Rajasthan Court April 2004 Judgments
Munshi Lal Shakya Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2348; 2004(3)WLC754
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 28.7.2003 with the prayer that by appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents Nos. 2 to 4, namely, Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, Deputy Inspector General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Udaipur and Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Banswara be directed to file final report before the competent court in respect of case No. 302/2000 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') registered in the Anti-Corruption Department against the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 be further directed not to write letters pressurizing the respondent No. 5 District Education Officer (Elementary), Banswara to accord sanction for prosecution of the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is a...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR208(Raj); RLW2005(1)Raj670; 2004(4)WLC311
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The applicant-herein is a partnership firm to which a contract was awarded vide order dated 26.6.99 for Rs. 16,32,673/- for repairing Bikaner-Alwar-Behror-Narnol Road which falls on State Highway No. 14. The applicant-firm succeeded in completing this work and thereafter raised a bill for the amount which is payable to the applicant by the respondent-State. The applicant however, raised a dispute that the total payment towards the final bills have not been paid to the applicant and he raised a claim that the entire payment for the work has not been made to the applicant. The contract was awarded to the applicant in regard to which an agreement had also been executed between the parties wherein a clause had been incorporated that in case a dispute arises between the contracting parties, the same shall be referred to the arbitrator for adjudication and settlement and the procedure for referring such dispute has also been laid down therein under Clause 23 which read...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Pharmbutor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1768; 2004(3)WLC31
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire record of the writ petition.2. In the writ petition the petitioner has prayed for grant of following relief,'(i) Declare the provisions of Section 84(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 that provides 10% of deposit of tax and other amount for entertainment of appeal as ultra vires of the Constitution.(ii) Declare the action of respondent No. 5 in assumption of jurisdiction as illegal, arbitrary and further hold that the respondent No. 5 have no jurisdiction to pass assessment order in the matter;(iii) Declare the order passed by the respondent No. 4 as totally arbitrary and without considering the provisions of law.(iv) Quash/set aside the assessment orders passed by the respondent No. 5 i.e. ANNEXURES 3, 4 and 5.(v) Such further relief for which the petitioners are entitled under the circumstances may also be awarded including cost of petition.'3. The facts of the case as stated in the writ petition...
Tag this Judgment!Satya NaraIn Modani Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)507; [2005]272ITR138(Raj)
1. These appeals are directed against the impugned order of learned Tribunal, dt. 13th March, 2003. It was ordered that both the appeals shall 0be disposed of at admission stage.2. The assessee-appellant has raised the following questions of law in GT Appeal :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of GT Act were attracted and that there was any deemed gift taxable in the hands of the assessee ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the nomination of membership seat by the assessee to another person is a transfer of property within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) of the GT Act and this is subject to tax as deemed gift under Section 4(1)(a) of the GT Act ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the membership seat of a stock exchange is a 'property' within the meaning of the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the GT Act or merely a personal privilege granted to a member by the stock e...
Tag this Judgment!Anita Devi Kansara (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2351; 2004(3)WLC368
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions impugned the orders of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short 'RCSAT') whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed on the ground that there were no impugned written order against the petitioners. Core question therefore emerges for consideration is as to whether appeal before the RCSAT is maintainable without the impugned written order2. A radical charge was made in the Constitutional law relating to the services by the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act, 1976, which inserted into the Constitution Article 323A to take out the adjudication of disputes relating to the recruitment and conditions of service of the public services of the Union and of the States from the hands of the civil courts and the High Courts and to place it before an Administrative Tribunal for the Union or of a State (as the case may be). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Vatticherukuru Village Panchay...
Tag this Judgment!Kamla Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2346; 2004(3)WLC321
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, an old woman of 95 years, was married to one Ajmer Singh who used to serve the State of Rajasthan as Compositor in Government Central Press Jaipur. Ajmer Singh got retired from the service in 1954 and expired on November 30, 1958. Till death Ajmer Singh was receiving the pension and after his death the State of Rajasthan started providing family pension to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 19/- per month. But suddenly after 1960 payment of family pension was stopped without assigning any reason. The respondents were approached many a times by the petitioner but no relief was granted to her. Thereafter instant writ petition was filed after serving the notice for demand of justice on the respondents.2. In the reply submitted by the respondents it was pleaded that the family pension was payable to the petitioner only upto March 11, 1960 and thereafter P.P.O. was sent to the Accountant General for record vide letter No. 2522 dated May 24, 1960. Since...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jodhpur Co-operative Marketing Society
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Raj)516; [2005]275ITR372(Raj); 2004(5)WLC285
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dt. 6th Feb., 2001 and concerns the assessment of the assessee-respondent for asst. yr. 1989-90.2. The assessee is a co-operative marketing society who claimed that Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Sahakari Sansthan Rules of the Rajasthan Co-operative Society Rules, 1966 (in short the Rules of 1966) framed under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (in short the Act of 1965} requires the society to transfer 25 per cent of its net profits to a reserve fund. The said amount, according to the assessee, does not remain under the control of assessee or the co-operative society but it goes under the control of the Registrar, Rajasthan co-operative societies, therefore, it does not form part of assessee's real income and for that reason, it was sought to be excluded from computation of taxable income of the assessee. The deduction was also claimed under Section 37 of the IT Act. Reliance for the purpos...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narendra Mohan Paliwal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)236; [2004]271ITR347(Raj)
1. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the Department, submits that since common issues are involved in these three appeals, therefore, they can be heard and disposed of by common order. He further submits that main order has been passed in the appeal relevant to the asst. yr. 1994-95.2. Since common issues are involved in these three appeals, we hear and dispose of these appeals by this common order. The detailed order in these three appeals is in the appeal relevant to the asst. yr. 1994-95.3. The appeal for asst. yr. 1994-95 has been admitted in terms of the following questions :'1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the additions regarding underweighing which were duly supported by the material on record and finding of fact is perverse?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in reducing the disallowances made by the AO to an arbitrary hypothetical figure without any basis and when ...
Tag this Judgment!Swan Industries Ltd. Vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj10; I(2005)BC286; RLW2005(2)Raj1166; 2004(4)WLC278
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 26-7-2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the communication dated 22-12-2001 (Annex. 12) issued by Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (respondent No. 2) by which the petitioner was informed that the petitioner should deposit the dues of defaulting unit i.e. HMG Granites (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the defaulting unit) amounting to Rs.2,51,996/- and thereafter only the connection would be released to the petitioner, letter dated 8-1-2002 (Annex. 14) issued by respondent No. 2 (Assistant Engineer) by which the petitioner was again informed that it should deposit the dues of the defaulting unit and thereafter only the application of the petitioner for release of connection would be considered and the communication dated 20-7-2002 (Annex. 17) issued by the Executive Engin...
Tag this Judgment!Sunila and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1740; 2004(3)WLC434
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. With the consent of learned counsel for parties the matter has been taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer of the petitioners in the instant writ petition is as under:-(i) to declare illegal the advertisement (Annexure-8) issued by Deputy Director (Secondary) Education (for short 'Second Respondent') for the post of Senior Teacher in Mathematics placing the condition of having passed the Graduation examination with one science subject being contrary to the provisions of Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short '1971 Rules');(ii) to direct respondents to issue corrigendum in the advertisement (Annexure-8) striking out such an arbitrary condition of passing one science subject in Graduation for the post of Senior Teacher in Mathematics;(iii) to direct the respondents to accept and consider the application and candidature of the petitioners for the post of Senior Teacher in Mathematics treating them to be possessing the requisite qualific...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »