Rajasthan Court May 2004 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahendra Company Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)86; [2004]269ITR12(Raj); 2004(4)WLC157
1. On an application under Section 256 of the IT Act, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on acorrect interpretation of Section 70(2)(i), the Tribunal erred in law in holding that short-term capital loss in respect of one asset could be set off against short- term capital gain in respect of another asset in the same assessment year?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correctinterpretation of Section 71(2), the Tribunal erred in law in holding that short-term capital loss can be sought to be set off against income assessable under any head of income other than capital gains (i.e. against income from other sources also) even if there is income from capital gains?'2. The assessee, M/s Mahindra Co. Ltd., Khetan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur, is a limited company which derives income from interest on securities, house property and business. The rel...
Vijay Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)90; [2004]270ITR175(Raj)
1. At the outset learned counsel for the assessee does not want to press the question Nos. 1 and 2 in DB IT Ref. No. 80/1987 & question Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in DB IT Ref. No. 7/1995. He wants to press the question only relating to Section 80HH in asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81.2. On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court:For asst. yr. 1979-80 :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction under Section 80HH would be available out of income as computed under the IT Act, and not out of the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking without deducting therefrom depreciation and investment allowance?'For asst. yr. 1980-81 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that for the purposes of allowing deduction under Section 80HH the profits and gains of an industrial undertakin...
Ram Kishore and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC315; RLW2004(4)Raj2143; 2004(4)WLC82
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioners against the order dtd. 30.1.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner by which on the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the non-petitioner No. 2 (complainant), cognizance for offence under Section 193 I.P.C. was taken against the accused petitioners.2. It arises in the following circumstances:i) That marriage between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 had taken place on 9.5.8-1 and out of this wedlock, two sons, namely, Saumitra and Abhimitra were born.ii) On 1.11.93, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner No. 2 against the respondent No. 2. During the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it was alleged by the petitioner No. 2 that she had no means of income and for that she had filed an affidavit on 15.12.94 and her statement was also recorded in which she had stated that she was not working anywhe...
Goverdhan Lal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3966
K.K. Acharya, J.1. This jail appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 8-6-2000 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur whereby the accused appellants Govardhan Lal and Chunni Lal were convicted for the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only). For the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C., the Special Judge, Udaipur sentenced both the accused appellants to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months. The same sentence was passed against them for the offence under Section 3(2)(5) of the Act. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.2. The appeal was admitted on 3-8-2000 and notice was issued to the Public Prosecutor. Record of the lower Court was called for. Mr. Sanjeev Johri, learned counsel was ap...
Mool Chand Vs. Sagar Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2558; 2004(3)WLC688
A.C. Goyal, J. 1. The defendant-tenant Sh. Mool Chand has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction dated 31.10.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Neem-Ka-Thana; District Sikar. The parties in this appeal would be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff-landlord filed a civil suit for arrears of rent and eviction on 30.5.1992 with the averments that suit shop situated in Shrimadhopur was mortgaged by the plaintiff and his father in favour of the defendant Mool Chand and his father for a consideration of Rs. 8,200/- vide registered mortgage deed dated 2.6.1962 with a condition that on payment of the mortgage money, a rent note at the prevalent market rate of rent would be executed by them. The plaintiff wanted to redeem the mortgaged shop by making the payment but the creditors declined to do so. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for redemption. Learned Additional District Judge, Neem-ka-Thana passed ...
Santveer Singh Vs. Addl. Civil Judge and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj214; 2004(3)WLC397
K.K. Acharya, J.1. This Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 10-12-2003 passed by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to assail the correctness, legality, or propriety of the impugned order, if necessity so arises, by raising appropriate ground in appeal, and in the event of any such ground is raised, that objection will be decided by the court objectively and independently on its own merits.2. Brief facts as mentioned in the writ petition are as follows :The plaintiff-respondent No. 2 filed a suit against the defendant - petitioner on 28-3-2001 for declaration to the effect that Will dated 24-8-1989 said to have been executed by late Hardayal Singh in favour of the petitioner has been got executed by the defendant petitioner by practicing deception and fraud with the executant and hence is an illegal document which was void and had no effect on the rights of the plaintiff - respondent in relati...
Hari Ram Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj2040; 2004(3)WLC538
Rathore, J.1. The fact of the case are that the respondent No. 6 was the elected Sarpanch of gram Panchayat Gegal, Panchayat Samiti Sri Nagar, District Ajmer in the election held in February 2000.2. The petitioner made a complaint against the respondent No. 6 for the misconduct and concealment of fact that the had his 5th child after the scheduled date of 1995 and he acquired the disqualification to contest the election of Sarpanch.3. On the basis of complaint made by the petitioner, the enquiry was conducted under Section 38 of Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996. The SDO recorded the statements of witnesses produced by the parties and submitted its enquiry report to the Divisional Commissioner for further action.4. The Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer issued a notice dated 31.8.2001 along-with memorandum of charge sheet to the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 challenged the notice dated 31.8.2002 by filing the writ petition, which was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3882...
Ram Avtar Khandelwal Vs. Bar Council of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj259; RLW2004(4)Raj2595; 2004(3)WLC504
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated April 20, 2004, whereby the writ petition challenging the entire elections to the Bar Council of Rajasthan, 2004 has been dismissed on the ground of existence of an efficacious alternative remedy provided under Rule 34 of the Bar Council of Rajasthan Rules, 1968 (for short, referred to as 'the Rules').2. The appellant is a lawyer practising at Jaipur. He was one of the candidates, who contested the election of the Bar Council of Rajasthan. Polling for the election was held on March 19, 2004. The counting of the votes commenced on March, 29, 2004. When the writ petition was filed, the counting was still counting. The counting of the First Preference Votes was concluded on April 9, 2004. It is averred in the writ petition that on March 31, 2004, during the counting of ballot papers of Polling Booth No. 26 located at Kama, District Bharatpur, it came to light that alteration and obliteration...
O.P. Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3425
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. The instant revision under Section 397, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner dated 22-6-1999 taking cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sections 500 and 504, I.P.C.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the second respondent-Chand Ratan Garg an employee in the Telecommunication Department filed a complaint against the petitioner-Telecommunication District Manager, Telephone Department, Bikaner at the relevant time stating inter alia that while he was working in the power room, the petitioner abused him and scolded for negligence on his part which led to fire on 19-6-1997. It is not in dispute that though the alleged incident is of 11-7-1997, the complaint was filed as late as on 13-11-1998. At the initial stage the complaint was dismissed on the ground of delay but the said order was set aside in revision by the learned Sessions Judge. It was observed by the learned Judge that ...
Pratap Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2300; 2004(3)WLC541
ORDER UNDER SECTION 146(1) Cr.P.C. CAN BE PASSED.16. The Magistrate exercising the power under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. can attached the disputed property in me following three conditions:i) if he considers the case to be one of emergency; orii) if he decides that one of the parties was in possession; oriii) if the cannot decide which of them was in possession.17. In the present case the impugned order dated 16.2.2004 reveals that the learned Magistrate directed the appointment of receiver on the ground that there was apprehension of breach of-peace, meaning thereby that he covered his order under condition No. (i) as mentioned above i.e. the provision of emergency.18. The power under Section 146 Cr.P.C. should be exercised with due care and caution and should be limited to the cases in which the likelihood of the breach of peace is so imminent as to call for immediate action to prevent the same.19. A mere breach of peace does not bring a case within the gamut of this section. The term '...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »