Rajasthan Court August 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.
Executive Engineer (O and M), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ1125Raj
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the impugned orders passed by the Authority Under Payment of Wages Act dated February 26, 1999 and the appellate order dated July 5, 2003.2. The Authority Under Payment of Wages proceeded ex-pane against the petitioners as nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners despite service. The petitioners even submitted an application on December 22, 1997 stating that applicants-claimants never worked with them. Even after taking defence in writing, nobody appeared before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act for the petitioners. The Authority under Payment of Wages Act held that applicants are entitled for the arrears of wages, which is Rs. 2,800/- for each workman. The authority also allowed Rs. 500/- as penalty.3. The petitioners preferred appeal before the District Judge Balotra, but without depositing the requisite amount as per Section 17(1-A) of the Payment of Wages Act. The First Appellate Court dismissed the a...
Devi Prasad Vs. the Sub-divisional Officer (Land Conversion) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR121]; RLW2004(3)Raj1583; 2004(1)WLC446
Panwar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for modifying the Award dated 22-2-2002 (Annx.4) by way of granting the relief of reinstatement to the petitioner on the post Chairman with back wages and consequential benefits.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on 14-12-1989, the petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis on the post of Chain man by the verbal order of the respondent Authority but his services were put to an end w.e.f. 31-12-1993 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the I.D. Act'). On being reference made by the State Government, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur. The respondents filed reply denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Labour Court, vide its Award dated 22-2-2002 (Annx.4), held the retrenchment illegal but instead of granting relief of reinstatement, awarded a compensation to th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G.B.H. Exporters
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)563; [2004]271ITR545(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is not in dispute that the Revenue in its application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act, 1961') had proposed the following three questions, which are stated to be of law, for referring the same to this Court for its opinion. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the statement made by Shri Gopaldass on 14th Oct., 1987, was in the course of search in the case of the assessee-firm 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to immunity under Expln. 5 to Section 271(1)(c) and consequently cancelling penalty of Rs. 1,68,000 3. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the difference in stock was only on account of valuation notwithstanding the fact that there was difference in quantity of st...
Shabbir Ahmed Khilji Vs. Mehar M. Sadique and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj331; RLW2004(2)Raj1171
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.Before proceeding to decide this revision-petition. I deem it appropriate to bring to the notice of the State Government about the provision of law contained in the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 namely Sub-clause (c) of Section 26 which permits plaintiff to value the suit of the plaintiff as per his discretion which may be absolutely arbitrary and for which, even the Court has no jurisdiction to question the decision of the plaintiff for valuing the suit. By this the plaintiff is permitted to choose any of the Courts from lowest Court to highest Court which can try the original suit like Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the District Court. In this revision-petition, all the facts are available to demonstrate how the plaintiff can choose the Court as per either his convenience or by his choice or because of choice to avoid the Court. Three suits have been ...
Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Vs. Shri Pala Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ445Raj; RLW2004(1)Raj102; 2003(4)WLC442
Parihar, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the awarded dated 23.3.2002 passed by the Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur, by which while holding termination of services of respondents No. 1, the concerned workman, as illegal and unjustified, he has been ordered to be reinstated with 50% of backwages.2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the material on record, the impugned award and also the original record of the Labour Court as summoned by this Court.3. The Labour Court, on the basis of evidence on record, has come to a finding of fact that the concerned workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, however, compliance of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not made before terminating the services of the concerned workman and while considering the entire facts and circumstances, granted the relief of reinstatement with 50% of back-wages.4. Mr. Manish Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on the judgme...
Yakub Ali Gopal Singh and Party Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Raj)42
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. With respect to the asst. yr. 1995-96 the notice for reopening under Section 148 of the IT Act was given on 14th May, 1997. The AO passed an order completing the assessment on 10th March, 2000. It was annulled by the order of CIT(A), dt. 5th June, 2000. The Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the said order which is still pending. During the pendency of the said appeal, the Department has issued notice under Section 148 to the petitioner.3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to stay the proceedings initiated by notice dt. 7th June, 2001, under Section 148 of the IT Act until the decision of the appeal preferred by the Department which is pending before the Tribunal. The matter will be called on an application by either of the parties as and when the appeal pending before the Tribunal is disposed of....
Yakub Ali Gopal Singh and Party Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN677(Raj)
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. With respect to the assessment year 1995-96 the notice for reopening under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was given on 14-5-1997. The assessing officer passed a order completing the assessment on 10-3-2000. It was annulled by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 5-6-2000. The department preferred an appeal before the ITAT against the said order which is still pending. During the pendency of the said appeal the department has issued notice under section 148 to the petitioner.3. Considering the facts and circumstances the case, we consider it appropriate to stay the proceedings initiated by notice dated 7-6-2001 under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act until the decision of the appeal preferred by the department which is pending before the ITAT. The matter will be called on an application by either of the parties as and when the appeal pending before the ITAT is disposed of....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›