Rajasthan Court February 2005 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Surajmal Sardarmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Raj)344
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The issue raised in this appeal is whether there is a case of speculation loss.3. Admittedly, the speculation loss has been claimed by the party. The case of the assessee is that he has purchased some goods on behalf of the Calcutta party and sold it to M/s Surya Coconut Oil Industries on 6th March, 1990, and 50 per cent part of those goods were sold to M/s Behari Lal Mahesh Kumar on 13th March, 1990. The assessee is a commission agent for this transaction of the Calcutta party and he has been paid the commission. The profit in this transaction has been sent to the Calcutta party and the commission, which has been received by the assessee, has been duly accounted for in the books of assessee.4. The learned Tribunal has appreciated these facts in para 5 of its order. For ready reference that reads as under:We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. After considering the submissions and the material on record, ...
Tag this Judgment!Chanakya Restaurant Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ647Raj; RLW2005(3)Raj1594; 2005(2)WLC444
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on similar set of facts, almost same relief has been claimed in both the writ petitions, on request of counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. The petitioner gave a notice of closure under Section 25(F)(F)(F) to the Labour Commissioner on 29.11.2002. It appears that the matter was taken up in conciliation by the Labour Commissioner and dispute having not been resolved between the petitioner and the concerned workman, a special order under Section 10(K) of the Industrial Dispute (Rajasthan Amendment) Act 1970 (herein after to be referred as the Act) was issued by the State Government on 3.2.2003 restraining the petitioner from closing down the establishment proposed w.e.f. 4.2.2003. Certain necessary directions were also issued for continuing the employees already working in the establishment in service and make them payment accordingly as they were receiving before the intended clo...
Tag this Judgment!Arihant Solvex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2005
Reported in: (2007)10VST582(Raj)
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated March 10, 2003 (annexure 8) by which the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Special Circle, Bikaner issued notices to the petitioner under Sections 30 and 58 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, 'the RST Act') and under Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the CST Act') on the premises that the petitioner availed the benefit of exemption of 75 per cent of tax whereas the petitioner was eligible to the extent of 60 per cent only.3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was granted exemption certificate by the competent authority, copy of which is placed on record as annexure 3. In this certificate, it is clearly mentioned that the percentage of exemption from tax liability shall be 75 per cent. Not only this, but there is a specific mention in the certificate that the petitioner shall deposit 25 ...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Rajendra Singh and Party
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj446; 2005WLC(Raj)UC205
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.The petitioner, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam, through its Assistant Engineer (O&M;), Gangapur City has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Offence), Sawaimadhopur, by which the learned Special Judge has returned the complaint filed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act' to the petitioner for presentation before the competent court, inasmuch as, having gone through the complaint the learned Special Judge was of the view that the court subordinate to it should have committed the case to this court,2. The Special Court .was constituted for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139. Section 154 of the Act provides the procedure and power of the Special Court. Sub section (1) of Section 154 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Khandelwal Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: [2005]63SCL76(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the admission of the matter.2. Admit. Since Shri Manoj Pareek, the standing counsel for the Official Liquidator, on the direction of the court, put appearance on behalf of the non-applicant. The counsel for the applicant furnished one set of the paper book to the Standing Counsel, Shri Manoj Pareek.3. Looking to the facts of the case and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the application is taken up for final hearing.4. M/s. Mansinghka Oil Products Limited was ordered to be wound up by this Court under its order dated 6-7-2001 passed in S.B. Company Petition No. 3/2001. The Company (in liquidation) is indebted to applicant S.K. Khandelwal for a sum of Rs. 11,59,430 on account of his salary, leave travel allowance, medical allowance, retrenchment compensation (equivalent gratuity) and notice pay (three months salary). The Official Liquidator invited the claims against the company (in liquidation) from ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ1321; 2005WLC(Raj)UC395
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though application for impleading the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara has been filed but, looking to the facts of the case, there is no need to issue notice to the Tribunal.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the claimants impleading petitioner insurance company also as a party. On the application filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara passed interim award and in pursuance of which the petitioner insurance company paid the amount as ordered by the Tribunal by submitting a cheque with application dated 25.7.1997. Insurance company submitted the cheque under protest so that they may recover the amount either from the owner of the vehicle or from the applicants. The case was fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for procee...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Deep Special Steels Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: [2009]89SCL77(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the application.2. Application is under Section 457(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 by the Official Liquidator of M/s. Deep Special Steels Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) by Judge's Summons and prayer has been made therein for issuance of the directions under the section aforesaid.Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant I am satisfied that the application deserves acceptance and accordingly the same is allowed.3. The Official Liquidator shall have the powers with the sanction of the Court to settle the list of contributories and for filing of proof by the creditors of the company in respect of their debts and claims for priority if any under Section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the exercise by the Official Liquidator, all or any of the powers under Section 457 and any other matters requiring directions of the Court as follows:(1) to institute or defend any suit, prosecution, or other legal p...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwani Devi Mohata Hospital Vs. A.D.J. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj274; RLW2005(2)Raj784; 2005(2)WLC90
Prakash Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The plaintiff/respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. seeking permission to produce about 25 documents. The Trial Court after considering the document allowed the said application and permitted the plaintiff to produce the documents in evidence. The plaintiff filed another application under Order 7 Rule 14(2)(3) C.P.C. seeking direction against the petitioner for production of certain documents mentioned in the application. The Trial Court allowed the said application and directed the petitioner to produce the documents referred in the application,3. The petitioner is aggrieved against both these Orders.4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the documents which are sought to be produced by the plaintiff and for which permission was granted by Trial Court are concocted documents, The plaintiff has fabricated these documents, therefore, the Trial Court should not have permitted the plaintiff t...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC710; AIR2005Raj292; RLW2005(2)Raj769; 2005(2)WLC92
Prakash Tatia, J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.1. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.01.2005 by which the Trial Court held that the petitioner is liable to pay court-fee ad valorum on the valuation of the suit as the suit filed by the petitioner does not fall in the category of cases mentioned in the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (for short the 'Act of 1855'). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner suffered injury which was caused because of the fault of the defendant-non-petitioner and in view of Section 1A even the injured person can maintain the action for recovery of damages for the wrong caused by the wrong-doer and it is not necessary that only the claimants who can claim damages due to the death of the person alone can maintain the suit under the Act of 1855. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this High Court delivered in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Dharampal Singh (2000 ...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Singh Vs. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1154; 2005(2)WLC87
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant petition is preferred against the order Annexure I, while challenging the date of birth in the service record by the Department, which is not on the basis of the service record, but it was changed at a very late stage by the Department without affording an opportunity of hearing and enquiry to the petitioner.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is challenging the order of the respondent whereby the employer had re-opened the matter of date of birth after lapse of 26 years of service of employee particularly that the date of birth given by employee was misrepresentation or fraud. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Helper on 06.7.1977 and date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 02.11.1959. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a unblemished service record and regular fixation had been made and selection grade was granted to him and service record was verified by the respondents from time to time. Thereafter, the petit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »