Rajasthan Court July 2003 Judgments
Cit Vs. Babu Lal Shyam Dass Vijay Kumar and Party
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN47(Raj)
ORDERThe assessee while making purchases during the previous year relevant to assessment year 1990-1991 made payment by way of cheques as well as by cash for purchases. Assessing officer treated the purchases in question as genuine. The revenue appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the purchases made by the assessee were genuine. Thereafter, the matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal. While one member of the Tribunal was of the opinion that the cash purchases had not been proved to be genuine, the other member held that the purchases were genuine. In view of the difference of opinion between two members, the matter was referred to the third member. The third member on consideration of the material available on record came to the conclusion that the purchases and payments in dispute were genuine. Therefore, the Tribunal held that payments and purchases by the assessee were genuine. Since the question whether the purchases and payme...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Dixit Vs. Inspector General (Prisons) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj187
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The prayer of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is as under:-'It is therefore, humbly prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and to call for and examine the record of the case and to pass appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof:(i) to direct the respondents to correctly calculate the remission and consequently to grant the benefit of remission properly to the petitioner;(ii) to direct the respondents to include the remission period while calculating the entire sentence spent by the petitioner for the purpose of considering the case for admission to Open Air Camp;(iii) to quash and set aside the order dated January 30, 2003;(iv) to quash and set aside the order dated February 22, 2003;(v) to direct the respondents to send the petitioner to Open Air Camp;(vi) to declare the petitioner as senior most prisoner amongst prisoners in the jail;(vii) to declare the entire action of the res...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Kapoor (Dr.) Vs. Mohanlal Sukhadia University and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj271; 2003(4)WLC599
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 26.6.2003 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the memorandum of charges dated 11.2.2003 (Annex. 1) issued by the respondent No. 2 Registrar, Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur (for short 'the University') against the petitioner in respect of an enquiry, be quashed and set aside and the respondents be restrained from holding disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of memorandum of charges Annex. 1.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The petitioner is holding the post of Professor in the Department of Botany in the respondent University.A complainant Annex. R/4 was received by the office of the Vice-Chancellor of respondent University from students of Science College, Udaipur on 7.12.2002 against the petitioner and on the basis of that complaint Ann...
Tag this Judgment!imeco Ultrasonics Vs. National Engineering Industries Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj998; 2003(4)WLC444
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.8.2002, passed by the trial court, by which, evidence of the petitioner has been closed and application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been rejected. The regular revision petition filed by the petitioner against the above order has also been dismissed by this court vide order dated 30.5.2003 on the ground of not being maintainable in view of amended provisions of Section 115 of the Code. Hence, the present writ petition invoking jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or the Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corpn.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: [2004]54SCL454(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. In this group of the company applications the applicants are praying for identical relief and thus the same are taken up for hearing together and arc being decided by this common order.2. Facts for deciding these applications are taken from S.B. Company Application No. 27 of 2003.3. The applicant in S.B. Company Application No. 27/2003 filed a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6061/2002 in this Court against the State of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation. It is stated that in case the writ petition is allowed the applicant shall be allowed for the family pension.4. The Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation was ordered to be wound-up by this Court under its order dated 3rd of September, 1997. This application is filed under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 for grant of permission to the applicant to proceed with the writ petition against the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation (in liquidation).5. Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Krishna Sharma and Vs. Shahibi General Finance and Investments L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: I(2006)BC320; [2005]125CompCas96(Raj); [2005]63SCL504(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Respondents Nos. 1 and 4 are not served.2. This is a winding up petition filed by the petitioner for winding up of the respondent No. 1-company.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is one of the ex-directors of the respondent-company. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have raised a preliminary objection that this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is one of the ex-directors of the respondent-company and he cannot resort to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the respondent-company for recovery of his dues. He has remedy of the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 46,565 allegedly due against the respondent-company.4. I am in agreement with the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that the petitioner being one of the ex-directors of the respondent-company, cannot resort to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.5. In the result, this winding up petition fails and the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Sharifulla Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4768; RLW2004(1)Raj114
K.C. Sharma, J.1. These two criminal appeals, on by appellant Sharifulla and another by Inam have been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Additional Sessions Judge Dausa, thereby convicting both the appellants for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default there to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the facts of these two appeals are that on 1.1.1989 Mohan Singh P.W. 7 submitted a written report Ex. P8 at Police Station Mahuwa, District Sawai Madhopur (presently in District Dausa) mentioning therein that on 1.1.1989 at about 7.00 in the morning at some distance from their hotel number of persons had collected and on inquiry it was revealed that some person had thrown the body of unknown person in the pits on the road sid...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Prasad Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)264; [2005]272ITR598(Raj)
1. The appeal was admitted in terms of the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition of 15 Tolas gold jewellery in the hands of the appellants being treated as unexplained investment irrespective of the facts that affidavit furnished by the appellant was not disbelieved by the Tribunal ?'2. On 3rd Feb., 1993, a search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of the assessee-appellant under Section 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'). During the course of search, some books, documents, cash and jewellery were found and seized. The relevant assessment year is 1993-94. On 30th March, 1994, the assessee has shown income of Rs. 51,954.3. A notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act was issued. Reply, in detail, was filed by the assessee, inter alia, stating that there was an addition on account of jewellery found. Total jewellery, found at the premise...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj191; 2003(4)WLC419
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. In respect of incident occurred on October I, 1995 five accused were tried for having committed murder of Moti Lal, by the learned Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Attrocities Cases) Sawai Madhopur. The learned judge vide judgment dated November 20, 1976 convicted and sentenced all the accused as under -Under Section 148 IPC to suffer two years R.I.Under Section 302/149 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further sentence of one Year R.I.Under Section 323/149 IPC to suffer one year R.I.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.(2). Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on October 1, 1995 the informant Banshi (PW. 7) and Moti (now deceased) were called by the appellants to their house to settle the boundary dispute. On hearing from Moti that question of fresh settlement did not arise as the dispute had already been resolved before the villagers, accused Ram Gopal, Ramcharan, Paras Ram, Har...
Tag this Judgment!Goverdhan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj237
Garg, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 3.8,2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order Annex. 8 dated 19.12.2001 passed by the respondent No. 4 Joint Director, Pension and Welfare Department, Ajmer by which a recovery of Rs. 1,30,869/- was made from the Gratuity Payment Order of the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The petitioner was appointed in the respondent Department as Surveyor on 16.2.1970 and after completion of two years service, he was declared as Semi Permanent on the post of Surveyor w.e.f. 16.2.1972 vide order Annex. 1 dated 17.1.1973 issued by the respondent Department and thereafter he became permanent w.e.f. 16.2.1980. According to the petitioner, his pay scale was revised and he was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 470-10-490-20-830 vide order Anne...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »