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.
Vikas Wsp Limited Vs. the Commissioner Commercial Taxes
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj474
Balia, J.1. These two writ petitions arise out of the same judgment passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Bench at Jodhpur. D.B. Writ Petition No. 2391/97 is filed by the Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan Jaipur, to the extent that the Tribunal has held that the Assessee M/s Vikas WSP Limited, Sri Ganganagar unit is entitled to the benefit of Notification dated 13.6.1994 in respect of new unit established on plot No. B-86 for manufacturing Gwar Gum Powder with installed capacity of 28 MT Guar Gum Powder is wholly Export Oriented unit which is duly registered with Central Government as Export Oriented Unit. The D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 3223/97 has been preferred by Assessee M/s. Vikas WSP Limited to the extent it was dissatisfied by the order of the Tribunal that it is not entitled to benefit of notification in respect of plant installed at Plot No. B-87, Udyog Vihar, Sri Ganganagar with a capacity of 14 MT production of Gwar Gum Powder per day, which was not a new manufactu...
Kedar Nath Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj86; RLW2004(2)Raj778; 2004(1)WLC372
Meena, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.2.2002.2. The appellant has challenged the order of learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the order of District Collector, Bharatpur dated 21.6.2002 and also quashed the proceedings which were in consequence of the notice.3. The petitioner-respondent had filed an application dated 11.6.2002 regarding no confidence motion against the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Kumher, District Bharatpur. On 14.6.2002, he moved second application for withdrawal of the application for no confidence motion. The District Collector, Bharatpur has rejected the application dated 14.6.2002 on 21.6.2002. After rejecting the application of respondent dated 14.6.2002, the District Collector, Bharatpur issued a notice dated 21.6.2002 for convening the meeting to consider the application dated 11.6.2002 for no confidence motion against the Chairman and fixed the date of meeting on 4.7.2002 and ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Anil Panjwani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1675; 2004(1)WLC700
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. On April 24, 2001 a Presiding Officer of subordinate Judicial Court made complaint to the District Judge Jaipur City that the contemner had not only interrupted the solemn Court's proceeding in full view, of the members of the Bar and litigant public but threatened, abused and assaulted him by pen-stand from the dais causing injuries to his fingers while saving his face. The said complaint was forwarded to this Court and cognizance of contempt was taken by this Court on April 30, 2001 and the contemner was ordered to be summoned through non- bailable warrants. After keeping the contemner in jail for some time, bail was granted to him.2. It also appears that the Presiding Officer on April 24, 2001 lodged written report with the Police Station Sadar Jaipur City in regard to the said incident where criminal case bearing FIR No. 185/2001 under Sections 353, 332 IPC and Section 3 P.D.P.P. Act was registered against the contemner and on completion of investigation cha...
Dr. S.S. Khurana Vs. Mahaveer Prasad Through L.Rs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj107; 2004(2)WLC277
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court dated 24-8-1999 by which the first appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 17-8-1998 and passed decree for eviction against the present appellant-defendant.3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-Mahaveer Prasad and Kesha Ram let out the suit premises to the defendant-appellant. It has not come in record that in which year the premises was let out to the defendant but the fact came on record is that in the year 1980, these plaintiffs-respondents, before filing present suit, filed one suit for eviction against the defendant-tenant which was registered as Civil Suit No. 81/80 in the Court of Munisif, Sriganganagar and that suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 27-2-1984. In that suit No. 81/80, there were allegations against the tenant, of causing material alteration in the suit premises and th...
Amar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: I(2004)DMC709; RLW2004(4)Raj2181; 2004(1)WLC350
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Young bride Santosh was found murdered under abnormal circumstances in the morning of Holi Festival. Incidentally it was her first festival of the colours in her in-laws house. The appellants three in number, were placed on trial for having committed dowry death of Santosh before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2. Alwar in Sessions Case No. 32/98. Learned Judge vide judgment dated December 8, 1998 convicted and sentenced each of them as under:-Under Section 304B IPC to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5.000/-, in default to further suffer six MonthsSimple Imprisonment.Under Section 498A IPC to suffer Three Years Rigorous Imprisonmentand fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further sufferThree Months Simple Imprisonment.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Santosh was married to appellant Amar Singh on May 5, 1992 and was found murdered only after 10 months of her marriage i.e. on March 8, 1993 in her Sasural i.e. the house of the a...
Sri Marudhar Kesari Sthanakwasi JaIn Yadgar Samiti Trust Vs. Union of ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)674; [2005]273ITR475(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dt. 13th Oct., 1998 passed by the CIT, Jodhpur under Section 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961 holding that some of the clauses of the trust reveals that these clauses pertain to wholly religious purposes and, therefore, in view of Expln. 3 to Section 80G, the trust does not fall within the ambit of Section 80G(2)(iv) r/w Section 80G(5) so as to permit special deduction to donors to the said trust.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that prior to this order, a trust was recognised as a trust wholly and substantially for charitable purposes, notwithstanding the purposes referred to in the order of the CIT. A very insignificant amount of its income has been spent on the religious purposes. The trust may be deemed eligible for deduction under Section 80G(5), for its donors. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Addl. CFT v...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›