Rajasthan Court May 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R.D. Gupta Construction (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)547
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order of Tribunal dt. 12th Dec., 2000. The appeal was admitted in terms of the following questions :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and correct in law in rejecting the miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the Act of the Revenue when there was mistake apparent on the face of record and the mistake was brought to its notice by Revenue ?''Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue when he has accepted the low net profit rate contrary to the accepted rate of net profit of the trade without assessing any reasons ?''Whether the CIT has rightly revised the order of AO under Section 263 and directed to apply 10 per cent net profit rate which is minimum prevalent rate of the trade ?'2. This appeal pertains to asst. yrs. 1996-97. The assessee is a civil contractor and on contract receipts Rs. 52,44,234. A...
Suresh Chand Bansal Vs. Alwar Bharatpur GramIn Bank and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj149; 2003(4)WLC371
Misra, J.1. The petitioner had been appointed on the post of Junior Clerk in the year 1983 in the respondent- Alwar Bharatpur Anchalik Gramin Bank and was put on probation for a period of one year after which it was extended by three months by order dated 1st May 1984. The services of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and hence his period of probation was extended. The petitioner was confirmed on the post therefore but he felt aggrieved after seven years of his confirmation that his extension period should not have been extended for a period of three months meaning thereby that he should have been confirmed on the post immediately after completion of one year. The grievance of the petitioner is that the extension of the period of probation for a period of three months has affected his seniority and hence he has challenged the order extending the period of probation by filing this writ petition.2. Counsel for the petitioner was heard but no argument has been advanced on what bas...
Jai Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj174; 2003(4)WLC159
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Meddling with the water course followed by a wrangle resulted in death of Net Ram. The appellants Jai Singh and Brahmanand along with their brothers Chet Ram and father Harphool were indicated for having committed murder of Net Ram before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Alwar who vide Judgment dated January 20, 1998 did not find the charges proved against Harphool and Chet Ram and acquitted them. However appellants Jai Singh and Brahmanand were found guilty, convicted and sentenced as under:1. Brahmanand :Under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000A in default further suffer six months S.I. 2. Jai Singh : Under Section 302/34 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default further suffer six months S.I. 2. The prosecution case giving rise to this appeal in nutshell is that the informant Ram Kishore (PW. 3) submitted written report (Ex. P.5) to the SHO Police Station Malakhera on December 27, 1996 w...
Ved Prakash and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj627; 2003(4)WLC245
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment and order dated 21.1.1998 passed by the learnedSessions Judge, Dholpur, thereby convicting the accused appellants for offence underSection 302/34 IPC and sentencing reach of them to undergo imprisonment for lifewith a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default thereof, each to undergo rigorous imprisonment forone year.2 The prosecution story unfolded during trial is that on 6.3.96 at .10.30 PM, PW2 Sarwan submitted a written, report at Police Station, Sadar Dholpur, slating thereinthat on the day of incident he had gone to some Sadhu Baba. At about 6.30/7.00 PM,one Hari Singh S/O Badan Singh of his village same to him and informed trial somebody has murdered his father Karan Singh at mustard field Where he had gone toharvest mustard crop. He further informed that he came to his house and on enquiry,his wife Mahadevi informed that at the dusk of the day when she had gone to the fieldto call her father-i...
Ram Ratan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj716; 2003(4)WLC379
Panwar, J.1. By this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.2.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Merta, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. The petitioner has challenged the order only to the extent that the trial court while extending the benefit of probation under Section 5 also extended benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short the Act) which relates to disqualification attached to the conviction. The trial court held that the conviction would not adversely affect the service career of accused petitioner Ram Ratan. The order of the trial court was modified by the appellate court. The petitioner has challenged the order of the appellate court to the extent of its modifying the order of the trial court regarding grant of benefit of Section 12 of the Act.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and order of the trial court...
Radhakishan Ramniranjan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)368; [2005]272ITR410(Raj)
1. This appeal has been admitted in terms of the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining an addition of Rs. 85,000 as made by the AO being unexplained investment in the purchases under Section 69 of the IT Act, 1961, and whether the finding of the Tribunal is perverse ?'2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order of the Tribunal dt. 16th Aug., 2001. The assessee appellant has raised the issue regarding addition of Rs. 85,000 being unexplained investment in the purchases made under Section 69 of the IT Act. 1961.3. The assessee derives income from semi-wholesale business from iron and hardware. The relevant assessment year is 1990-91. The assessee declared income of Rs. 75,270. There was a search on 7th June, 1989, under Section 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Thereafter, regular assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act, inter alia, the addition of Rs. 85,000 is made on account of loose sl...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Asraf Ali and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2003
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR499]; (2004)IIILLJ908Raj; 2004WLC(Raj)UC248
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The matter comes up for orders on an application captioned as application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As on the basis of assertion made in the application itself, the respondent workman has attained the age of superannuation and the question of continuing to pay last drawn wages to the workman in the present case would not arise. However, learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that the appeal itself be heard on merit. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The respondent workman Asraf Ali. was employed with the appellants for almost 24 years. At the time of imposition of punishment in question, he was working as Trademan 'C' He was served with a charge-sheet on the ground that he wilfully remained absent from duty without obtaining leave from February 13, 1986 to May 21, 1986 and by order dated June 12, 1987, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on him by holding that the workman has accepted the delinquency. The ...
Radhakishan Ramniranjan Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN204(Raj)
ORDERThis appeal has been admitted in terms of the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining an addition of Rs. 85,000 as made by the assessing officer being unexplained investment in the purchases under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whether the finding of the Tribunal is perverse ?'2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 16-8-2001. The assessee appellant has raised the issue regarding addition of Rs. 85,000 being unexplained investment in the purchases made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. The assessee derives income from semi wholesale business from iron and hardware. The relevant assessment year is 1990-91. The assessee declared income of Rs. 75,270. There was a search on 7-6-1989 under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, regular assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act, inter alia, the addition of Rs. 85,000 i...
Mahendra Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj353; 2003(4)WLC581
F.C. Bansal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 20, 1998 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases cum Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under- Appellant Mahendra Singhu/S. 148 IPCR.I. for six months.u/S. 302 IPCimprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer two months' R.I.U/S. 307/149 IPCR.I. for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month's R.I.u/S. 325/149 IPCR.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer R.I. for 15 days.u/S. 325/149 IPCR.I. for three month.Appellant Bhupendra Singh u/S. 148 IPCR.I. for six months.u/S. 302/1 49 IPCImprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer R.I. for two month.u/S. 307 IPCR.I. for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer R.I. for on...
Prahlad Sharma Vs. Khubi Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj158; 2003(3)WLC784
Harbans Lal, J.1. This application under Order 40 Rule 1 C.P.C. has been filed on 17.8.2000 by and on behalf of the appellant for appointment of receiver in respect of the property and business of the firm M/s. Modern Auto Services, Bharat-pur.2. Briefly stated, the relevant fact are that the appellants- plaintiffs instituted a suit for dissolution of partnership firm and rendition of accounts which was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.1997 directing appointment of the receiver. The appeal filed by respondent No. 1 Khubi Ram was allowed on 23.5.2000 and the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial court was setaside. So, the present second appeal was filed which has been admitted on 25.8.2000.3. It has been stated in the application that the appellant partner is a in the firm M/s. Modern Auto Service, Bharatpur and is, therefore, entitled to look after and manage its business, assets and affairs, Respondent No. 1 has stopped giving him accounts of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »