Rajasthan Court March 2005 Judgments
Faizu Khan Sher Mohammed and Party Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Raj)102
1. Since common issues are involved in both these appeals, therefore, both the appeals are heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. In these appeals, following questions are proposed to be admitted, being questions of law :(A) Whether the notice under Section 148 of IT Act issued on 6th Nov., 2000, by registered post as mentioned in the assessment order, i.e., after 4 years from the close of assessment year which is time-barred and thus entire assessment proceedings and impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside ?(B) Whether it is not a case of de novo assessment and same is recomputation of income under the different head ?(C) Whether Tribunal vide its order dt. 21st Jan., 1997, has merely issued direction without setting aside the assessment ?(D) Whether the impugned orders are perverse and same deserve to be quashed and set aside ?(E) Whether the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was against the ratio of the judgment in case of CIT v. A.R. Enterp...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand Tiwari Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj208; RLW2005(2)Raj1073; 2005(2)WLC305
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Following question has been referred to us for adjudication:-'Whether intra court appeal to the Division Bench is maintainable against the order/judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?'SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION2. In our endeavour to answer the question, we may begin with noticing that the power of superintending control conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution is similar to the control exercised by the Court of Kings Bench over the inferior Courts of England under the Common Law. The history of Article 227 and its scope were considered by the Apex Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, (1954) SCR 565, and it was indicated that the material part of Article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of Government of India Act 1915, except that the power of superintendence has been extended by the Article also to tribunals.The history of Article 227 suggests...
Tag this Judgment!Heer Singh Vs. University of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1474; 2005(3)WLC139
V.K. Bali, J.1. By this common order, I propose to dispose of five connected civil writ petitions bearing No. 5510/2004, No. 5277/2004, No. 5268/2004, No. 5290/2004 and No/6181/2004 as common questions of facts and law arise in all these matters. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also suggest likewise.2. The bare minimum facts that however, need a necessary mention have been extracted from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5510/2004 Heer Singh v. University of Rajasthan and Anr..3. The petitioner was appointed in the University of Rajasthan (in short 'UOR') as security Guard (Chowkidar) on 8.1.80. Vide order dated 23.11.1987 his services were regularised and regular pay scale was granted to him. He superannuated on 31.5.1994. It is his case that he had worked for 14 years upto the date of his retirement. He made a prayer for grant of pensionary benefits and when his entreaties brought no tangible results, he filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ...
Tag this Judgment!MamdIn Khan Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1464; 2005(3)WLC123
V.K. Bali, J.1. Challenge in the present D.B. Civil Special Appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.2.2004 vide which CWP No. 1188/98 filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. Briefly put, the facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 6.8.81. He challenged the order aforesaid by a civil suit which was allowed. Appeals carried against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were dismissed. However, the respondent Corporation was given opportunity to hold fresh enquiry after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequent upon fresh enquiry the charges levelled against the petitioner were held not substantiated but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner, held that the charges that were the subject matter of the departmental enquiry, stood proved. Taking into consideration the past re...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Prem Kumari Murdia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Raj)343; [2008]296ITR508(Raj)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the judgment of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, dt. 23rd July, 2004.2. In the case of the respondent-assessee, the AO had made additions as income from undisclosed sources for asst, yr. 1995-96, on the basis of difference in the cost declared by the assessee and cost determined by DVO on CPWD rates. On appeal, the CIT(A) has held that in the facts of the case, the appropriate rate to be taken into consideration would have been PWD rates. Keeping in view the aforesaid, a deduction of 20 per cent was allowed from the cost of construction estimated by the Valuation Officer in order to arrive at a reasonable estimate of cost of construction for the relevant assessment year and sustained the balance of addition on that basis. On further appeal, the Tribunal by order under appeal has upheld the order of the CIT(A) by following a Bench decision of this Court in CIT v. Dinesh Talwar , the facts of which case were almost the similar.3. We are also of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand Tiwari Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: [2005]147TAXMAN61(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J. Following question has been referred to us for adjudication'Whether intra-court appeal to the Division Bench is maintainable against the order/judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India ?'Supervisory jurisdiction2. In our endeavour to answer the question, we may begin with noticing that the power of superintending control conferred by article 227 of the Constitution is similar to the control exercised by the court of Kings Bench over the inferior Courts of England under the Common Law. The history of article 227 and its scope were considered by the Apex Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath (1954) SCR 565 (SC), and it was indicated that the material part of the article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of section 107 of Government of India Act, 1915, except that the power of superintendence has been extended by the article also to Tribunals.The history of article 2...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Auto Service Centre Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1405
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The petitioner is running a petrol pump since 1976 situated 100 meters away from the Dabok Choraha, Tehsil Mavali District, Udaipur. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2-National Highway Authority of India is constructing four lane National Highway No. 76 which is running near to the petrol pump of the petitioner and this part of the highway is Udaipur-Chittorgarh. The petitioner has not raised grievance against the construction of the National Highway into four lanes but the grievance of the petitioner is the authorities are deliberately putting up railing just opposite to the petrol pump of the petitioner and not providing any entrance for the petrol pump and thereby, the petitioner is likely to suffer his business completely.2. According to the petitioner, all has been done for extraneous considerations and motives and in discriminatory manner which is clear from the fact that for other similarly situated petrol pumps and even workshops and re...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Singh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1998; 2004WLC(Raj)UC510
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 5th May, 2001 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 65/1998-State v. Anand Singh whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The period of accused- appellant's remaining in police and judicial custody during investigation & trial of the case is made adjustable in the main sentence under the provisions of Section 428 IPC.2. The present appeal arises in the following circumstances: 1. PW7 Mukesh submitted a written report Ex.P/12 at Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur on 26.03.1998 at 10:10 in the morning, inter-alia stating that at about 9:30 in the morning when he was at his house, Bajrang Singh-a domestic servant (since deceased, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the deceased'), wa...
Tag this Judgment!Parveen Industries Vs. Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC265
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This is the petition under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956') by the petitioner M/s. Parveen Industries, a partnership firm having its registered office at 26, I.D.C. Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, for winding up of the respondent Company M/s. Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited, a Company incorporated under the Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at A 146 (B and C) RIICO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan.2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent Company is indebted to it of a sum of Rs. 5,21,754.49 p. towards the principal amount since June, 2003 along with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum from June, 2003 on the said principal amount, pursuant to the alleged purchase order No. BWD/2K1/54 dated 22.12.2001. The respondent Company is alleged to have placed an order for supply of goods of description as given out in para No. 7 of the petition. It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid purchase or...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal Vs. Surjeer Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC60
ORDERJ.R. Goyal, J.1. Since these two appeals arise out of the same accident, they are being disposed of by common order.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 3.7.1985 at about 12.30 p.m. when appellants, who are husband and wife, were returning from Ambabari to Brahmpuri on scooter bearing Registration No. RND 3481, the car bearing Registration No. RRG 8823 coming from opposite direction negligently collided with the scooter of appellants, as a result of which the appellants sustained injuries and their scooter was damaged.3. Appellant Bhanwar Lal filed Claim Petition No. 108/1986 and appellant Smt. Sribala filed separate Claim Petition No. 109/1986 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which were dismissed on the ground that the policy submitted, of the car, was not genuine and it was also not proved that the car was owned by respondent No. 2 M/s. Prahlad and Company and was driven by respondent No. 1 Surjeet Singh.4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, these appeals have been pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »