Rajasthan Court August 2005 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Raj)546; [2008]296ITR292(Raj)
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 was admitted on 27th Oct., 1999; however, substantial question of law required to be considered in this appeal was not formulated at that relevant time. The substantial question of law stated to be arising for consideration in this appeal by the Revenue has been set out in appeal as under :'Whether, on the facts and having regard that confirmations from creditors were not filed, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order was not erroneous and consequently in cancelling the order under Section 263 ?'2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.3. The assessment for asst. yr. 1993-94 in the case of respondent-assessee was completed on 31st Jan., 1996 under Section 143(3).The CIT considering the said order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue invoked his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, cancelled the assessment order and directed ...
State of Raj. and anr. Vs. Smt. Silochana Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC828; AIR2006Raj5; RLW2005(4)Raj2659; 2005(4)WLC425
R.P. Vyas, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed that the impugned award dated 16.1.2004 Annexure 4, passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Churu may be quashed and set aside.2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that Respondent No. 1 - Smt. Silochana Devi submitted Petition No. 96/2003 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, District - Churu that her husband- late Shri Ghasi Ram was Class IV employee and was working in the Government Higher Secondary School, Jaipur. It was stated by her in the petition that late Shri Ghasi Ram was a member of the Group Insurance Policy, which was sponsored by the Government of Rajasthan. Smt. Silochana Devi stated that her husband - late Shri Ghasi Ram died accidentally on 13.9.2001, while drawing water from the village well.3. Smt. Silochana Devi - Respondent No. 1 filed an insurance claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- before the State of Rajasthan. The claim was rejected on the ground that late Shri Ghasi Ram did not die acciden...
Mohan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj124; 2005(4)WLC538
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The question that crop up for consideration in this writ petitioner is:Whether the petitioner who has been disqualified for appointment as Sub Inspector (Stenographer) had such a health problem that affected his fitness caused disability.2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner, on selection as a result of an examination held in the month of August 1997 was offered the post of Sub Inspector (Stenographer) by the Dy. Inspector General of Police CRPF Allahabad. After conducting his pre-medical test, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer Khatkhati (Assam) vide letter dated January 31,1998 by the Commandant, 123 Battalion CRPF Tuli (Nagaland) carried out by the Medical Board was forwarded to the Chief Medical Officer Khatkhati (Assam). The Medical Officer, GC CRPF Khatkhati declared the petitioner unfit on the ground of Hypertension. But on Feb. 7, 1998, when the petitioner was examined by the Specialists at Dimapur Civil Hospi...
Ramcharan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj101; RLW2006(1)Raj780; 2006(1)WLC748
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the order passed by the District Judge, Kota dated 6.11.1998 by which it has been held that the property in dispute has vested in the State of Rajasthan by virtue of the right of escheat since the legal and rightful owner did not leave behind any heir after his death on whom the property could vest. The order for vesting the property in question in the State by virtue of the right of escheat passed by the Collector has been upheld by the learned District Judge, Kota after discussing all the procedures under which the property in dispute has been held to have vested in the State. It has further been held that no one came forward to claim the property in question as the deceased owner has not left behind any heir to his property.2. According to the version of the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had filed a petition before the Collector as also before the District Judge, Kota raising his objections against vesting of t...
Cit Vs. Dr. Shri L.M. Singhvi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Raj)452; [2007]289ITR425(Raj); RLW2006(1)Raj818; 2006(2)WLC33
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The substantial question of law which arises for consideration in this case as suggested by the appellant is as under:-Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding that filling of the audit report under Section 32AB(5) during the assessment proceedings and not along with the return of income would satisfy the requirements of the aforesaid section? 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-Assessee had submitted his return declaring total income of Rs.4,67,010/-. In the return, the assessee had claimed a relief under Section 32AB of the Act of 1961 in respect of Rs. 1,00,000/-deposited by him with Development Bank during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1988-89, The assessee's income consisted of profit and gains of his profession. The accounts of the assessee were audited on 25.9.1988 prior to filing of the return. The return as noticed above was filed on 2.2.1...
Kailashi Devi and ors. Vs. SrinaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC265
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 30.8.1993 rejecting the claim application of the claimants.2. The Tribunal in the impugned order has held that the tractor RND 9210 and tractor trolley RNB 8472, whose owners are respondent Nos. 1 and 2, was registered only for carrying out the agricultural operations and since in the accident which occurred on 29.3.85 at 10.00 a.m. in which deceased Laxmi Narain was riding on the said tractor trolley on payment on hire charges at Re. 1 per passenger and who died on account of the said tractor trolley turning turtle on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle and for the death of Laxmi Narain, the Insurance Company could not be held liable for such user of motor vehicle in violation of the policy condition.3. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company appearing in the matter has cited before me the judgment of...
NaraIn Prakash and anr. Vs. Bajrang Lal Through Lrs
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2626; 2005(4)WLC677
Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.1. Instant revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 7.8.2003 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Kota in civil misc. appeal No. 83/2002 whereby appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and provisional standard rent was enhanced and fixed as Rs. 2388A per month.2. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and other material available on the record.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that non- petitioner-plaintiff Bajrang Lal filed a suit for determination of the standard rent and ejectment from the suit property which was with the petitioner-defendants on monthly rent of Rs. 600/-from 15.10.1977. It is also contended that learned Trial Court after having due regard to the prevailing rent for similar premises in the same locality, various amenities, and other factors determined the provisional standard rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month instead agreed rent of Rs. 600/- but appellate court enhanced the...
Pulkit Pandey Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2692; 2005(4)WLC359
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. All the petitioners herein are the examines of Class-X Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE for short) who have moved this Court by filing these writ petitions for challenging the action of the CBSE which has withheld their results on the ground that the students/petitioners herein had not passed out the qualifying examination before entering into Class-X due to which they were ineligible to appear in the Class- X Board examination. As per the CBSE Regulation, students are eligible to seek admission in Class-X only if they have passed out Class-IX after which alone they could appear in the Board examination conducted by the CBSE.2. It appears that the petitioners had been studying in different schools in Class-IX and as per school record they were declared fail since they had not secured the required percentage of marks which would have held them eligible to seek admission in Class-X.3. To clarify the position further, it may be stated that different school...
Anand Food Products Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Inv ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2961; 2005(4)WLC719
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal is directed against he judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.2.2005 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant.3. The petitioner-appellant by filing writ petition No. 3106/2002 has sought mandamus of the following nature :-(i) That the order dated 8.7.2002 (Annex.38) may kindly be declared and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to allot an industrial plot to the petitioner-firm situated at New Industrial Area behind New Power House, Jodhpur.4. This is claim is founded on two fold allegations that the petitioner had applied for allotment of a land behind the New Power House Road in the New Industrial Area vide application dated 7.5.90 (Annex.2) and on that basis, he claims priority in the matter of allotment of industrial plot in the industrial area. Admittedly, there is no claim to any specified plot of land to be provided for t...
Vishal Maheshwari and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC78; RLW2006(1)Raj189; 2005(4)WLC480
ORDERK.S. Rathore, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Vishal Maheshwari married the daughter of respondent No. 3 on 31.1.2004 at Jaipur. After marriage, the bride and the bridegroom were set by the parents of the bridegroom to Europe for honeymoon and thereafter, the girl started residing at Malviya Nagar, Jaipur at her marital house. After some time of the marriage misunderstanding cropped up between the husband and wife and as the situation became worse, the father of the girl thought it proper to bring his daughter to Karnal and the girl went to her parental house at Karnal on 15.7.2004.2. The controversy arose when a criminal complaint (a regular FIR) bearing No. 423/2004 came to be registered at Police Station, Gharaunda, Karnal, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 506, IPC against the petitioners and this present petition has been filed invoking jurisdiction of Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India for getting the FIR quashe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »