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.
Anil Kumar S. Ruia Vs. Official Liquidator, Unikol Bottlers Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: [2004]52SCL591(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J.1. In this application under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner has prayed for grant of permission to him for sell the securities of the Company (in liquidation) on which the respondent financial institutions and the bank have the first charge and which are registered with the Registrar of companies so as to full and final satisfaction of their dues against the company (in liquidation) and for payment of the workmen's dues and the surplus, if any, be allowed to be paid to the other creditors in terms of what has been mentioned in the present application.2. The petitioner was one of the promoter directors of the company (in liquidation). The company (in liquidation) was ordered to be wound up by this court vide order dated 20th of July, 2001 in company petition No. 15/ 93. It is stated that in the process of negotiation the petitioner has searched a prospective buyer to purchase all the charged assets in the sum of Rs. 8 crores. On this application th...
Pushpa Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(168)ELT449(Raj); 2004WLC(Raj)UC199
ORDER1. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise Commissioner, Jaipur along with an application for stay before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT for short) and claimed total waiver of pre-deposit for hearing of the appeal. However, the learned Member of the Appellate Tribunal passed on order on 27-2-2002 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 60 lakhs as pre-deposit for hearing of the appeal. The petitioner moved an application for modification of this order before the Appellate Tribunal but the same was also dismissed and a peremptory order was passed on 18-4-2002 directing the petitioner to deposit the said amount on or before 18-6-2002. The petitioner challenged this order before this Court by filing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 35333/2002 which was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to deposit Rs. 35 lacs instead of Rs. 60 lacs within six weeks and it was further ordered that if the said amount is deposited, the a...
Satya NaraIn Sharma Vs. Rsrtc and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1546; 2004(1)WLC716
Ashok Parihar, J.1. There appears to be a checkered history of the present case. The petitioner was initially appointed as Cleaner in the respondent Corporation vide order dated 13.8.1974. He was promoted on the post of Helper vide order dated 21.8.1978. While working as Cleaner and Helper in the Work-shop of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner had continuously remained in contact with the, diesel/lubricated oil for cleaning/repairing the vehicles. With the continuous contact of lubricants, the petitioner got his hands and feet infected. In view of serious infection on both the hands and the feet, the petitioner could not attend his duties regularly and had to undergo treatment in ESI Hospital.2. It was because of his absence from duties, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 30.9.1983. However, on an appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority, while giving him a warning, ordered his reinstatement vide order dated 11.4.1984. Subsequently, a...
Official Liquidator Vs. Nanu Ram Yadav
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: [2004]56SCL68(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. The respondent, who is present in person, submits that he is a poor agriculturist; for last four years there was famine in the State and with great difficulties he could have survived for all these years. This year there is rain and he is hopeful to have some crop. He submits that the principal amount of loan of Rs. 3,000 has already been deposited by him in the Office of the Official Liquidator and as regards to the interest he prayed that the payment thereof may be dispensed with.2. The experience of the Bench while dealing with the matters of M/s. Amfort Agro Finance Limited (In liquidation) goes to show that few creditors have turned up and most of them are poor persons. They have paid the loan amount as what it has been done in this case also and I am of the opinion that looking to the fairness, honesty and difficulties of the respondent it is in the interest of justice that he should be granted exemption from payment of interest. Thus the claim of the resp...
Girraj Prasad Vs. Qamar Ali Begh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC160; 2005ACJ680; 2004(1)WLC321
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The claimant in the instant writ petition has impugned the Order dated 28.11.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dausa whereby the claim application of the petitioner was dismissed summarily by the learned Tribunal on the ground of non-prosecution.2. It appears that PF and notices were not filed by claimant and on this ground learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dausa taking harsh view dismissed the claim application.3. I have heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and carefully scanned the material on record.4. A look at Sub-section (6) of Section 158 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short '1988 Act') demonstrates that as soon as any information regarding any accident involving death of or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this Section is completed by a police officer, the officer incharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of record...
Cit Vs. Chinna Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN283(Raj); 2004WLC(Raj)UC168
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, C.J.In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following question of law has been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the)carried Member of ITAT were justified in confirming the decision of Commissioner (Appeals) holding that in re-assessment, interest under section 139(3) or 215 cannot be charged. Actually there was no fresh taxation of income and income as originally assessed was not charged and similarly the figures of interest originally charged was not subjected to any change and no re-assessment was made in fact and practically, the proceedings were closed after having satisfied the Income Tax Officer.'2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :On 7-7-1980, the assessee filed a return in respect of the assessment year 1978-79. Since the assessee defaulted in fili...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udhyog
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)125; [2004]269ITR399(Raj)
1. This IT appeal has been admitted by this Court on 19th Jan., 2000 and following substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court arising out of this appeal :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that provisions of Section 43B of the Act are not applicable to outstanding liability on account of land tax and thereby deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,21,088 made under Section 43B of the Act?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that receipt of Rs. 1,00,000 from M/s J.K. White Cement Works is capital receipt and not taxable in the hands of assessee, either as capital gain or as casual income under Section 10(3) of the Act?'2. About question No. 1, it is now common ground that Rajasthan Land Tax Act, under which liability was created has been held to be ultra vires legislative competence of State legislature and, therefore, invalid. Ho...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Santosh Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Raj)591
S.K. Keshote, J.1. On the application of the Revenue filed under Section 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957, the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question for our opinion:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the AAC that in the case of residential properties Rule 1BB being procedural, would apply to asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1977-78, even prior to 1st April, 1979?'The matter arises out of the WT Appeal No. 90/Jp/1986, asst. yr. 1975-76.2. The learned counsel for the Revenue advanced manifold contentions but we are satisfied that the Rule 1BB is procedural and, therefore, it has a retrospective effect. Looking to this nature of the provision being a procedure would equally apply to all pending assessments and the learned Tribunal is thus not incorrect in its approach.3. In the case of CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons (1994) 210ITR 886 (SC), their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held this ...
Cwt Vs. Santosh Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN331(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J.On the application of the revenue filed under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that in the case of residential properties rule 1BB being procedural, would apply to assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78, even prior to 1-4-1979?'2. The matter arises out of the Wealth Tax Appeal No. 96 (Jp)/1986, assessment year 1975-76.3. The learned counsel for the revenue advanced manifold contentions but we are satisfied that the rule 1BB is procedural and, therefore, it has a retrospective effect. Looking to this nature of the provision being a procedure and would equally apply to all pending assessment and the learned Tribunal is thus not incorrect in its approach.4. In the case of CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons : 19...
Dr. Sakshi Grover Vs. Presiding Officer Family Court No. 1
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN640
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Looking to the short controversy in the matter I propose to dispose of this writ petition finally at the stage of admission.2. It appears that the respondent husband instituted the petition seeking divorce against the petitioner in the Family Court No. 1. Jaipur City, Jaipur. After service of notice the petitioner appeared before the learned Family Court on 16.10.2002 and expressed that she did not receive the copy of the petition. A copy of the petition was made available to her and the case was adjourned for filing written statement and conciliation between the parties on 6.12.2002. On 6.12.2002 being holiday the case was taken upon 7.12.2002. On that day an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking exemption from her appearance, learned Family Court rejected the application and proceeded ex-parte and the opportunity of filing written statement was denied. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has assailed the order dated 7.12.2002.3. I h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »