Rajasthan Court February 2004 Judgments
Bhanwar Bai and ors. Vs. Civil Judge (Sd) Srimadhopur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2468; 2004(5)WLC449
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit which has been filed by them for specific performance of a contract and cancellation of safe deed which has illegally been executed in favour of the respondents. The husband of petitioner No. 1-Bhanwari Bai died during the pendency of this suit and hence the attesting witnesses of the alleged sale deed could not be examined and their non examination obviously have a material bearing on the fate of the suit. While no fault can be found with the impugned order of the Trial Court on the legal and technical ground, yet if the decision of the suit is going to be seriously affected sacrificing the cause of justice on account of non examination of the attesting witnesses, it is consider just and appropriate to direct the Trial Court being the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Srimadhopur District Sikar to grant last opportunity to the petitioner to examine the attesting witnesses before the defendants witnesses are exami...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. (the) Ltd. Vs. Smt. Jamna Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC616; 2006ACJ1602; RLW2004(4)Raj2483; 2004(3)WLC177
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is against the award dated 6th Oct., 1998 by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nohar allowed the claim petition of the claimants and held the appellant-Insurance Company liable to reimburse the claimed amount.3. The appellant-Insurance Company preferred this appeal raising only dispute about the validity of the licence of the driver. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the driver of the vehicle, at the relevant point of time, was driving the heavy goods vehicle and he had no driving licence to drive the said vehicle. According to learned counsel for the appellant, if the licence of the driver, which was produced by the driver is taken to be valid then that licence was issued to ply the heavy passenger vehicle only. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the accident occurred on 17th Oct., 1993 before coming into force of the amendment of the certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act...
Tag this Judgment!Tirupati Marbles Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC170(Raj)
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on November 6, 2003 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated October 8, 2003 (annexure 10) issued by the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward No. 2, Circle Chittorgarh, by which the petitioner-firm was informed that under the notifications dated March 27, 1995 (annexure 1) and May 22, 2003 (annexure 8) issued by the State Government, the manufacture of marble slabs and units engaged therein had been keep out of the purview of exemption, be quashed and set aside and it may be held that the petitioner is entitled to exemption from sales tax up to the extent of annual turnover of Rs. 30 lakhs under the notification, annexure 1, dated March 27, 1995 from March 10, 2003.2. The case of the petitioner-firm as put forward by it in this C writ petition is as follows:The case o...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Marcopolo
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN349(Raj)
ORDERHeard learned counsel for the parties.2. Considering the submissions, the Tribunal is directed to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 5,85,695 on account of unexplained cash credit reflected in the books of account and holding that Chapters XIV and XIV-B are mutually exclusive without appreciating the provisions of section 158BB(2) of the Act2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 16,74,123 on account of enhanced gross profit and Rs. 32,66,487 on account of additional turnover holding that the entries recorded in the books of account cannot be put to scrutiny under Chapter XIV-B, despite of the f acts that the irregularities discrepancies were found by assessing officer in the books of account and assessing officer was constrained to make assessment in accordance...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vimal Kumar Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Raj)589; [2004]269ITR288(Raj)
ORDERCapital gain taxable in previous assessment year and not in current assessment yearCatch Note:Where the assessee had contributed precious stones to a firm for becoming its partner on 4-1-1976 the capital gains could be charged to tax in assessment year 1976-77 and not in relevant assessment year 1977-78 therefore, revision under section 263 for non assessment of capital gains was not justified.Ratio:Where the assessee had contributed precious stones to a firm for becoming its partner on 4-1-1976 the capital gains could be charged to tax in assessment year 1976-77 and not in relevant assessment year 1977-78 therefore, revision under section 263 for non assessment of capital gains was not justified.Application:Also to current assessment year.Decision:In favour of assessee.Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 Revision under s. 263--ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL ...
Tag this Judgment!Justice R.S. Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj175; RLW2004(2)Raj1314; 2004(2)WLC68
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. This public interest litigation is concerned with maintenance and restoration of green belts in certain housing colonies of Jaipur. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents. It cannot be disputed that the parks and green belts in the cities are the green lungs and they need to be maintained. The health and welfare of the people must be kept in view by the State and civic authorities. In Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (1), it has been held by the Supreme Court that right to life, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution means something more than mere animal existence.2. Article 21 not only protects the life and liberty of the individual, but it also ensures a life which is worth living. It hardly needs to be emphasised that without good health, life is not worth living. In order to maintain physical and mental health of the citizens, protection, preservation and maintenance of environment and ecology is necessary. Parks and green belts cre...
Tag this Judgment!Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2004
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR643]; RLW2004(2)Raj1312; 2004(2)WLC668
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the notification dated 31.7.1996 issued by the State Government referring the dispute in regard to termination of services of respondent No. 2, the concerned workman, for adjudication to the Labour Court. The challenge has been made mainly on the ground that the concerned workman has been engaged by the contractor and has also been paid salary by the contractor.2. After having carefully gone through the material on record and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, since the petitioner has an opportunity of raising all the objections before the Labour Court and further so many disputed questions of facts and law been involved, in my opinion, no interference is called for by this court at this stage in a matter of reference. It is for the Labour Court to decide the objections after taking evidence of both the parties.3. It may also be pertinent to mention here that in view of specific provisions under Section 2-g(...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Dube (Mrs.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1653; 2004(2)WLC287
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.(1). The petitioner who was appointed as Additional District & Sessions Judge in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services on probation, seeks to quash the order dated October 7, 1998 of the State of Rajasthan whereby services of the petitioner have been dispensed with.(2). Contextual facts depict that appointment of the petitioner on the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge was made for a period of two years vide order dated August 2, 1996 and this probation period was further extended upto October 9, 1998. The order which is under challenge reads as under:-'WHEREAS Smt. Usha Dubey was appointed by direct recruitment in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service as Additional District & Sessions Judge on probation for a period of two years vide Government Order No. F.19(1) (11) Jud/90 dated 02.8.96 and his probation period was subsequently extended upto 09-10-98 vide Government Order No. F.19(11)/90 dated 29.8.98.AND WHEREAS the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, af...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Soni, Chief Manager, Rsrtc Vs. Bhagat Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1649; 2004(2)WLC658
Ashok Parihar, J.(1). Petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.4.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, by which while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) the Tribunal has refused to approve the termination order dated 23.2.1993 so far as it relates to respondent No. 1, the concerned workman.(2). The Brief facts of the case are that the services of the concerned workman were terminated vide order dated 23.2.1993. Since an industrial dispute in regard to general demands was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, the petitioner, as per provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act submitted an application for approval before the Industrial Tribunal after due compliance of the provisions. Though there is no finding in regard to non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, however, the Tribunal held that the departmental inquiry in th...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Lal Vs. LR's of Heera Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj707; 2004(5)WLC397
Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. The appeal arises out of a decision of a suit instituted by the learned on the basis of second default. In this appeal, in fact, to determine whether any substantial question of law arises in this appeal requires a journey through the facts.3. Between landlord and tenant, the present appeal was filed in relation to a second suit based on default. The earlier suit was instituted and after giving benefit of first default, the same was dismissed on 25.10.90. The appeal filed in this regard was also dismissed on 21.01.97 and the Court observed that any deposit made under Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950'), until decision to that suit will be counted towards the deposit of rent in that suit. This suit conclusively determined that the tenant had committed first default.4. Second suit was filed on 7.5.91 between the parties. This suit was dismissed, however, in appeal, the matter ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »