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.
Shanti Devi and anr. (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2003
Reported in: II(2003)DMC816; RLW2004(1)Raj690; 2003(4)WLC111
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 is directed against the impugned order dated 13.2.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jodhpur (for short, 'the trial Court'), whereby the trial court famed charges against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this revision, in succinct, are that on 18.9.02, Smt. Mamta Soni was found lying unconscious in train No. 200 Down in Jaipur-Bikaner Coach. She was taken to the Government Hospital, Nagaur, where she died during treatment. During inquiry under Section 174, Cr.P.C., a copy containing suicidal note in four/five pages, written by the deceased Smt. Mamta, was found in the bag of deceased Smt. Mamta, was recovered wherein she had mentioned that she was being harassed by her in-laws for dowry and was subjected to man-handling off and on. After investigation, the Railway Police filed the cha...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Lake End
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Raj)478; [2004]267ITR62(Raj)
1. Heard.2. On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, 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 justified in applying the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. : [1980]122ITR49(SC) and thereby holding that the expenditure incurred in restoring the swimming pool and the boundary wall were allowable as revenue expenditure ?'3. The assessee is a registered firm running a hotel. The relevant assessment year is 1988-89. The hotel had a swimming pool and boundary wall. Both these were demolished by the district authorities alleging infringement of local laws. The assessee filed writ petition, On the writ petition, High Court ordered for restoring the demolished portion. The assessee has thereafter restored the original swimming pool and boundary wall at the same place and with the same height and incurred expenditure of Rs. 59,...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Lt ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Raj)475; [2004]271ITR460(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred following question for opinion of this Court :'Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in allowing depreciation on guest-house ignoring the specific provisions of Section 37(4) prohibiting allowance of depreciation on guest-house ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1986-87. The assessee has transacted some business as in earlier years. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that assessee has claimed depreciation in respect of guest-house maintained by the assessee. The AO denied that claim. In appeal, CIT(A) was of the view that assessee has not furnished any evidence to support that guesthouse was used for professionals, etc. and held that when the asset, in the nature of guest-house, has not been used for the purpose of business, there was no justification for allowing depreciation on such asset. In appeal, the Tribunal followed the decision of Bombay High Court in CIT v....
V.S. Tiwari and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ202; RLW2003(3)Raj1750; 2003(3)WLC761
Garg, J. 1. The point for consideration in this writ petition which has arisen from the preliminary objection taken by the respondents is whether the statutory remedy available to the petitioners Under Section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950'), if it is not availed, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable or not. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 16.12.2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the orders of award of sentences marked as Annexs. 17 to Annex. 21 passed after holding the petitioners guilty of the charges levelled against them by the Court Martial and further, the confirmation orders (Annex. 22 and Annex. 23) passed by the respondent No. 3. General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, HQs Southern Command, Pune (Maharashtra), who was confirming authority, be quashed and ...
Nanglia Syntex Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Developmen ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj335; I(2004)BC283; RLW2004(1)Raj124
ORDERHarbans Lal, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. challenges the order dated 16-4-2001 of the learned ADJ No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby issue No. 4 pertaining to the maintainability of the application filed under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act 1951 (in short 'theAct') has been decided against the petitioners.2. The relevant facts which are not in dispute are that the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur (in short 'the RIICO') advanced on 7-3-1988 a loan of Rs. 95 lacs to the petitioner for installation of a factory at Abu Road, Sirohi for the production of texterized/filament twisted yarn, who executed the necessary documents in favour of the non-petitioner. As the petitioner failed to repay the loan as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties, the loan was re-scheduled but the petitioner failed to repay the loan even as per the re-scheduled package. The non-petitioner, therefore, to...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mst. Prem and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj101
Lal, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act) has been referred by the insurance Company against the judgment/awarded dated 1.11.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur city awarding an amount of Rs. 6,80,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 27.10.1999 till realisation.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that claimant respondent Nos. 1 to 5 who are heirs of deceased Pooran filed a claim on 27.100.99 before the Tribunal claiming Rs. 16,46,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Pooran who was going on motor cycle No. HR 3264 along with Shiv Lahari and Ram Phool in Sector-3 Good Year Chick, Faridabad on 7.10.1999 and the truck bearing No. HR-38-2172, which was insured with the appellant insurance company, was owned by Ramesh Kumar respondent No. 6 and was being driven rashly and negligently by Kashmir respondent No. 5, dashed aga...
Sanjay Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj970; 2003(4)WLC275
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 25.9.1998 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander with effect from 1.6.1998 with all consequential benefits including confirmation, seniority etc.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander in Police Department, Government of Rajasthan is governed by the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1989').The posts of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander are inter- changeable. There is same recruitment process and same qualifications are required for the post of Sub Inspector and Platoon Commander. The examinations and selections are also common.Under the Ru...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)72; [2004]267ITR366(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dt. 15th Dec., 2000.3. At the time of admission following substantial question of law was framed which has arisen for consideration in this appeal :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no mistake within the meaning of Section 154 of the Act in allowing deduction of Rs. 6,00,000 by way of bank guarantee under Section 43B of the Act ?'4. However, after hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the order passed in appeal, we are of the opinion that the question does not convey the real controversy raised in this appeal and it needs to be reframed for the purpose of deciding this appeal.5. The question, which arises for consideration, in our opinion is, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, an intimation making assessment under Section 143(1)(a)...
Chainsingh Panwar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2203; 2003(3)WLC789
Garg, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 5.1.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to reimburse all the expenses incurred by the petitioner on treatment of his Coronory Artery By Pass Surgery as Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi and all other ancillary tests performed by him at various Labs and Hospitals.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :-The petitioner is a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service and presently, he is working as Land Settlement Officer, Jodhpur. When the petitioner got himself checked at Government Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, he was found suffering from Cardiac trouble and he was advised for stress thallium and since that facility was not available in the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner went to Delhi. A copy of the prescription d...
Shaitan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2538; 2003(4)WLC317
Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire record of the writ petition, memo of appeal and the order of learned Single Judge challenged in this appeal.2. We cannot dismiss the appeal only on the ground that the interim relief is not granted by us and the selection, which was made for the appointment on the post of IIIrd Grade teacher in the year 1994 have already been culminated in the appointments and all the vacancies advertised are filled. In case on this ground the relief is declined to the litigant who approached to this Court, it will be negation of justice.3. The appellant is not responsible for this delay in decision in the matter by the Court. It is a system and for which the appellant cannot be blamed and that too to the extent to close this matter only on the ground that it could not be decided at an early date. It is a discretion of the court in the given case to grant or may not grant interim relief.4. In pursuance of the advertisement, Annex. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »