Rajasthan Court July 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 Vs. Prakash Chand Kabra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj662; 2004(4)WLC153
Y.R. Meena, J.1. These appeals are directed against the similar orders of learned Single Judge dated 24th July, 2002. As in all these appeals common issue is involved for the consideration of this Bench, we have heard all these appeals and decide them by this common order.2. The short controversy involved in these appeals is whether the Commissioner has exercised his revisional power, under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of the Section 14 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1951'), in accordance with law?3. The common facts in these appeals are that the petitioners are holding All India Permits of tourist buses. The permits for these buses have been granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur. The District Transport cum Taxation Officer, Rajsamand determined the road tax and special road tax in respect of motor vehicles of the petitioners. While determination of tax was in the process by the Taxation Officer, it was consid...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jodhana Real Estate Development Corpora ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)124; [2005]273ITR195(Raj)
1. This appeal was admitted in terms of following questions :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the AO on 31st May, 1982, under Section 104 of the IT Act, 1961, is within limitation under Section 106(b) of the Act ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1973-74, The order under Section 143(3) of the IT Act was passed on 20th March, 1975 and the order under Section 104 of the Act was passed on 18th March, 1978. Both the orders were challenged before the CIT(A). CIT(A) has set aside both the orders vide his order dt. 31st March, 1980. Fresh assessment order giving effect to the order of CIT(A) was passed on 26th March, 1982 and fresh order under Section 104 giving effect to the order of CIT(A) was passed on 31st May, 1982.3. The controversy before us is whether the fresh order passed under Section 104 of the Act giving effect to the order of CIT(A) is within the limitation.4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the provisions of S...
Gebilal Kanhaialal (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)233; [2004]270ITR523(Raj)
1.This appeal was admitted in terms of following questions :'(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of income which was offered to be surrendered for asst. yr. 1987-88 during the examination of its Karta under Section 132(4) of the Act, when search was being conducted on its premises?(ii) Whether the time-lag between making the offer to surrender during statement under Section 132(4) and filing of return for offering surrendered amount for taxation has any effect on the operation of Expln. 5 to Section 271(1)(c)?(iii) Whether there is any requirement of the time when tax and interest on the income surrendered during statement made under Section 132(4) is to be paid for availing the benefit of Expln. 5 of Section 271(1)(c); and whether the length of period between the statement under Section 132(4) and the payment of tax and interest on income so surrendered has any...
Tara Singh Gehlot Vs. Snehlata and ors. (Smt.)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2571
Prakash Tatia, J. 1. This special appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6.2.2004 by which the learned counsel Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 and set aside order dated 8.8.1989 (Annex.3) by which the appellant-non-petitioner 2 was promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant in the office of the District Judge, Jodhpur and also set aside the order dated 9.8.1991 (Annex.5) by which the High Court, in administrative side, rejected the appeal of the respondent No. 1 petitioner. The learned Single Judge further directed respondent No. 3 (non-petitioner No. 2) the District Judge, Jodhpur to consider the question of giving appointment to the petitioner to the post of Senior Personal Assistant by considering the comparative merit of the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 3 and in case very one being found equal then to give weightage of seniority to the petitioner after excluding the weightage of experience gained by the appellan...
Shankar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ194; 2004WLC(Raj)UC613
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-Shankar Lal against a judgment dated 16-5-1987 by the learned Special Judge (EC Act), Sirohi whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(i) and 3(2)(d) read with Section 7 of the EC Act and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. On account of non-payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for three months has been awarded.2. According to the prosecution story the dealership for distribution of essential goods for Wards No. 7 and 8 in the township of Sirohi was awarded to M/s. Shanker Lal Kishna Ji, Sirohi and on the complaint of a consumer (P.W. 5 Vijay Singh) the said shop was visited by the Enforcement Inspector (P.W, 6 Karan Singh) on 4-6-1983. Inspection Report Ex. P/6 was prepared by the said P.W. 6 Karan Singh according to which the licence of the said firm, for dealing in essential commodities, was found valid up to 31 -3-19...
Shiv Dan Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ36
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused Shiv Dan Ram son of Magna Ram Jat against a judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur dated 23-2-1987 whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 420 of the IPC.2. Sometime during the night intervening 16/17-4-1982, Harka Ram son of Tulchha Ram Jat resident of Village 'Senani' District Nagaur committed suicide by hanging in his house situate in the said village. He was searched on 17-4-1982 for sometime and ultimately his body was found hanging from a discarded house. His brother P.W. 13 Mangla went to the police station, Bhawanda and lodged a written report Ex.P/12. According to the report, the deceased who was eldest brother had gone from the village to Nagaur in a tractor to sell the agricultural produce 'Tara Meera'. He returned on 16-4-1982 and disclosed that the appellant Shiv Dan Ram was with him and at the Municipal Check post, Shiv Dan Ram disclosed t...
Mahesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ763
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused Mahesh Chandra against a judgment dated 8-9-1987 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC. For the offence under Section 324 of the IPC he has been awarded R.I. for 6 months. For the offence under Section 326 of the IPC, two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- has been awarded. On non-payment of fine, S.I. for three months' has been ordered. The principal sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. According to the prosecution story, the injured P.W. 1 Narain reached the police station, Nathdwara on 2-8-85 at 6.45 p.m. and lodged a written FIR Ex. P/1. According to the FIR, the incident occurred at 6.30 p.m. on 2-8-85 at Bus-stand, Nathdwara on the shop belonging to P.W. 9 Kishan Lal. It was stated that the injured was returning from 'Bijnol' and at the bus-stand of Nathdwara, he went to the shop of ...
Moolasingh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1347
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the two accused persons Mool Singh and Surendra Singh, who both have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta vide judgment dated 24-2-1987.2. On 11-9-1985, at 11.30 AM PW 3 Smt. Chuki Devi wife of Hanuman Bux, r/o village Budsu went to the police station Makarana and produced a type written report Ex. P/3 on the basis of which, a case under Section 376/511 of the I. P. C. was registered. According to the report, the incident occurred on the previous day on 10-9-1985. The prosecutrix Ku. Kanchan was allegedly grazing the cows in her agricultural field when a bus, in which, the appellants were travelling, stopped near the said field and the two appellants alighted from the bus. The accused Mool Singh went in the standing crop of 'Bajra' whereas the accused Surendra Singh lifted the prosecutrix and took her to the Bajra field where Mool Singh was waiting and both the appe...
Ram Chandra Khatri Vs. Barmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj379; 2005(1)WLC155
B. Prasad, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that where there is no prescription of the period for acceptance of voluntary retirement, the period prescribed in the notice of voluntary retirement should be deemed to be the period for accepting the voluntary retirement and communicating the reasons. He places reliance on Tek Chand v. Dile Ram', 2001 Vol. 3 SCC Page 290 wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the rule provided for acceptance of the application within the period prescribed in the rule. Admittedly, there is no such rule in the statute book which will govern the case which is being decided by the present judgment.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that where there is no prescription of limit in the rule, the respondents cannot be permitted to inflate the time period for an unlimited period. There has to be some reasonableness in the process. There has to be a reasonable time g...
Maya Devi Dagala Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj177; RLW2005(1)Raj611; 2005(2)WLC270
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner has described herself as Maya Devi Dagala wife of Topan Ram Dagala. With this description, it is alleged, that the petitioner belongs to the caste uk;d and also claims that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, she applied for obtaining a certificate to that effect, vide application Annexure-1, but then, certificate Annexure-5 has been issued certifying her to be belonging to Scheduled Caste.3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that according to the Annexure-6, the caste uk;d is included in the Scheduled castes at item No. 57, while uk;d was included in Scheduled Tribes, which was subsequently de- notified in the year 1964, and then it was included in the list of 'Backward Castes'. It is contended that the term uk;d has been spelt in various categories in different spelling, and thus, according to the learned counsel, it stands included in every category, being Scheduled Castes...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »