Rajasthan Court February 2003 Judgments
Vir Singh Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2675; 2003(3)WLC177
Keshote, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 20th October 1994 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Behror in Misc. Case No. 38/94.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the claimant- petitioner and others filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar, claiming therein the compensation of Rs. 13,15,000/-. This claim petition was filed on 29th May, 1986. Thereafter, it was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2 Alwar and later on, on 28th November, 1992, the same was sent to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Behror.3. On 20th of August, 1993 the claim petition was dismissed for non-filing of P.F. and notices in pursuance of the order dated 25.2.93. The petitioner submitted an application for restoration thereof, which was also came to be rejected under the impuged order. This, this revision petition.4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Mukund Das Vishnu Kumar Rathi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN976(Raj)
Since similar questions of law are involved in both the reference applications, both are being decided by this common judgment.2. By this application under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that gratuity liability is an ascertained liability and, therefore, the same should be deducted while determining the market value of share of M/s. Krishna Mills Ltd., Beawar 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that provisions of section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act are applicable in respect of immovable properties occupied by partners for their self-residence notwithstanding the fact that the properties belonged to the firm ?3. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chander Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2485; RLW2003(2)Raj881; 2003(2)WLC414
Goyal, J. 1. Vide this petition under Section 182 Cr.P.C. the accused petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.2.2003 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar ordered to summon three witnesses in exercise of powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. In Sessions Case No. 83/2002.2. The relevant facts in very brief are that the accused petitioner Sh. Ram Chander is facing trial for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for causing murder of five persons including him own wife, daughters and sons.3. The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. The prosecution closed down its evidence on 8.1.2003 and the case was fixed for further proceedings as provided under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but vide impugned order dated 4.2.2003 the learned Judge ordered to summon three press reporters namely Ramesh Sharma, Devendra Shastri and Abdul Razak on the ground that the confessional statement of the accused petitioner was published in the newspapers, hence these three witnesses should b...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vidhu Bhargava Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1102; 2003(2)WLC403
Misra, J.1. The petitioner had been elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Khairabad District Kola, who has been removed from this post by virtue of a no confidence motion which had been passed against her as the motion had been supported by the majority of the members of the Panchayat Samiti. The petitioner has challenged this no confidence motion on several grounds on which a show cause notice was issue to the respondents, in response to which, the respondents also are represented by their advocates.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri A.K. Bhargava first of all contended that no confidence motion which was passed against the petitioner is fit to be quashed and set aside as to no confidence motion had not been presented before the competent authority of the Panchayat Samiti, who was the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad and in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment reported in 1998(2) WLC 546 delivered in the case of Smt. Manjula v. State of Rajasthan and Or...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Singh and ors. Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1293; 2003(2)WLC559
Rathore, J.1. Since all these writ petitions are directed against the order dated 25.10.99 as common question is involved, all the abovesaid four writ petitions are decided by this common order.2. Before proceeding in this case it is pertinent to mention here that how these cases came to be listed before me. For this I would like to cite the proceedings taken in the case of Ajay Singh v. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and Ors. (1)3. This writ petition was listed before this Court on 13.3.2000. On that date, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiv Kumar Sharma made it exception and ordered that the writ petition be placed before another Bench. Again, the matter came to be listed on 17.4.2000 before Justice Ashok Parihar and on the request it was ordered that this writ petition No. 791/2000 be listed along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 775/2000. On 28.4.2000 these writ petitions came to be listed along with writ petition No. 444/2000 and these writ petitions were admitted and notices w...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Urmila Ranka Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Raj)153; [2003]262ITR321(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 64(6) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deceased had 1/3rd share in Nahata Bhawan, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur, and the said share passed on the death of the deceased ?Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not computing the value of Nahata Bhawan in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ?Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not applying multiple of ten on the net maintainable rent while computing value of Nahata Bhawan ?Whether the Tribunal was right in law in determining interest of the deceased in Nahata Bhawan at Rs. 2 lakhs ?'2. In the case in hand, the facts are that one Shri Prakashmal Nahata died on September 6, 1970. There are eight accountable persons. Smt. Urmila Nahata was the wife of the deceased and she filed the estate duty return in respect of the properties, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Haji Jan Mohd. Gaur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: [2004]267ITR765(Raj)
1. We have heard Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, learned counsel for the Revenue.2. The only contention raised is that the Tribunal has committed error in deleting an addition of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of cars held by the assessee in the name of other parties. On elaborate discussion, the Tribunal has found that the Department has failed to produce any evidence that the subject vehicles were owned and possessed by the assessee, except the fact, that the names of the vehicles were written on the back page of annexure 2. On such material, it cannot be concluded that the vehicles were held benami by the assessee. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a finding of fact.3. Learned counsel has referred to a decision of the apex court in Chuharmal v. CIT : [1988]172ITR250(SC) . In the said case the wrist watches were found in possession of the assessee. In view of this fact it was held that it could be deemed to be an income of the assessee.4. In the instant case, it is not the case of the Revenue ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Haji Jan Mohd. Gaur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN644(Raj)
ORDERWe have heard Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat learned counsel for the revenue.2. The only contention raised is that the Tribunal has committed error in deleting an addition of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of cars held by the assessee in the name of other parties. On elaborate discussion the Tribunal has found that the department has failed to produce any evidence that the subject vehicles were owned and possessed by the assessee, except the fact, that the names of the vehicles were written on the back page of the Annexure-2. On such material, it cannot be concluded that the vehicles were held Benami by the assessee. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a finding of fact.3. The learned counsel has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in Chuharmal v. CIT : [1988]172ITR250(SC) . In the said case the wrist watches were found in possession of the assessee. In view of this fact it was held that it could be deemed to be a income of the assessee.4. In the instant case it is not the case of the re...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ratan Nagar Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj846; 2003(2)WLC434
Misra, J. 1. All the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions had been admitted into the Course of Diploma in Pharmacy Part-I for the session 1 999-2000. The examinations of all the papers for Part-I Diploma in Pharmacy was scheduled to be held in the year 2000, but due to late session prevailing in the University, the examination for Part-I Course was held in August 2001 and the results for this examination were declared in November 2001. The petitioners admittedly were declared unsuccessful in this examination as they had failed to clear more than two papers in Part-I examination. The University of Rajasthan in view of Ordinance 278-H (VI)(d) does not permit admission to students in Part-II of the Diploma Pharmacy Course as it envisages that only those candidates who had cleared all the subjects and passed the Diploma in Pharmacy Part-I Course, are entitled to be admitted in Part-II. It further lays down that failure in more than two subjects (each Theory paper or Practical examin...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1248; 2002(2)WLC571
Parihar, J.1. The petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Gr. III in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 1998. As per circular, issued by the State Government in regard to the above selections, 10 bonus marks were provided for residents of the District, for which the selections were to be made, and further 5 bonus marks were provided for the residents of rural area of the District. Providing benefit of bonus marks, as referred above, came to be challenged by some of the candidates by way of filing writ petitions before this court.2. In view of different Views, expressed by some of the Benches, the matter came to be referred to the Larger Bench of this court. The Larger Bench decided the controversy in favour of the petitioners, who had challenged the validity of providing bonus marks on the basis of residency, as referred above. The controversy ultimately came to be raised before the Supreme Court in the SLPs, filed by the following categories of per...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »