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.
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Dharmendra Parth
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj795; 2004(4)WLC731
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the Order dated 6.7.2001 of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4258/1994.2. The learned Single Judge under the impugned Order Ordered if the petitioner (respondent herein) is qualified as B.E. (Computer) and if any vacancy was available or is available, he is entitled to be considered against such post under the provisions of Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Rules, 1975'), and in case no such vacancy is available befitting his qualifications, the petitioner respondent shall he considered whenever such vacancy is made available but in no case the stand of the respondents (appellants herein) can be justified to say that their duty is over if a post of LDC is offered to such dependent which is not commensurate with his qualifications. The learned...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahindra and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)243; [2004]269ITR426(Raj)
1. On a Misc. Appln. No. 44 of 1999 in DB IT Ref. No. 33 of 1983, this Court has recalled its main order dt, 20th Jan., 1995, which includes the order dt. 11th July, 1995, whereby some correction has been made in the order dt. 20th Jan., 1995. After recalling the order dt. 20th Jan., 1995, we hear this reference afresh.2. In the reference under Section 256(1), the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that scope of assessments made by the ITO in pursuance of the directions issued under Section 250 of the IT Act by the AAC was limited and the ITO was not competent to include in the taxable income the amount of Rs. 4,29,593 when at the time of original assessment, the same was not included?''If the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,29,59...
Ram Chandra Kasliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1788; 2004(4)WLC17
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. These two appeals are directed against the order dated January 10, 2003 of the learned Single Judge rendered in SB Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 8191/2002 & 8184/2002, to the extent the notification dated July 10, 2002, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the LA Act'), has been upheld.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of these two appeals are as follows:On July 10, 2002, twenty feet wide strip of land on either side of Bhawani Singh Road between Indira Circle and Ram Bagh Circle for the purposes of widening the road was notified by the State under Section 4 of the LA Act. The Notification was published in the Official Gazette. It was also published on July 27, 2002 in two daily newspapers, having circulation in the locality. Besides, on August 29, 2002, the District Collector, Jaipur caused public notice of the substance of the Notification in the locality Pursuant to the Notification under Sect...
Chandra Kant Gupta Vs. Krishna Manohar Bhatwara
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN465(Raj); 2004(3)WLC612
This first appeal by the defendant arises out of a suit for specific performance of contract instituted by the plaintiffs. The parties in this appeal would be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs (five in number) on 14-8-1991 with the averments that the defendants who are the owners of house property bearing No. C-86A, Jagraj Marg, Mangal. Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur, agreed to sell this property to the plaintiff No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 17,5 1,000 vide agreement dated 8-7-1989. An amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was paid in advance on 8-7-1989. The defendants in part performance of the agreement handed-over possession of some portions of this house to the plaintiff as contained in para 5 of the plaint while giving the details of the terms and conditions of the agreement, it was inter alia agreed upon between the parties that the defendants would get the house vacated from the tenants within a period of four months from the date of agreement and tha...
Vijay Johar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)352
1. The controversy raised in this appeal is whether assessment in pursuance of direction of the Tribunal has been made within time-limit.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the assessment in consequence of the order of the Tribunal is not within time-limit.3. Learned counsel for the Department, Mr. Anuroop Singhi and Mrs. Parinitoo Jain submit that in view of provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 150 of the IT Act, 1961, the assessment in pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal can be made at any time. Learned counsel for the Department further submit that even the counsel of the assessee before the Tribunal has admitted that the value of the gold and amount of Rs. 2,00,000 can be assessed in the asst. yr. 1988-89.4. The finding of the Tribunal is in para 5 of its order and the relevant part where the admission of the learned counsel for the assessee has been recorded reads as under:'We, therefore, accept the argument of the learned Authorised Representative that th...
Chandra Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj2014
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Core question that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is whether a rule can be framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India to whittle down the employee's vested right which has become crystallized?.2. All the petitions have common cause of action since they are aggrieved by the issuance of Notification dated June 8, 2001 and August 7, 1998 whereby their existing pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 has been reduced to Rs. 5500-9000 w.e.f. July 1, 1998.3. The petitioners indisputably have been given from time to time the benefit of revision of pay scale, selection scale as per circular dated January 25, 1992 and under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998 (For. Short '1998 Rules') Notification No.F.16(5) FD (Rules) 1998 dated August 7,1998 was issued under 1998. Rules in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. By the said Notification the, concept of Entry Scale, Seni...
Chandra Kant Gupta and ors. Vs. Krishna Manohar Bhatwara and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2632
A.C. Goyal, J. 1. This first appeal by the defendants arises out of suit for specific performance of contract instituted by the plaintiffs. The parties in this appeal would be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs (five in number) on 14.8.1991, which the averments the defendants who are the owners of house-propriety bearing No.C-86A, Jagraj Marg, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur, agreed to seel this property to the plaintiff No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 17,51,000/-vide agreement dated 8.7.1989. An amount of Rs. 3 lacs was paid in advance on 8.7.1989. The defendants in part performance of the agreement handed-over possession of some portions of this house to the plaintiff as contained in para 5 of the plaint while giving the details of the terms and conditions of the agreement, it was interalia agreed upon between the parties that the defendants would get the house vacated from the tenants within a period of four months from the date of agreem...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›