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.
Pukh Raj JaIn Vs. Raj. Rajya Sahkari Spinning and Ginning Mills Fed. L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2548
Garg, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 1.12.2001 against the respondents with a prayer that 'by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dtd. 11/13.9.2001 (Annex.P/8) passed by Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Ltd. (respondent No. 1) by which the prayer of the petitioner for seeking voluntary retirement was rejected by quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 1 be directed to retire and relieve the petitioner under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Annex. P. 1) as per application of the petitioner dtd. 10.11.99 (Annex. P.2).2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under :(i) That the petitioner is the permanent employee of respondent No. 1 and working as Accounts Officer in SPINFED Spinning Unit of Gulab-pura. (ii) That respondent. No. 1 framed a scheme (Annex. P/1) to retire its employees who seek voluntary retirement and that s...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Paras Raj G. Shah
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)405; [2004]271ITR225(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, on the application of the CED, Jodhpur in R.A. No. 216/Jp/1997 (arising out of EDA No. 4/Jp/1993), under its order dt. 16th June, 1998, referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in law in holding that levying of interest under Section 70(1) of the ED Act in this case was invalid ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in law in holding that a separate order had to be passed by the Asstt. CED for valid levy of interest under Section 70(1) of the ED Act?'The facts, leading to reference of these two questions for the opinion of the Court, are that late Shri Paras Raj G. Shah, the assessee, died on 16th March, 1982. The return of estate was required to be filed within six months, from the date of expiry by the accountable person. The return of the estate ...
Beerbal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj741; 2003(4)WLC279
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents No. 8.7.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dtd. 30.5.2002 (Annex.)/8) by which appointment of the 4 petitioner on the post of Additional Education Assistant was cancelled by quashed and set aside.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: -i) That an advertisement dtd. 6.5.2002 was issued for appointment to the post of Additional Education Assistant/Female Para Teachers for the Rajeev Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Schools situated in various gram Panchayats. It was further submitted by the petitioner that he is concerned with the advertisement issued for the Gram Panchayat Rajasar @ Karnisar, Dist. Bikaner for which one post of Additional Education Assistant was advertised.ii) That an order dtd. 20.5.2002 was issued by the State Government (respondent No. 1) whereby procedure for s...
Khema Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj722
Sharma, J. 1. The nine appellants were placed on trial before learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 20/97 for having committed murder of Ram Lal. Learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated May 18, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-(1) Babu Lal s/o Chhaju Ram & (2) Chhaju Ram: Under Section 302/149 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to further suffer Six MonthsRigorous Imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC To suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonmentand fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to furthersuffer One Month Rigorous Imprisonment.Under Section 201 IPC To suffer Five Years Rigorous Imprisonmentand fine of Rs. 2000/- , in default to furthersuffer. Three months Rigorous Imprisonment.Under Section 364 IPC To suffer Seven Years Rigorous Imprisonmentand fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to furthersuffer. Three Months Rigorous Imprisonment (3) Murlidhar: Under Section 302/149 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life an...
Polar Marmo Agglomerates Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj948; 2003(3)WLC740
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner's case is that he is engaged in the business of production of agglomerated marble blocks and tiles since 1991. These blocks and tiles of Agglomerated marbles are made from Lumps/chips of naturally excavated marble. The procedure employed in manufacturing the tiles in question is stated to be that marble chips are crushed mechanically in the Jaw crusher/impactor and crushed marble stones in the desired grits sizes are transported to the Mixer where with addition of calcium carbonate powders, polyester resin as binders and pigments for colouring, are mixed and a dough is formed and conveyed into a mould. Such mixture/dough is taken into a vibro-compaction press where under vacuum and pressure the blocks of agglomerated marbles are formed after being cured for slabbing on sang saw and slabs are polished in an automatically operated polishing line, cut into slabs and tiles of the required sizes. These agglomerated marble s...
Khushi Ram Agencies Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj988; 2003(4)WLC287
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in these revision petitions are as under:-'1. Whether the assessee, after submitting Form No. ; ST- 41, stands discharged from liability of payment of tax in view of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 42-A?2. Whether, in case when Form No. ST-41 is submitted, the Assessing Authority should proceed, in case the Assessing Authority decides to hold any inquiry, first against the agent of the assessee treating the Form No. ST-41 as a proof of recovery and payment of tax by the agent of the Principal because of the reason that Form No. ST-41 is a proof of recovery of the tax amount by the agent of the Principal? 3. Whether, even if there is a joint and several liability of payment of tax of the Principal and the agent, still when Forms Nos. ST-40 and ST-41 are submitted then the Assessing Authority can proceed only against the agent and can recover the tax amount after exhaustin...
Pankaj Singhal and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj985; 2003(4)WLC206
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 18.2.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents No. 1 to 5 be directed to give an option to all the officers of India Tourism Development Corporation Limited working in Laxmi Vilas Palace Hotel (respondent No. 4), who are the petitioners in this writ petition to exercise their option to continue to be in the service of respondent No. 2 India Tourism Development Corporation Limited (for short 'the Corporation') and get posted to any of the units/divisions of the said Corporation, which are presently not being disinvested and further, the scheme of transfer of services of the petitioners from respondent No. 2 Corporation to Udaipur Hotels Private Limited (respondent No. 3) be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows:-The petition...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Raj)289; [2004]267ITR363(Raj)
1. This appeal was admitted on 24th May, 2002, and the following substantial question of law was framed by the Court as arising in this appeal as per the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the appellant:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,00,000 by holding that unpaid amount of bottling fee has, on furnishing of bank guarantee, to be treated as actual payment and accordingly the deduction in respect of the same cannot be denied under Section 43B of the IT Act, 1961?'2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent urged that the question framed on 24th May, 2002, is not the real controversy in this case and appears to have been framed because the fact must not have been brought to the notice of the Court that this appeal arises out of proceedings of rectification in intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a), as the assessee in his return claimed deduction the amount of cash deposit for obt...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Distillary Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Raj)614; RLW2004(1)Raj644
Rajesh Balia, J.1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal relates to the asst. yr. 1985-86. The order under appeal is a composite order passed on 27th June, 2001, in nine appeals by the Tribunal, in respect of the asst. yr. 1985-86.3. According to Revenue-appellant, following two substantial questions of law arises in this appeal:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the salary amounting to Rs. 29,80,610 will not fall within the ambit of Section 37(3A) r/w Section 37(3B) even though the same was not paid to the employees of the assessee, overlooking the provisions of Clause (b) of Explanation appended to Section 37(3B) of the IT Act ? (02) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that interest once granted under Section 244(1A) cannot be withdrawn subsequently ?' 4. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, the decision of the Tribunal is based ...
Dayalal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2680; 2003(3)WLC599
Prakash Tatia, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties. These bunch of writ petitions involving substantially common questions of facts and laws are being decided by this, judgment.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 619/1999 & 620/99.1. Six petitioners preferred this writ petition No. 619/1999. All these petitioners were appointed on the post of Additional Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent vide orders issued on various dates in the years from 1985 to 1986, copies of which are placed on record jointly as Annex. 1. These appointment orders were issued by the District Probation and Social Welfare Officer, Banswara. In the appointment orders of the petitioners No. 1, 4, 5, & 6 it is mentioned that they are appointed on the post of Additional Superintendents on fixed allowance of Rs. 250/- per month with the condition that petitioners will have to remain at headquarters and they will have to work regularly and daily. In the appointment order of the respondents No. 2 & 3, it is mentioned tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »