda Devi Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN17
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 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to allot the plot to the petitioner and further more letter dtd. 8.1.1999 (Annex. 6) issued by the Executive Officer. Municipal Board, Rajsamand (respondent No. 2) by which a sum of Rs. 6910/- was further demanded as lease money for 10 years be quashed and set aside.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:(i) That the petitioner filed an application before respondents for allotment of a residential plot. The respondents through notice dtd. 30.9.1985 (Annex. 1) allowed the application and demanded Rs. 6250/- as sale price. The petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 6250/- as sale price on 11.10.1985 (Annex. 2) The respondents allotted a plot No. 18 in the Scheme named as Koyad 'B' at Kankroli and issued a lease-deed dtd. 24...
Ram NaraIn and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC768; 2003(2)WLN4
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Both the above-mentioned writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them common questions of law and facts are involved.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1047/19982. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 18.03.1998 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 16.04.1992 (Annex. 4) passed by the Collector, Bikaner by which the prayer of the petitioners about maintainability of the appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 Jugal Kishore on the ground of limitation was rejected and furthermore, the judgment dated 16.01.1998 (Annex. 5) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer by which the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the learned Collector, Bikaner dated 16.04.1992 (Annex. 4) was dismissed, be quashed and set aside.3. The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as fol...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »