Rajasthan Court April 2003 Judgments
Amra Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1822; 2003(3)WLC631
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 7.9.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 1.10.1999 (Annex. 4) passed by the respondent No. 3 Dy. Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur by which the charges levelled against the petitioner in an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules') were found proved and the petitioner was reverted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector from the post of Sub Inspector for a period of three years, the order dated 25.3.2000 (Annex. 6) passed by the respondent No. 2 the Director General of Police, Jaipur by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order Annex. 4 dated 1.10.1999 was dismissed and the order dated 3.4.2001 (Annex. 8) by which the review petition of the petitioner was dismissed ...
Tag this Judgment!Murari Lal Rathore Vs. Jagdamba Traders and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj68; III(2003)BC435; RLW2003(4)Raj2643; 2003(3)WLC204
Harbans Lal, J. 1. The instant civil revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 13.2.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran in Civil Original Suit No. 19/2002 whereby the application of defendant-non-petitioners under Order 37 Rule 3(5), C.P.C. has been allowed and they have been granted leave to defend in the suit.2. The relevant facts, in brief are that plaintiff-petitioner instituted a civil suit before the learned Court below under Order 37, C.P.C. with the averments that he sold Coriander seed worth Rs. 2,44,406/-, to non-petitioner-defendants on 4.12.2001, and supplied the same in 250 bags through a truck and also issued a bill No. 1423 dated 4.12.2001 in respect thereof and the same was received by non-petitioners on 5.12.2001. As per the contract of sale executed between the parties on 1.12.2001, the payment was to be made within 20-25 days of receipt of goods. Petitioner requested non-petitioners vide telegram dated 9.1.2002...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Mal Vs. Ganghir Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2648; 2003(3)WLC211
Harbans Lal, J.1. The instant civil revision petition Under Section 115 C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 29.5.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Tonk in appeal No. 25/2001 Under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (here-in-after referred to in short 'the Act') whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the order dated 28.4.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (JD) Tonk on the applications Under Section 13(4) of the Act and Under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act have been rejected and the defence of petitioner- defendant has been struck out.2. The relevant facts, in short are that non-petitioner- plaintiff instituted a suit on 28.8.1996 in the trial court for eviction on twin grounds of default and bonafide reasonable personal necessity. Petitioner-defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and denying the averments made in the plaint. As the suit was also filed on the ground of default Under Section 13(l)(a) of ...
Tag this Judgment!General Manager, Western Railway Church Gate and ors. Vs. Laxmi NaraIn ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1190]; RLW2004(2)Raj776
Misra, J.1. Whether the payment of wages authority while computing wages under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 in pursuance of an award passed by the Labour Court in favour of the workman after contest, can be held to have exceeded his jurisdiction while directing the management to make the payment, is the point which needs to be addressed in this writ petition.2. To Appreciate the controversy it may be stated that this writ petition has been filed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway Kola against the respondent-Laxmi Narain Meena in whose favour an order under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has been passed by the Labour Court Jaipur computing Rs. 8,432/- as his travelling allowance which was ordered to be paid to him within a period of three months alongwith 12% interest per annum. This claim of the petitioner was based on the averment that he was posted with the respondent- Goods Supervisor Bharatpur on 1.1.85 when he had to tr...
Tag this Judgment!Bheru Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1409; 2003(3)WLC481
Singh, C.J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the orders, dated 7.7.2000 (Annex.P/8) and 11.07.2000 (Annx.P/9), passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer; and Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Mandal (Bhilwara), respectively. By the first order dated 7.7.2000 the petitioner, who was elected as Sarpanch of Gram' Panchayat, Dhunwala (Tehsil Mandal) on 31.1.2000, was placed under suspension by the Divisional Commissioner and a recommendation was made to the State Government for declaring the seat vacant since he was elected as a general category candidate, against a reserved seat. Even by the second order dated 11.07.2000 the petitioner was placed under suspension from the elected post of Sarpanch, Gram panchayat, Dhunwala, by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Mandal.2. The facts giving rise to the petition, are as follows:-The District Election Officer published a list of wards and constituencies specifying the seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Raj)622; [2004]270ITR72(Raj)
1.On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT At, 1961, Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court :For asst. yr. 1983-84 to 1985-86 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction under Section 80I of the IT Act, 1961, was allowable to the assessee-company even though the industrial undertaking was not run by the assessee itself.' For asst. yr. 1985-86 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made under Section 43B ?' 2. The relevant assessment years are 1983-84 to 1985-86. The entire factory premises including machinery, etc. were leased out by the assessee-company to M/s Pratap Rajasthan Special Steels Ltd. w.e.f. August, 1981, No manufacturing activities were carried on by the assessee-company itself as the entire plant had been leased out from the very first month of the previous year rele...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2473; 2003(3)WLC320
Sharma, J.1. Eight appellants were placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Deeg (Bharatpur) for having committed murder of Smt. Buddho in Sessions Case No. 118/94. The learned Judge vide judgment dated May 16, 1997 convicted and sentenced each of them as under -1.2.3.4.5.KamalGanga Sharan@ SharanLeeleBhagwan Sahai @ PappuHarrou/Sec. 147 IPCto suffer 6 monthsS.I. and fineof Rs. 100/-in default to further suffer 1 month S.I. u/Sec. 341 IPC u/Sec. 148 IPC u/Sec. 307/149 IPC u/Sec. 302/149 IPCto suffer 3 monthsS.I. and fineof Rs. 100/-in default to further suffer one month S.I.to suffer 6 months SI and fine of Rs. 100 indefault to further suffer one month S.I.to suffer 3 years SI and fine of Rs. 1000 indefault to further suffer 6 months S.I.to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000 indefault to further suffer six months S.I.6.7. ManshoJawaharu/Sec. 147 IPCu/Sec. 323 IPCu/Sec. 148 IPCu/Sec. 307/149 IPCu/Sec. 302 IPCto suffer 6 monthsS.I. and fineof Rs. 100/-...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntala (Smt.) Vs. Davendra Kumar Mool Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2646; 2003(3)WLC219
Harbans Lal, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner on the admission of this civil revision petition Under Section 115 C.P.C. which is directed against the order dated 9.12.2002 of the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer in Civil Regular Appeal No. 14/1997 rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement at the appellate stage filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C.2. Non-petitioner instituted a suit for possession of Quarter No. 25 described in para 2 of the plaint and for a decree of Rs. 2160/- along with pendentelite and future mesne profits till the delivery of the possession stating therein that he was the owner of the disputed property on the basis of a sale certificate dated 5.10.1972 having purchased it in auction held in execution of a decree in Civil Execution Case No. 3/1968. Petitioner (defendant) in that suit contested the suit by filing a written statement and denying the averments made in the plaint. The s...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Rajasthan Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN194(Raj)
On an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :For assessment years 1983-84 to11985-86 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction under section 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was allowable to the assessee company even though the industrial undertaking was not run by the assessee itself?'For assessment year 1985-86 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made under section 43B ?'2. The relevant assessment years are 1983-84 to 1985-86. The entire factory premises including machinery etc. were leased out by the assessee-company to M/s. Pratap Rajasthan Special Steels Ltd. with effect from August, 1981. No manufacturing activities were carried on by the assessee-company itself as the entire plant had been leased out from the very first m...
Tag this Judgment!NizamuddIn Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)70; [2003]264ITR107(Raj)
1.On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gift made by the assessee in favour of his three minor sons in the form of Hiba under the Mohammedan Law attracts the provisions of Section 64(l)(v) r/w Section 27(i) of the IT Act, 1961, and, therefore, the rental income of the three minors from the properties gifted to them by the assessee. was includible in the total income of the assessee for the three years under consideration ?'2. Assessment years, in all, are 1983-84 to 1985-86, that assessee-respondent has made oral declarations on Nov., 1982 in favour of his minor sons Zahiruddin and Mohd. Zafar and similar declarations have been made on 31st Dec., 1982, in favour of his minor son Moinuddin. The assessee, by these oral declarations, claimed that he has gifted the properties to his min...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »