Rajasthan Court July 2003 Judgments
Nand Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj435; 2004(1)WLC795
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.(1). This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 10.8.1998 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Gram Sewak-cum-Secretary.(2). The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee, Sri Ganganagar by publishing an advertisement in newspapers invited applications for filling up 118 posts of Gram Sewak-cum-Secretary in various Gram Panchayats. The applications were to be submitted in the prescribed proforma. According to the petitioner, the said advertisement was issued most probably in the month of July/August, 1996. It was mentioned in the said advertisement that out of 118 posts, 60 posts shall be for general category, 25 for OBC category, 19 for Scheduled Castes category and 1...
Tag this Judgment!NitIn Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj51; 2004(1)ARBLR476(Raj); 2004(1)WLC493
ORDERGyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This is an application for appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute between the applicant M/s. Nitin Kumar Agarwal and the non-applicant-Public Works Department which arose on account of a construction of Air Strip at Kishangarh District Ajmer which had been undertaken by the applicant. The applicant after completion of the project raised his claim for payment which give rise to a dispute between the parties and hence the applicant filed an application on 14th October, 2002 before the non-applicant Public Works Department for referring the matter to the Standing Committee for settlement of disputes as per Clause 23 of the Agreement of Contract and it would be relevant to quote Clause 23 of the agreement in order to appreciate the controversy involved herein, which states as follows :'If any question, difference or objection, whatsoever arises in any way, in connection with or arising out of this instrument, or the meaning of operation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmveer Sen Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj680; 2003(4)WLC645
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 21.8.1997 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to extend the benefit of regular appointment from the date of initial entry in the service i.e. 18.5.1993 with all consequential benefits.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The father of the petitioner was in the service of the respondents' Department as Assistant Traffic Inspector, who died all of a sudden while in active service and after his death, the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground as LDC vide order Annex.1 dated 12.5.1993, but the same was given on casual/daily wages basis of Rs. 25/- per day and in pursuance of the said order Annex.1, the petitioner joined his duty on 18.5.1993 and a copy of the joining report is marked as Annex.2.The further case of th...
Tag this Judgment!Surajmal and Party Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Raj)129
1. In this appeal the following questions are raised which are stated to be the questions of law :1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of loss of Rs. 4,27,887 in IMFL and Beer account as made by the AO, irrespective of the fact that books of account and trading results shown by the appellant were accepted and no defects were pointed out by the AO in the books of account shown by the appellant ?'2. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of loss of Rs. 4,27,887 as made by the AO on the basis of comparable case and on the basis of estimation, presumption and assumption irrespective of the fact that trading results shown by the appellant were not disbelieved ?'3. 'Whether loss shown by the appellant can be computed on the basis of comparable case of other assessee, irrespective of the fact that the AO did not disbelieve the boo...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.S. Investment Corpn. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)365; [2005]272ITR613(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, 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 law in holding that the interest on amount advanced to M/s Citric India Ltd., Bombay as per the agreement letter dt. 27th July, 1965, had accrued to the assessee-company following the mercantile system of accounting ?'2. The assessee-company agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 to M/s Citric India Ltd. @ 12 per cent interest per annum, but assessee failed to advance full amount of Rs. 20,00,000, under the agreement. The borrowing company raised an objection regarding non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the agreement as assessee has not advanced full amount of Rs. 20,00,000 as per agreement. It fell short of Rs. 3,00,000. The assessee thereafter, has also advanced some more amount in the year 1967. As no interest has been received, therefore, asse...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chand Lunia Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)619
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on application under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961.The following questions are proposed :'1. Whether, on a true and correct Interpretation of Section 69A of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,06,36,909 as undisclosed investment made by the petitioner ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any relevant and cogent material before it to hold that the petitioner was the 'owner' of the silver bars to enable application of Section 69A of the Act ?3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the brden had been correctly placed by the Tribunal on the assessee and whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the brden stood discharged leading to the applicability of the provisions of Section 69A of the Act ?4. Whether, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,06,36,909 made by the AO without any independent material or ev...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Surana and ors. (Smt.) Vs. Pandit Roop Narayan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj144; 2003(4)WLC355
Parihar, J.1. In a suit of eviction, provisional rent was determined by the trial court vide order dated 31.10.2002 which was further affirmed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 23.4.2003. Since regularly revision has been barred under amended provisions of Section 115 C.P.C., the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Courts below as referred above.2. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or 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 in Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review of re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court of tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyam Ameta (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj252; 2004(1)WLC266
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 14.12.1998 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 12.11.1998 (Annex. P/9) passed by Director, College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 1) by which the prayer of the petitioner claiming seniority over the persons selected in the year 1969 was rejected, be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-In response to the advertisement issued in the year 1968 for the vacancies of 1967-68 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'RPSC') for recruitment, selection and appointment to the posts of Lecturers against various specialities including the Speciality of Physics, the petitioner applied against the Speciality of Physics. Thereafter, list of selected candidates in the Speciality of Physics was issued inter-alia ot...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Ishataq Ahmed and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj299; 2004(1)WLC281
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 1.10.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned judgment and award dated 13.3.2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner (respondent No. 2) by which the termination of services of the respondent No. 1 Ishataq Ahmed by the petitioners with effect from 1.8.1980 was not found proper and valid and thus, the respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated back in service, but without back wages, be quashed and set aside.2. It arises in the following circumstances:Vide Notification dated 8th Sept. 1999, the Government made a reference to the respondent No. 2 Labour Court, Bikaner to the effect whether the termination of services of the respondent No. 1 Ishataq Ahmed by the petitioners with effect from 1.8.1980 was proper and valid or not. On that reference, the respondent No. 2 Labour C...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Bhargawa Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Raj)130; [2005]274ITR287(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ?''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the assessment on the AOP had no effect on the levy of penalty ?'2. The case of the assessee is that assessee was a partner in M/s Ranu Brothers (Contracts) alongwith Shri Rajaram and Shri Rahul Bhargava. He had income from property also. He declared share income form M/s Ranu Brothers (Contracts) at Rs. 35,028. The ITO held that the firm Ranu Brothers (Contracts), which had closed, is not a genuine firm and the income earned in the name of firm M/s Ranu Brothers (Contracts) is income of the assessee and included the entire income from that firm in the hands of the assessee, which ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »