Rajasthan Court March 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.
Champa Lal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2154; 2003(3)WLC220
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The brief facts of the case are that a land was allotted for establishing a petrol pump in the name of Shri Ganpat Singh S/o. Thakur Durjan Singh, who was proprietor of M/s. J.J. Co-operative Stores, Bhinmal by lease deed dated 20th May, 1955. According to the petitioner, instead of moving an application for renewal of the land by the original allottee, an application for unoccupied Government land for establishing a petrol pump was submitted by Janak Singh S/o. Harnath Singh giving address of J.J. Store, Station Road, Bhinmal (Raj.). This application was submitted on 22nd Sept., 1977. Upon this application, after taking into consideration the fact that said petrol pump is in operation since 1955, lease was renewed for further period of 20 years. It appears from the order dated 30th Sept., 1991 (Annex. 3) certain more amount was charged for renewal of the lease. The said lease was converted into a lease for 99 years by order dated...
Birdhi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2337; 2003(3)WLC135
Parihar, J. 1. Petitioner, while working as Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation), Chatargarh, was issued a chargesheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 alongwith a co-delinquent employee vide memorandum dated 5.4.1991. The petitioner also retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.12.1991. Since no reply to the chargesheet was filed by the petitioner, an inquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 7.7.1994. A joint inquiry was to be held against the petitioner as well as the other co-delinquent employee. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 14.8.1996. A copy of the inquiry report was also supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.8.1996.2. Subsequently a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide order dated 26.8.1997 proposing a penalty of stoppage of 20% pension for five years. After considering the representation made by the petitioner and with consultation with the Rajasthan P...
K.K. Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN112
Anil Dev Singh, C. J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 25.2.2002, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:The appellant who was working as Executive Engineer in Public Health and Engineering Department, Jhunjhunu, applied for casual leave from 5.12.1996 to 7.12.1996 and 9.12.1996 to 12.12.1996. The appellant also sought permission to leave station from 5.12.1996 to 12.12.1996 on account of some personal work which was to be attended by him at New Delhi. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, sanctioned the leave as sought by the appellant.On 5.12.1996, the appellant while at New Delhi felt pain in his Chest. He was removed to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, where the appellant as admitted in emergency ward around mid night. In the hospital the appellant was subjected to angiography test on 11.12.1996. Th...
Pink City Apartment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj249; RLW2003(4)Raj2340; 2003(3)WLC126
ORDERGyan Sudha Misra, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the letter dated 7-2-2003 issued by the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur indicating that the plan submitted by him for sanctioning the construction of a high-rise building could not be approved and the plan could not be passed because the height of the building exceeds 27.30 meters which is against the decision of the State Government as indicated in the letter dated 24-9-2002 issued by the Secretary, Urban Development and Local Self Department vide Annex. 9, that high-rise building could not be permitted to be raised by anyone including the builder. The counsel for the respondent-Jaipur Nagar Nigam Mr. Shyam Arya had thereafter submitted that Nagar Nigam is left with no option than to reject the building plan of the petitioner as it is bound by the instructions of the Government. 2. The first question in this regard which arises is whether the Jaipur Nagar Nigam can be held to be bound by the instructions of the Government, but it is not n...
Satish Chandra Mathur and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3413; RLW2003(4)Raj2482; 2003(3)WLC161
Goyal, J.1.Both the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are being decided vide common order as some of the facts and point of law involved are common.2. Briefly narrated the facts of both the petitions are as under :-Misc. Petition No. 508/2000 ;- One F.I.R. No. 6(A)/92 was registered against the accused petitioner Satish Chandra Mathur and two other accused persons namely Rameshwar and Om Prakash Gupta. After investigation, charge-sheet came to filed against Satish Chandra and Rameshwar Balai under Section 120B IPC, read with Section 468, 467, 471 and 409 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act, 1988) for committing criminal breach of trust of a sum of Rs. 48,000/- and making false entries in the records and subsequently a sum of Rs. 24,000/- was re-deposited in loan accounts of the consumer. It was further observed by the Investigation Officer that additional chargesheet against Om Prakash would be submitted a...
Garrison Engineer (Project-i) and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2310; [2004]135STC511(Raj); 2003(3)WLC23
Mathur, J.1. In this group of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Union of India through its two different departments viz; Military Engineering Services and Tele Communications Department, has challenged the constitutional validity of Explanation-II added to Section 2 (14) and Section 2(38) (ii) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', being hit by Article 285 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also challenged the order of assessment as well as the appellate order passed by the authorities under the Act.2. The first set of group of petitions are filed in the name of Garrison Engineers. It is averred that the Military Engineering Services is the department, which is owned and controlled by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. One of its department is Garrison Engineers. The said department is responsible for the construction and maintenance of building and services in the Defence Areas. In order ...
Lakshmi Cement Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: [2004]137STC74(Raj)
1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated July 24, 2002, Reported in Lakshmi Cement v. State of Rajasthan . dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging the reassessment notice dated April 19, 2001 given by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Rajasthan, Circle-I, Jaipur, under Section 30 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RST Act') read with Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as 'the CST Act') for the assessment year 1997-98.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is, inter alia, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling Portland cement and it is registered dealer under the RST Act and the CST Act. The appellant started production of cement before the year 1984-85. Its regular CST assessments for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 were made by the assessing authority, i.e.,Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle,...
Jewels Emporium and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)257; [2003]262ITR304(Raj)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. Since a common question of law is involved in all these petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common order.2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has withdrawn the challenge to the vires of Explanation (aa) added to Sub-section (4B) of Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He simply prayed that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of Section 80HHC of the Act.3. Mr. Kuhad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, relied on the decision of this court in ITO v. Vaibhav Textiles and also the decision of their Lordships in the case of CIT v. Silver and Arts Palace : [2003]259ITR684(SC) (Civil Appeal No. 4478 of 2001, decided on December 18, 2002).4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kuhad, submits that he does not want to press the challenge to the validity of Clause (aa) of Explanation 2 to Sub-section (4B) of Section 80HHC, but he submits that the issue involved regarding deduction under Section 80HHC is ...
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribuna ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Raj)361; [2003]262ITR262(Raj)
1. Since both these appeals involve a common question of law, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), dated October 20, 1999. The appeal was admitted in terms of the following question:'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the penalty of rupees one lakh for each year after proper interpretation of Section 271B read with Section 273B of the Act ?'3. The relevant assessment years are 1990-91 and 1991-92. The Assessing Officer has initiated proceedings for penalty for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1991-92. The turnover of the assessee was more than Rs. 40 lakhs. During these three years, the assessee was obliged to file report in Form No. 3CD along with audited balance-sheet, profit and loss account with the return as per the requirement of Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)466
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that in this appeal under Section 260A of IT Act, 1961, the substantial question of law is required to be considered.3. Admit. Issue notice.4. The substantial question of law which in our opinion is required to be considered in this case is as under :'In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the restaurant attached to a hotel is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 32A of the IT Act and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance in respect of it.'5. Mr. Rajender Mehta accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Both the learned counsel for the parties have invited attention of the Court that on the above subject-matter the Division Bench of this Court in CUT v. Lake Palace Hotels & Motels (P) Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 644 which relates to the respondents' own case for earlier assessmen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »