Rajasthan Court April 2006 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.
Sita Ram Pareek Vs. Judge, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR877]; (2007)1LLJ264Raj; 2006WLC(Raj)UC491
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. With the consent of parties, this writ petition is finally heard and decided at the stage of admission.2. Instant petition has been filed against the award passed by the Labour Court dated February 19, 2002 whereby the claim of the petitioner-workman was rejected on the premise that despite being retrenched w.e.f. February 1, 1994 since payment in compliance of Section 25F was made on February 7, 1994 and accepted by the workman was considered to be a valid compliance required under Act of 1947.3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner-workman was initially appointed on daily wages basis on July 22, 1992 and his services were dispensed with by the respondents w.e.f. February 1, 1994. Against the said retrenchment, the workman raised dispute by submitting application before the conciliation officer and finally the matter was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication.4. Learned Labour Court recorded a finding that the petitioner-workman had worked for mor...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sumerpur Truck Operators Union
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Raj)205
1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that there is no error in the judgment of the Tribunal and it does not give rise to any substantial question of law.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent--unit had filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 1995-96 claiming that its income is exempt from tax and not liable to be included in total taxable income in terms of Section 10(24) of the IT Act, 1961. The claim was rejected by the AO inter alia, on the ground that since trade union of the truck operators was formed for the purpose of seeing that they get higher freight rates and not for the purpose of regulating the relationship between workmen and the employer and between workmen and workmen, the claim to exemption does not fall within the purview of Section 10(24) of the Act of 1961.3. The order of the AO rejecting the claim under Section 10(24) of the Act of 1961 was affirmed by the CIT(A) and the learned Tribunal.4. During the course of asse...
Mahesh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2756
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Mahesh, Mahadev, Bablu @ Vishambhar, Smt. Gulab Devi and Smt. Dhanda, the appellants herein, were put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kotputli District Jaipur, who vide judgment dated December 13, 2002 convicted and sentenced them as under:-MaheshUnder Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1,000, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment. Under Section 148 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Under Section 323/149 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Mahadev, Babloo @ Vishambher, Smt. Gulab and Smt. Chanda:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. Under Section. 148 IPC:Each suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Under Section. 323 IPCEach to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Put briefly the prosecution case is that ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Krishan Chandra Agrawal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2390; RLW2006(2)Raj1477
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Through this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act', the Union of India has prayed for setting aside/cancellation of bail order dated 7.6.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur, by which the learned Judge has extended the benefit of the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. to respondent Krishan Chandra Agrawal against whom a complaint under Sections 8c, 22 and 29 of the Act was filed.2. The allegation against respondent Krishna Chandra Agrawal was that in the course of search of his house No. 274, AWHO Colony, Ambabadi, Jaipur, four cartoons of medicines containing huge quantity of Alprozolam, Diazepam and Zolpidem tablet were recovered.3. Having gone through the order dated 7.6.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, it appears that the learned Judge extended the benefit of bail to the accused respondent after recording his ...
Suraj Mal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2663; RLW2006(2)Raj1680; 2006(4)WLC235
K.C. Sharma, J. 1. This appeal by appellants arises out of the judgment and order dated 31.1.1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi, whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the following manner:Appellant Suraj Mal: For offence Under Section 326 IPC:Two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. Appellant Gyarsi Lal:For offence under Section 324 IPCInstead sentencing to the term of imprisonment, he has been extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has kept confined his argument only to the extent that in view of the evidence on record, the conviction of appellant Surajmal under Section 326 IPC cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. At the most, the evidence discloses the offence under Section 324 IPC. Learned Counsel argued that according to injured himself, appellant Surajmal inflic...
Cit Vs. Maheshwari Builders
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2006
Reported in: [2007]292ITR468(Raj)
1. The aforesaid two cases have been referred to this court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. Submitting a statement of case in each case, the following substantial question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that bonus was a part of the normal business expenditure was covered by the net profit rate applied to the instant case2. Both the cases are in respect of the same assessee for successive assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.3. The respondent-assessee is MES contractor. For each year, finding the books of account to be defective, the assessing officer invoked the proviso to Section 145(1) for resorting to best judgment assessment. While resorting to best judgment assessment, the assessing officer had applied a net profit rate of 10 per cent, subject to depreciation and interest to third party and any other expenditure of such nature. On ap...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.N. Verma (Shri), Development Officer, ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Raj)588; [2007]292ITR2259(Raj); RLW2006(4)Raj2803; 2006(4)WLC675
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law along with statement of case by allowing the reference application of the revenue under Section 256(1) by holding that the said question is a question of law that arises out of the Tribunal's appellate order dated 30.11.1989 allowing the appeal of the respondent-assessee in relation to the Assessment Yr. 1984-85 in respect of the claim in question:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that conveyance allowance of Rs.21,705/- received by the assessee from his employer was allowable Under Section 10(14) of the Act2. The respondent-assessee was serving as a Development Officer with the Life Insurance Corporation of India during relevant period and he had received additional conveyance allowance of Rs.21,705/- from his employer. The assessee had claimed this amount as not taxable in his hand under Section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as he had received such allow...
Shyo Bihari Gothwal Vs. Bajarang Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC880; 2008ACJ279
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. From a human life to a vegetative state is the long distance, the appellant has covered in a short accident between car and the jeep. On 3.9.1997, around 11.30 p.m., while the appellant was travelling in a car with some of his friends they met with an accident with a jeep at Jhotwara in Jaipur. The appellant was grievously injured as he had sustained injuries on his head, backbone and the lower limbs. Consequently, he suffered the mal-functioningof the brain and the paralytic effect on the body. Although the appellant was working as electrician prior to the accident, when he was brought into the Court he could neither walk, nor stand, he could neither talk, nor sit properly. A human being was suddenly reduced to a scare-crow figure. Needless to say, the appellant had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. Vide award dated 16.9.2002, the learned Tribunal was pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 2,15,000. However, since the appellan...
Murlidhar Vs. Nand Kishore and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1687
Prem Shanker Asopa, J. 1. That by this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.4.2005 passed by District Judge, Tonk, whereby two applications filed by the petitioner during the pendency of the first appeal one under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. dated 19.10.01 for amendment of written statement and another under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. dated 17.1.2002, for taking subsequent events on record were dismissed.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that a decree of eviction was passed on 16.9.1994 against the petitioner-appellant in a civil suit for eviction filed by the respondent plaintiff on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Tonk.3. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner filed one application on 19.10.01 under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment in the written statement on the ground that in the civil suit decree of the di...
Prem Singh (Deceased) Through His Lr.S Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Raj64; RLW2006(3)Raj2072; 2006(3)WLC184
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dholpur whereby the written statement dated 26.5.2004 along with counter claim filed by legal representatives Nos. 2/1 to 2/5 of deceased-defendant No. 2 Prem Singh has not been taken on record on the objection of defendant No.l Madan Singh that the written statement has been filed by deceased Prem Singh wherein the amendment of similar counter claim was rejected on 25.1.2001, therefore, the legal representatives are bound by the same and they have no individual right to take inconsistent pleas by re- agitating the same.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent No.l filed a civil suit for partition and possession against Madan Singh, Prem Singh and Ors.... On the death of Prem Singh, amended suit was filed by the plaintiff and the present petitioners were also brought on record as legal representatives of decease...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »