Rajasthan Court October 2003 Judgments
Balbeer Kumar JaIn and anr. Vs. Tripti Kumar Kothari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj819; 2003(4)WLC790
Goyal, J.1. Following common question of law arises in these four appeals:-'Whether the proceedings for fixation of standard rent under the repealed Act pending on the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Rent control Act, 2001, would be governed by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950 (for short the old Act) or by the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 (New Act) which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.03.?'2. Civil First Appeal Nos. 294/03, and 373/2003, respectively filed by tenants and landlord are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2003, passed in Civil Suit No. 28/2000, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, while dismissing the suit for eviction fixed Rs. 2500/- per month as standard rent under Section 6 of the Old Act. The tenants have come against the order of fixation of standard rent while the landlord has filed the appeal challenging the judgment and decree dismissing the suit for eviction as well ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mewar Oil and General Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)141; [2004]271ITR311(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 30th April, 2001, passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur [for short 'the Tribunal'], whereby the Tribunal has decided appeals Nos. 663, 664, 666 and 700 of 1994 by a common order.2. This appeal relates to the asst. yr. 1984-85 and arises out of appeal No. 663 of 1994. While admitting this appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed for consideration of this appeal.'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the mistake pointed out by the AO for invoking jurisdiction under Section 154 of the IT Act can be considered as a mistake apparent from the record, which could confer jurisdiction to the AO for initiating and making orders under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961, for the purpose of recomputing allowable deduction under Section 80I ?'3. The above question relates to the rectification in the original assessment order in computing the deductions permissible under Chapter VT-A of the IT Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj450; 2004(1)WLC722
N.N. Mathur, J.(1). The instant revision is preferred against the order of the Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated 26.02.2003 dismissing the appeal against the order of the Principal Magistrate, Children Court, Udaipur dated 14.02.2003 refusing to release the applicant on bail.(2). The brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that in the intervening night of 02.12.2002 and 03.12.2002 murder of a foreign lady tourist namely Lee Ching took place in a hotel in the locality known as Ghanghor Ghat in the city of Udaipur. It is alleged that the petitioner who is a guide by profession was also staying with the deceased. On 2.12.2002 they were seen retiring to room No. 301 alter taking dinner. However, in the morning of 3.12.2002 till 10:00 A.M. when the rooms was not opened and there was no response from inside, it was opened by a duplicate key. The dead body of the foreign tourist was found lying in the room. The petitioner was found missing. The F.I.R. was lodged at Police Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Charan Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2195; 2004(1)WLC381
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants Charan Singh and Mammal were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 19/98 for having committed murder of Richhpal. Learned Judge vide judgment dated May 02, 2000 convicted and sentenced both the appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer three months imprisonment.2. As per prosecution story, on January 12, 1998 one Mehar Chand Harijan saw a dead body lying on the foot-path of Harsora road, village Majra Aheer. Mehar Chand got assembled other persons and then it was revealed that dead body was of Richhpal. The SHO Police Station Bansoor was telephonically informed and on his arrival a written report (Ex.P-4) was submitted by informant Ram Kumar (PW.4), the brother of deceased. It was interalia stated in the report that death of Richhpal could be caused either by accident or by some other reason. A...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mewar Oil and General Mills Ltd. (No. 2 ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Raj)250; [2004]271ITR315(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the order dated April 30, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has decided Appeals Nos. 663, 664, 666 and 700 of 1994 by a common order.2. These appeals relate to the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 and arise out of Appeals Nos. 666 and 664 of 1994. While admitting these appeals, the following substantial question of law was framed in each appeal for consideration by this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the mistake pointed out by the Assessing Officer for invoking jurisdiction underSection 154 of the Income-tax Act can be considered as a mistake apparent from the record, which could confer jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer for initiating and making orders underSection 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of recomputing allowable deduction underSections 80I and 80HHC 3. The above question relates...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash @ Munna Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2161; 2004(1)WLC449
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant was indicted before the learned Sessions Judge, Kota in Sessions Case No. 234/95 for having committed murder of his wife Ranjana. The learned Judge vide judgment dated June 29, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act to suffer six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 600/- and in default to further suffer imprisonment for one month simple imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. As per the prosecution story informant Israr, (PW.12) submitted written report to the SHO Police Station Kethunipole, Kota on April 26, 1995 stating therein that the appellant inflicted injuries to his wife Ranjana with Kattar. While she was taken to the Hospital she died on the way on the basis of the said report a case under Section 302 IPC was registered and inve...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2202
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed.2. This appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the order of the State Government acting as appropriate Government under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') refusing to make reference when it had received failure report from the Conciliation Officer, namely, Joint Labour Commissioner. The order of rejection reads as under :-^^mijksDr fookn esa le>kSrk vf/kdkjh] mn;iqjls izkIr vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu esa mfYyf[kr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fofnr gqvk gS fdJfed dks xaHkhj vuq'kklughurk ds vkjksi ij mls i;kZIr lquokbZ dk volj fn;s tkusds i'pkr~ lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gS A mDr vk/kkj ij le>kSrk vf/kdkjh us blfookn dks U;k; fu.kZ;kFkZ izsf'kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha ekuk gS Avr% ,slh fLFkfr esa jkT; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd fooknvf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 125 ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, mDrfookn dks U;k; fu.kZ...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2193; 2003(1)WLC266
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This appeal owes its origin in the judgment dated March 31, 2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Aklera (Jhalawar) whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 and 324 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- and six months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- respectively. A report was lodged against the appellant on July 29, 1997 that he committed murder of Bapu Lal. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. As many as 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. The appellant although pleaded innocence but did not examine defence witnesses.2. Having considered the rival submissions and on a careful scrutiny of material on record we find that the appellant at the trial was of unsound mind and incapable of defending himself. A look at the order sheet drawn on August 29, 1998 by the trial court demonstrates that reception order under Indian Lunacy Act was issued whereby Superinten...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj804; 2004(1)WLC499
Parihar, J.1. Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III on 04.09.1963. Confirmation on the above post was also made on 30.04.1964. Since the petitioner had acquired the qualification of Graduate with B.Ed., he was promoted to the post of Teacher Grade II on 13.10.1981. Though a charge sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules was issued to the petitioner in June, 1981 prior to his promotion to the post of Teacher Grade II, however, no further enquiry was held.2. Subsequently, a fresh charge sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules on 07.05.1991 with the allegation that at the time of initial appointment on 04.09.1963 on the post of Teacher Grade III, the petitioner had submitted a forged mark sheet of Higher Secondary. After holding an enquiry in the above charge sheet, a penalty was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 14.10.1993. The petitioner was reverted back to the post of Teacher Grade III and further promotions and selection scale...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hiranand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Raj)32; [2005]272ITR626(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred, under Section 256 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act, 1961'), at the instance of the Revenue, following questions of law to this Court for decision:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as the relevant material was not properly evaluated and wrong conclusions were drawn?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any material to the conclusion that the assessee was carrying on the illegal business of smuggling of gold?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the loss arising to the assessee due to confiscation of gold by customs authorities is to be deducted from the amount included in his income as unexplained investment?'2. The Central Excise Department, Jaipur, on 24th of Jan., 1979...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »