Rajasthan Court September 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.
ChaIn Sukh Rathi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)56; [2004]270ITR368(Raj)
1. The appeal was admitted in terms of the following questions :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining additions made in block assessment proceedings under Section 158BD of the Act, irrespective of the fact that the entries were made in the regular books of accounts ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining addition on account of alleged low withdrawal/gift/opening capital of appellant/inclusion of income of wife, on the basis of statement recorded during the course of search, and without considering the entire material on the record ?(iii) Whether taking of any 'alternative' ground/plea by the appellant should be treated as confession/admission by the appellant in respect of the main ground/plea ?(iv) Whether appellant can be said to have forgone/withdrawn the grievances contended in main ground/plea, simply because of taking an alternative ground/plea ?(...
Ramnarayan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1427
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The abovementioned two appeals are being decided by this common judgment as in both of them common questions of facts and law are involved and both of them have been preferred against the same judgment and order dated 7.9.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 24/2001.2. It may be stated here that in that Sessions Case No. 24/2001, nine accused persons were tried and out of nine accused persons, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner through impugned judgment and order dated 7.9.2001 convicted and sentenced the four accused persons, namely, Ramnarayan, Banwari, Mohanlal and Bastiram (accused appellants of appeal No. 798/2001) in the following manner:-Name ofaccused appellantsconvictedunder sectionsentenceawarded to each accused appellant.1.Banwari302,302/34 IPCLife Imprisonment & fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' RI.2.Bastiram 307/34 IPCFive years' ...
Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1512; 2004(1)WLC112
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The accused applicant was indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar for having committed murder of his wife, two sons and two daughters. Learned Judge vide judgment dated March 6, 2003 acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 302 IPC. Assailing the finding of acquittal the State of Rajasthan preferred leave to appeal. This court vide order dated August 25, 2003 granted leave and sought the attendance of the accused through warrant of arrest. Consequently, the accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody. Invoking the provisions contained in Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has now made .. prayer to release him on bail.2. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the accused applicant canvassed that the presumption as to innocency of the accused stands fortified on his acquittal by the trial court. The refusal of bail is never for the purpose of punishment. In view of the long period usually taken f...
Rang Lal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ316; 2004WLC(Raj)UC245
Khem Chand Sharma, J. 1. Both the criminal appeals, one by 8 accused-appellants against their conviction and another by the State Rajasthan against acquittal of accused-respondent Ghasi arise out of judgment and order dated 26-8-1997 thereby acquitting accused-respondent Ghasi of the offence under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325 and 302/149, I.P.C. and convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants in Appeal No. 381/97 in the manner stated below :1. Accused-appellant RanglalUnder Section 302, IPC Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.Under Section 324/149, One month's rigorous im-IPC prisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in defaultthereof, to further undergoone month's simple imprisonment.Under Section 323/149, One- month's simple impri-IPC sonment.Under Section 148, IPC One month's simple imprisonment.2. Accused-appellant Kanhaiya LalUnder Section 302, IPC Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/-,...
Mohd. Sharif Vs. Adj No. 2 and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj58
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner sought for, relief, by way of ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The prayer was rejected by the trial Court as also by the Appellate Court. When the revision preferred against the said orders was also found as not maintainable, the petitioner has to invoke supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. In Surya Dv Rai v. Ram Chander Raj, (2003) 5 Supreme 390 : AIR 2003 SC 3044, their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that amendment by Act No. 46 of 1999 with effect from July 1, 2002 in Section 115 CPC cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction may intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may be...
Shree Agencies Through Its Partners Vs. Poonam Chand Banthia (Deceased ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2123; 2004(1)WLC195
A.C. Goyal, J.1. Since common points are involved, both the appeals were heard together. Brief facts giving rise to both the appeals are that the respondent-plaintiff Poonam Chand instituted a civil suit No. 12/1992 on 14.10.1991 for eviction of suit shop measuring 8'x7' against M/s. Kishan Lal Bhojraj Dugar and its partners. Second suit No. 576/1991 was instituted on 13.11.1991 for another adjoining shop of the same measurements against the sister concern namely M/s. Shree Agencies and its partners with the averments that both the shops were let-out on 20.3.1979 at monthly rent of Rs. 100/- and both the shops are required reasonably and bonafide for plaintiff's son Alok Jain to carry on computer business. It was also pleaded that since plaintiff himself is out of job, he would also help his son. Written statements were submitted. While admitting tenancy the grounds of eviction were denied in toto and it was pleaded that the plaintiff wants to enhance the rent.2. On the basis of the pl...
Gautam Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ramnik Kumari and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2005Raj161; 2004WLC(Raj)UC541
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This revision petition is against the order dated 3-12-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 150/89 by which the trial Court allowed the application submitted by the defendant under Order 22, Rule 4(3) C.P.C. and held that the suit of the plaintiff has abated.3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract on 1-5-1985 against the four defendants, namely, Virendra Singh, his wife Ramnik Kumari and son Harendra Singh. Defendant No. 1 Virendra Singh expired on 28-8-1991, upon which the plaintiff submitted an application under Order 22 C.P.C. without mentioning the relevant rule, but obviously it is Rule 4 of the Order 22 CPC with a prayer that the defendants Nos. 2 to 4, who are already party in the suit in their personal capacity, may be taken on record in the capacity of the legal representatives of defendant...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bansiwala Iron and Steel Re-rolling Mil ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)280; [2005]273ITR421(Raj)
1. The Revenue filed this application under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act, 1961') and prayed for the direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Tribunal') to state the facts and refer the following question to this Court for opinion.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that assessee is entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 40 per cent and not 30 per cent on the trucks used by assessee for its business ?'2. The facts leading to filing of this application, briefly stated, are that the assessee M/s Bansiwala Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills, Ajmer (for short, 'the assessee') is a registered firm carrying on its business of manufacturing of bars, and flats from the raw material of semi-finished ingots and iron scrap. The assessee had purchased a truck for its own business purpose and not for plying on hire and the assessee is ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan State Co-op. Bank
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)266; [2005]272ITR600(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, in Ref. Appln. No. 308/Jp/1986 arising out of ITA No. 408/Jp/1985, asst. yr. 1981-82, has referred for the opinion of this Court the following questions:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the investment of the reserves and other funds in various securities did not require the sanction of the Registrar of the cooperative societies under Section 63 of the Co-operative Societies Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that such investment could be said to be of banking nature ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from such investment could be said to be from banking business and exempt under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2....
Vice Chancellor, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University (the) and ors. Vs. Yamu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1024; 2004(1)WLC593
ORDEROn the recommendation of a Committee constituted by the Board of Management vide its resolution No. 2(i) dated 27.10.99, the Vice- Chancellor is pleased to allow the UGC Pay Scales of Rs. 2200-75- 2800-100-4000 to Dr. Y.S. Sharma, Legal Associate. His salary will be charged against the post of Assistant Professor at the College of Law w.e.f. 9.2.91 with the following conditions:-1. That his past services prior to 9.2.91 shall not be counted.2. He will be treated in a scale equivalent to Assistant Professor for the purpose of scale only not for designation.3. Benefit of the notional increments shall be allowed as per other ad hoc teachers.4. His appointment will be on ad hoc basis and he will not claim for placement of his appointment as Assistant Professor in permanent capacity.5. He will be placed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 8000- 275-13500 w.e.f. 1.1.96 and payment of difference be made to him as admissible along with other allowances which is admissible to other ad hoc teac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »