Rajasthan Court October 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, Tonk Vs. Serve Seva Sansthan Tonk and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj96; RLW2004(2)Raj957
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In the instant matters that were taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petitioners sought to quash the award dated April 2, 2003 of the Permanent Lok Adalat Tonk, made under Sub-section (8) of Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short the Act) whereby the Municipal Council Tonk was directed to discontinue the operation of slaughter house situated near Jaipur- Kota National High-Way No. 12.2. The Lok Adalats constituted under Chapter VI of the Act, can settle disputes only on the basis of compromise or settlement between the parties. If the parties do not arrive at a settlement, or compromise, the case is either returned to the court of law or the parties are advised to seek remedy in a court of law, This caused unnecessary delay in dispensation of justice. The framers of Law therefore decided to amend the Act by inserting a new Chapter VI-A to set up Permanent Lok Adalats to provide compulso...
Manikyapuri Housing Co-op. Society Vs. Mahesh Chaturvedi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj89; RLW2004(3)Raj1677; 2004(1)WLC389
Shiv Kumar Sharma. J.1. The appellant in the instant appeal seeks to quash the order dated August 26, 2003 of the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition submitted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court was dismissed.2. We have heard Mr. R. S. Rathore, learned counsel and scanned the material on record. Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 524 : (AIR 2003 SC 1561) indicated that the supervisory Jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an Inferior Court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or a tribunal.3. After exercising the powers under Article 227 by the learne...
A.C.T.O. and ors. Vs. Shiv Shambhu Agencies and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj445
Prasad, J. 1. This bunch of revision petitions have been filed by the State Government aggrieved by the orders of Tax Board wherein principally on the ground of absence of mens rea, the Tax Board has been persuaded to discharge the respondent from the liability of penalty imposed by the assessing authority and upholding the same by Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) [appellate authority].2. The question regarding mensrea has already been adjudicated by this Court in M/s. Mutha Premraj v. Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. (1), and another following various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and discussing them in detail. It has been held in this case that the presence of mens rea is not, a sine qua non, for levying penalty in case of violation of statutory provisions. In these revision petitions, I would have straightway held them to be covered by the decision given in Mutha Premraj (supra) but learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the decision given in Mutha Premraj (supr...
Paschimi Raj. Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj486; 2004(1)WLC639
Balia, J.1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.4.2003, rejecting the writ petition filed by the petitioner on (he ground that he had an alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes against the assessment order.3. The appellant has urged before the learned Single Judge that in view of the fact that the superior Tribunal viz., the Rajasthan Tax Board has already decided the issue against the assessee in another case, the pursuit of the alternative remedy could have been a futile exercise and the matter would again come to the High Court by going through the appeal in a mechanical manner, therefore, the alternative remedy, in the present case, is not an efficacious remedy. In this connection, he drew attention to the decision of the Rajasthan Tax Board rendered in Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Udaipur v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Special ...
Bheru Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2187; 2004(1)WLC360
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants five in number along with co-accused Badam Bai and Tara Bai were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhalawar for having committed murder of Balkishan and Shyamlal in Sessions Case No. 288/2001. The learned Judge vide judgment dated November 8, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Bheru Lal & Girraj:Under Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- each.Under Section 148 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment form three years andfine of Rs. 100/-each.Under Section 435 or To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment four years435/149 IPC: and fine of Rs. 150/- each.Under Section 436 or To suffer Rigorous imprisonment five years436/149 IPC: and fine of Rs. 250/- each.In default of total amount of fine i.e. Rs. 1000/-each to further suffer simple imprisonmentfor three months.Kailash Chandra, Purshottam & Gopal:Under Section 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- each.Under Section 148 IPC To suff...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ajit Bhawan Hotel
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)138; [2005]274ITR66(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the preparation of the paper book is dispensed with and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits.2. On the reference under Section 260(1) the following common question of law arising out of Tribunal's order in two appeals relating to asst. yrs, 1985-86 and 1986-87 has been referred to this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in allowing benefit of depreciation, extra-shift allowance and investment allowance on hotel building and tourist complex by treating them as a plant ?'3. The question is now no more res integra. The building used as hotel as the tourist complex cannot be treated as a plant within the meaning of Section 32 and cognate provision and the assessee is not entitled to benefit of depreciation, extra-shift allowance and investment allowances in respect of such building as pla...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)34
RAJESH BALIA, J. 1. This appeal is against the order of the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur relating to asst. yr. 1995-96. At the time of admission, following questions were framed as substantial questions of law arising for consideration of this appeal:'(Q. 1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,67,656 by holding that unpaid amount of bottling fee has, on furnishing of bank guarantee, to be treated as actual payment and accordingly the deduction in respect of the same cannot be denied under Section 43B of the IT Act, 1961 ? (Q. 2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 38,442 made by the AO on account of disallowance of research and development expenses not covered under Section 35(1)(iv) of the IT Act, by wrongly relying on the decision in ITA No. 1546/Jp/1995, dt. 30th March, 2001 ? (Q. 3) Whether, on the facts and in th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)39; [2004]268ITR451(Raj); RLW2004(1)Raj657
Rajesh Balia, J.1. At the time of the admission of this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, the substantial questions involved in this appeal were framed as under:(1) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the unpaid amount of bottling fee has, on furnishing of the bank guarantee to be treated as actual payment and accordingly allowing the deduction in respect of the same under Section 43B of the Act, even though the sum has not been actually paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act.'(2) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the depreciation on research & development assets which related to the closed business of fast food division/unit of the assessee-company as such not used during the previous year ?'(3) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addi...
Kesari Mal Vs. Bhawani Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj480
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the request of learned counsel for both the parties, this appeal is heard finally.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent filed the suit for eviction against the defendant- tenant on the ground that the suit premises was let out by the plaintiff to defendant on 1.4.1959. The defendant-tenant committed default in payment of rent, therefore, plaintiff filed the suit No. 154/80 wherein the defendant was declared defaulter in payment of rent by judgment and decree dated 13.1.1984 but in view of the relevant provision, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed after giving benefit of first default to the tenant. That judgment is final. It is alleged by the plaintiff that defendant-tenant paid rent up to March, 1985 but thereafter he did not pay any rent of the premises. Ultimately, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking decree for eviction as well as decree for arrears of rent on the ground of second default...
Builder and Associates Vs. Riico
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj81; 2004(2)WLC552
ORDERGyan Sudha Misra, J.1. A contract for construction of Community Centre. Bank Building/Post Office at Housing Colony, Kota, was awarded to the appltcant-M/s. Builder & Associates, (a Proprietorship firm for undertaking construction work) by the non-appellant-Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (for short 'RIICO'), Kota vide order No. 763 dated 22-5-1996. An agreement for this purpose was executed between the parties wherein Clause-79 lays down as follows :--'79. (1) should the contractor consider that he is entitled to any extra payment or compensation or any claim whatsoever in respect of the works he shall give notice in writing to the Engineer, furnishing detailed particulars of all such claims for extra payment and or compensation, within 10 days from the ordering of the work or happening of any event upon which the contractor passes such claims. Failure on the part of the contractor to put forward any claim with the necess...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »