Rajasthan Court August 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Uttam Chand Nahar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)616; [2005]274ITR376(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In this appeal, following substantial question of law arises out of the Tribunal's order dt. 18th Sept., 2002 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the reopening of the fact that proceedings initiated were on the basis of vague and non-specific information, which otherwise against the material on record ?'2. The facts of the case are that after an intimation was sent under Section 143(l)(a) in respect of return filed by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1991-92 within the time prescribed, thereafter, notice for proceedings under Section 143(2) was not issued within the time prescribed, but proceedings under Sections 147/148 for reassessment have been initiated solely on the basis of failure on the part of assessing authority to take proper proceedings within the time prescribed for regular assessment.3. On that premise, the notice under Section 147/148 of the IT Act for reopening of assessment for the a...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Dass Through L.Rs. Vs. Kashi Prasad JaIn Through L.Rs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj49; 2003(4)WLC563
Goyal, J.1. This First Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short C.P.C.) is preferred against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 16.3.1993, in Civil Suit No. ' 81/88, whereby decree of eviction from the suit premises was passed in favour of the plaintiff landlord Shri Kashi Prasad (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff) against the defendant tenant Shri Purshottam Das (here-in-after referred to as 'the defendant' (now both deceased).2. The relevant facts for decision of this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, on 26.7.1984, with the averments that northern flat in the Plot No. A-11 at Jaipur, was given on monthly rent of Rs. 375/- to the defendant on 1.6.1976, which was enhanced to Rs. 450/- from 1.1.1978. The plaintiff sought eviction on the following grounds :-(i) that the defendant committed default in payment of rent for more than six month...
Tag this Judgment!Neelam Sharma Vs. Sri Gangadas Irrigation System
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC457; 2003WLC(Raj)UC750
Harbans Lal, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of order dated 29.9.2002 passed by learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Notes) Cases, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 176/2002 whereby the order dated 18.9.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 16, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 917/2001 closing the evidence in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been upheld.2. The relevant facts are that in the case instituted on the complaint of non-petitioner-complainant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the defence evidence was closed on 18.9.2002 as the remaining defence witnesses did not appear despite service of summons on them. The written application moved by and on behalf of the accused for summoning the remaining witnesses as per the list was also rejected on the same day.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the Court below is arbitrary and n...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: [2005]272ITR401(Raj)
1. No question of law arises from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench.2. The employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board are being paid conveyance allowance for discharging official duties. It is not disputed that in the first instance the employees pay for the conveyance expenses and thereafter the same are reimbursed to them by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board.3. The principal officer of the Board did not deduct tax at source from the amounts paid to the employees on account of conveyance allowance received by them during the financial year 1990-91 relevant to the assessment year 1991-92. The Assessing Officer considered the conveyance allowance as part of the income of the employees, imposed additional tax on the principal officer of the Board ; and levied interest under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, on it. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Sarita Choudhary
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj14; RLW2004(3)Raj1671; 2004(1)WLC106
1. Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 18th August, 2003, the Secretary Education, the Director College Education and the Registrars of all the three Universities are present in person. The respective parties have submitted their compliance reports, which we have perused.2. The question involved in the instant Special Appeal as recorded in the order dated 3-4-2002 is as follows:'The question involved in this Special Appeal is required to be considered from the wider perspective, as Students Union of a College or University can be said to be the laboratory of democratic governance of the Country. We look forward to the future of the Country in the hands of the present youth in Colleges and Universities. Thus, there is a duty cast on the authorities and teachers concerning the Colleges and Universities responsible for the exemplary good conduct and behaviour of the students in general and office bearers of the Students Union in particular.'3. It was noted that the State Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Vimal Choudhary Vs. Nagar Nigam and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj17; RLW2003(4)Raj2508; 2003(4)WLC687
Singh, C.J.1. It is a common sight that people who do not have dwelling places and are steeped in poverty and have come to the city to look for work for economic reasons, as a compulsion use roads and footpaths for easing themselves. This not only presents an ugly sight and creates un-hygienic conditions in the city, but it also compromised human dignity. It also hurts national pride. In catena of decisions, right to life has been construed widely. On a larger canvass, right to life, includes everything which gives meaning to life and makes it wholesome and worth living. It means much more than survival or animal existence. Article 21 of the Constitution of India in its expanded horizon embraces medley of concepts including any aspect of life, which makes life dignified.2. Therefore, the State must provide means to the citizens to live a life of dignity, a life worth living. Failure of the State to provide such a life negates Article 21 of the Constitution. In the circumstances we cons...
Tag this Judgment!Suwati Wife of Shri Mali Ram Vs. Smt. Sarla Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1163
S. k. Keshote, J.1. The matter is placed on the board on the application filed by the petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The revision petition is barred by 58 days.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the application as well as on the merits of the revision petition and perused the contents thereof.3. Challenge has been made in this revision petition by the defendant petitioner to the order dated 28th of August, 2000 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sikar in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 1999 to the extent where it declines to order for restoration of the possession of the suit premises.4. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff non-petitioners for eviction of the non-petitioners No. 6 to 8 from the suit premises i.e. the shop. The suit was decreed on 26th of March, 1998. The defendant petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. She also prayed for restoration of the possession of the suit premises. After hearing the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4601; RLW2003(4)Raj2721; 2003(1)WLC674
Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 28.7.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No. 25/97 by which the learned Special Judge while acquitting the accused appellant for the offence under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act') and for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 302, 341 IPC and 4 read with Section 25(1)(B)(B) of the Arms Act and sentenced in the following manner :-Name ofaccused appellantconvictedunder sectionsentenceawardedKaluSingh302 IPCLifeImprisonment & fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to furtherundergo one month SI 341 IPCOne month SI.4 read with section 5(1)(B)(B) ofArms ActThreeyears SI and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 daysSI.2. It may be...
Tag this Judgment!Doongar Singh Vs. Rameshwar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj12; RLW2004(3)Raj1452; 2004(1)WLC496
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. The controversy is short but of importance and far reaching consequence is involved in this revision petition. The controversy involved in this revision petition is that in cases where appeal is provided, can examination-in-chief be taken on record by affidavit despite the specific provision under Rule 5 of Order 18, C.P.C. which provides recording of the statement of all the witnesses in the Court.2. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that the point in controversy has already been decided by this Court in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 750/2002, Laxman Das v. Dhanpat Mal and Ors., decided on the provisions of Order 18, Rules 4 and 5, C.P.C. held that in case where orders (decree) would be appealable, the evidence is required to be recorded strictly as provided under Order 18, Rule 5, C.P.C. Learned counsel for the parties also pointed out that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, delivered in case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Na...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pyari Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4599; 2004(1)WLC55
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner Smt. Pyari Devi wife of convict Birda Singh, has moved this Court by way of letter petition seeking release of her husband Birda Singh on permanent parole. Birda Singh was convicted vide judgment dated July 1, 1987 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beawar (Ajmer) for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 376, IPC and sentenced as under :Under Section 302, IPC to suffer imprisonmentfor lifeUnder Section 376, IPC to undergo 7 yearsimprisonment.2. The learned trial Judge ordered that sentences shall run consecutively which implied that the total period of incarceration of the convict shall be 27 years. The judgment of the learned trial Judge attained finality and Birda Singh has been serving the sentence in Central Jail Ajmer.3. It is contended by Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned Amicus Curiae that although in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sessions Court can in its discretion make se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »