Rajasthan Court July 2004 Judgments
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Kanoi Dal Mill
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC426(Raj); 2004(5)WLC177
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer against judgment and order dated March 24, 2003 (annexure 3) passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal No. 874/2002 by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.2. It arises in the following circumstances:On February 8, 2000, the vehicle No. RJ-32/G-0945 belonging to the respondent-firm, which was carrying goods (130 bags of dall), was intercepted and checked by the petitioner-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer on Udaipur-Ahmedabad route near Ratanpur (Dungarpur) and during checking, it was found that the declaration form ST-18C was not accompanied with the goods. Since the goods in transit were not accompanied with declaration form ST-18C, therefore, a notice Under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994') for violation of the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 was issued by the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Nek Kumar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Raj)207; [2005]274ITR575(Raj)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order of Tribunal, dt. 20th Feb., 2002, whereby Tribunal has restored the addition of Rs. 1 lakh, gift received from Smt. Asha Devi Singhi.2. The relevant asst yr. is 1987-88. The assessee has filed the return for asst. yr. 1987-88 on 6th Oct., 1987 declaring the income of Rs. 38,460. That original assessment was completed under Section 143(1) accepting the income at Rs. 38,460. Thereafter the assessment has been reopened under Section 143(2)(b) of the IT Act, 1961. After reopening, the assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) and Rs. 1 lakh has been added, which has been received by the assessee on account of gift from one Asha Devi Singhi.3. Smt. Asha Devi Singhi has given the gift of Rs. 1 lakh to the assessee on 16th Oct., 1986. She has also given the declaration to this effect by declaration dt. 18th Oct., 1986. On 18th Oct., 1986 she has also given the affidavit to this effect. The ITO of Sikkim has given the certificate t...
Tag this Judgment!Gyarsi (Smt.) and anr. Vs. Ramkaran
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC388; RLW2004(4)Raj2747; 2004(4)WLC81
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The petitioner wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court on 20.11.1997. While allowing maintenance to minor son Rs. 350/- per month, the Trial Court rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 29.7.2000 mainly on the ground that the petitioner wife is not living with the respondent husband without any sufficient reasons. Revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Trial Court was also dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 5.12.2000. Hence the present petition challenging both the orders passed by the courts below denying maintenance to the petitioner wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C.2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also both the orders passed by the courts below.3. It has been alleged by the petitioner that because of the ill-treatment by the respondent husband and further she been turned out of the marital house by the husband,...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Shekhu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC156; 2006ACJ1644; RLW2004(4)Raj2659; 2004(4)WLC335
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988) has been filed by the State of Rajasthan (appellant) against the judgment and award dtd. 25.7.1995 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banner in Claim Case No. 29/93 by which be awarded a sum of 2,36,000/- as compensation to the claimants- respondents No. 1 to 4 on account of death of .Shri Khartha Ram (hereinafter referred to as the deceased).2. It arises in the following circumstances:i) That claimants - respondents No. 1 to 4 filed claim petition on 20.2.1993 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Barnier (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal), claiming a sum of Rs. 9/12,000/-as compensation on account of death of the deceased in the accident alleging inter alia that 20.8.1992 in the evening, the deceased and his brother Kushla Ram (A.W.2) were going on bicycle after doing the job of massion and at that time a j...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlesh (Smt.) Vs. Sitaram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC267; RLW2004(4)Raj2744; 2004(4)WLC130
Ashok Parihar, J.1. An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court. While allowing the maintenance to the daughter, the Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 18.09.1998, mainly on the ground that the petitioner wife is able to maintain herself and further she has been deliberately and intentionally not living with the respondent husband. A further revision filed before the revisional court by the petitioner waft also dismissed vide order dated 12.05.1999. Hence the present petition challenging both the above orders impugned, denying maintenance to the petitioner wife.2. As has come on record, two real sisters were married in the same family to two brothers respectively. The younger sister of the petitioner, who was married to younger brother of respondent husband, died and on a charge sheet been filed against the husband of the younger sister of the petitioner and brother of the respondent husband after con...
Tag this Judgment!Tej Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2745; 2004(4)WLC127
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on same set of facts similar prayers have been made in both the petitions, on request of the counsel for the parties, both the petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also the orders passed by the courts below.3. At the very onset it may be observed that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are only prohibitory and precautionary to maintain peace, law and order in the area and on the lands in dispute. It is subjective discretion of the authorities concerned to pass necessary orders. The authorities are not required to finally determine the rights of parties in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. If any party claims any legal right on a particular land for whatever reasons, they should first get it decided by a competent court and execute the order/decree, if any, in accordance with law.4. Since after due considera...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Committee of Seth Moti Lal Pg College and anr. Vs. State and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj117; 2004(4)WLC272
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner institution is a non- governmental educational institution imparting higher education to girls and boys at Jhunjhunu up to Post Graduate Level in the faculty of Science, Commerce and Arts. The following unaided faculties and courses having 1320 students are being run without any aid from the State Government :- Arts -Graduation in Geography -Post Graduation in English and Hindi Science -Graduation in Biology Post-graduation in Bombay -Computer Vocational Education-Graduation -PGDCA2. The aided course having only 924 students are as under:-A) Commerce - Graduation in the subject of ABST, EAFM and BADm3. Post graduation in the subject of ABST, EAFM and BAD-B) Arts- Graduation in History, Political Science, Economics, Sociology, Hindi and English Post-graduation-History, Political Science and EconomicsC) Science-Graduation in Maths, Physics and Chemistry.4. The petitioner institution also started cour...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Bhaskar Dagar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj84; 2004(4)WLC73
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.9.2003 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7077/2002.2. Brief facts giving rise to this special appeal are that the appellant, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short RPSC) issued an advertisement dated 17.5.2001 for conducting the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2001.3. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.5.2001, the respondent submitted his application form in SC category.4. The RPSC conducted the aforesaid examination on 16/17 September, 2001 and the result thereof was declared on 20.11.2001. But the result of the respondent was withheld as at the time of evaluation of the answer books of the respondent it was discovered that Page No. 23 of the answer book of Law Paper-1 and pages 11 to 14 of Law Paper-II were torn. The appellant RPSC wrote a letter dated 23.11.2001 to the respondent requiring him to furnish his explanation. In response to the letter of the R...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj180; 2004(4)WLC488
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The appellant was the accused on the file of learned Special Judge, NDPS Case, Chittorgarh bearing case No. 10/98. Learned Special Judge vide judgment dated March 14, 2000 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'NDPS' Act) to suffer R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to further suffer R.I. for one year. 2. It is the prosecution case that on November 21, 1997, a search was conducted by the Narcotic Department headed by one Madanlal Meena, Superintendent, Central narcotics Bureau, Jhalawar at the residential premises allegedly belonging to the appellant at about 6.30 A.M. Upon search, opium weighing 3 Kg. 200 gms. including the weight of Degchi was recovered contained in a Degchi covered by a white plastic cloth. Necessary memos were drawn. Appellant was arrested and after usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed and in-due course, the case came up for...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chand Lodha Vs. Judge, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR3]; RLW2005(1)Raj278; 2004(4)WLC548
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court, Bhilwara dated 25.3.1996.2. The facts, which are not in dispute and are relevant for the present purposes are that, the petitioner was first appointed as Apprentice in the establishment of respondent No. 2 (M/s. Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Limited, Bhilwara) and thereafter on 1.1.1967 he was appointed as Mechanic Grade II. On 14.9.1991, respondent No. 2 passed an order that as per the record of the Company, the petitioner had served the company for 26 years and for that reason there is decline in the efficiency of the petitioner and, therefore, in terms of Standing Order 14(d), he is relieved from his services w.e.f. 16.9.1991. It was further stated in the order that the petitioner shall be paid emoluments; for one month's notice and payment under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for which he has to till-up the requisite forms.3. The petitioner raised dispute about this order, alleging ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »