Rajasthan Court May 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Munni Lal and Company
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Raj)529; [2008]298ITR250(Raj); RLW2007(2)Raj1609
1. At the instance of Revenue on the application made under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 the following two sets of questions have been referred impugning upon two controversies relating to recovery of interest in respect of tax not deducted at source by the assessee and the levy of penalty in respect of the same default.RA Nos. 194 to 201/Jp/19911. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in invoking provisions of Section 231 of the IT Act, 1961, and thus holding the levy of penalty under Section 221 for non-payment of tax deductible at source as barred by time?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty under Section 221 is leviable on the tax deductible at source and non-deduction of tax being held for good and sufficient reasons?RA Nos. 202 to 209/Jp/19911. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in invoking provi...
Dine Khan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2596; 2006(4)WLC34
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The appellants Dine Khan, Panne Khan, Majid Khan and Ramjan Khan all sons of Sultan Khan have been convicted on the charge of murder of Mohd. Yasin for offence under Section 320/34 IPC and each of them have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of Tine to further undergo one months simple imprisonment by the judgment dated 1.2.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that P.W. 2 Mohd. Iqbal lodged a written First Information Report on 27.7.2000 at Police Station Nagaur stating inter alia that in the night at about 11-11:30, a small boy visited his house and informed that his brother Mohd. Yasin was lying in the pool of blood near 'Nakshbando-ki-Maszid', on which, he along with his father, mother and brother rushed to the spot. They found Mohd. Yasin lying injured. On enquiry, he disclosed that appellants Dine Khan, Panne Khan, Ramjan Kha...
Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2351
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.9.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge, who has been pleased to allow the writ petition as a result of which the award passed in favour of the appellant has been set aside by which he had been ordered to be reinstated in service after 12 years of his termination.2. The learned Single Judge has been pleased to set aside the award on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the appellant-workman who had raised the dispute after 12 years of his termination. The appellant-workman, prior to his termination, had discharged the duties in the service of the State of Rajasthari in Large Scale Sheep Breeding Farm at Fatehpur in the District Sikar after working for a period of only 2 years, after which his service had been dispensed with. The respondent State had come up with the case that it had not terminated the services of the appellant but it is the appellant workman who, of his own...
Bheru Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2348; 2006(4)WLC365
Prem Shankar Asopa, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21.5.1999 passed learned by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, in Sessions Case No. 44/96 (Old No. 29/94) State v. Bheru Lal and Ors. where by the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-Under Section 147 IPC Imprisonment for one year Under Section 341 IPC Imprisonment for one month Under Section 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment of one month.Under Section 323 IPC Imprisonment of One year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 6.1.1994, a report was lodged by injured Bhanwar Lai at Police Station Aklera, district Jhalawar stating therein that all the appellants first obstructed him and then inflicted lathi blows upon him near the Well of Amar Chand while he was going to his village Tharol from Aklera in a bullock cart. It was furthe...
Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2364; 2005WLC(Raj)UC227
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Gopal, the appellant herein was put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sambhar Lake District Jaipur, who vide judgment dated March 6, 2003 convicted the appellant Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 2000, in default to further suffer one year simple imprisonment.2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as under:-On October 6, 2000 the informant Madan (PW. 8) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 18) at Police Station Phagi wherein he stated that his daughter was married to appellant who often used to beat her. On the day of incident when he reached to the house of appellant he found his daughter lying dead. There were injuries on her head, hands and legs. On that report a case was registered for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessio...
Tikam Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2636; 2006(4)WLC46
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The petitioner accused, facing trial for offences under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act of 1989'/'the Act' hereafter) has submitted this writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 16.6.2005 (Annex. 4) issued by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Pali appointing the respondent No. 3 Shri Mahesh Bora, Advocate to conduct the case on behalf of the State at the request of the complainant with reference to Rule 4(5) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)' Rules, 1995 ('the Rules of 1995'/'the Rules' hereafter).The Facts: A Resume2. The petitioner Tikam Singh has been challaned on 17.5.2005 for the offences aforesaid and he contends that the complainant has foisted a frivolous case on account of political enmity and is motivated by political opponents of his father. The complainant-respondent Nos. 4 and 5...
Rakesh Soni and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2778; 2006(3)WLC520
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Since all these writ petitions are involving similar question of law and facts, the same are decided by this common judgment.2. In the writ petition preferred by Dr. Rakesh Soni & Others, the petitioners who were in service Medical Officers and regularly selected by the RPSC and serving as Medical Officer at different Health Centers, are challenging the consideration of candidates for admission in P.G. course in the category of in service who are serving on contract basis.3. The University of Rajasthan issued an Instruction Booklet of Pre P.G. Medical Examination for Admission to MD/MS Diploma Course in the Medical Colleges of Rajasthan. Candidates eligible as per the Ordinance 278-E and 278-G of the University of Rajasthan were required to appear in the aforesaid Examination.4. Total seats for admission to MD/MS/Diploma courses to be filled by the aforesaid examination are 432. Out of which, 50% are to be filled in on the basis of result of All India Basis. Remainin...
In Re: Shyam Telecom Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2006
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas387(Raj); 2006(4)WLC668
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The issue springing for consideration in this petition under sections 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act seeking approval of the scheme of arrangement by the four petitioner companies, is as to whether an unsecured creditor whose alleged dues have been bona fidely disputed has a locus standi to oppose the sanctioning of the scheme ?2. A perusal of the record demonstrates that objector M/s. In Touch Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (for short the 'objector company') claims to be an unsecured creditor of Shyam Telelink Ltd. (petitioner No. 3). The objector company filed a winding up petition against petitioner No. 3 (S. B. Company Petition No. 26 of 2004). This Court vide order dated December 14, 2004, dismissed the petition with the following observations:After going through the contents of the reply of the respondent-company dated December 26, 2002, and the letter of the petitioner dated November 26, 2002, I am satisfied that the respondent-company has raised bona fi...
Ram Niwas Meena Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2006
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Raj)248; [2007]288ITR295(Raj)
K.S. Rathore, J.1. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service.2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the waiver application filed by the petitioner under Sections 215, 217, 139(8), 271(1)(a) and 273 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89, has wrongly been rejected.3. The assessee-petitioner filed a petition on December 6,1991, against the penalties levied, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur and vide order dated March 31, 1993, after hearing on the petition filed by the petitioner has observed as under:disclosure by the assessee is only with a view to explaining investment in house property and its fullness cannot be commented on in view of the lack of enquiries and the above facts clearly show that the disclosure was not true inasmuch as the real source of funds has not been disclosed. Since these conditions are essential for the purposes of Section 273A, the petition of the assessee for the assessment years 1985-86 ...
Official Liquidator Vs. Corporation Bank
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-2006
Reported in: [2008]85SCL40(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The order dated 16-10-2001 of the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'DRT') is under challenge in the instant application.2. A Company, Rajasthan Woollen Limited was directed to be wound up by this Court vide order dated 18-9-1987. During the pendency of the winding up proceedings the Official Liquidator (for short 'OL') realised for sum of Rs. 6,57,635.65 from the sale of furniture, shoddy yarn, rags and woollen waste etc. Sum of Rs. 9,395 was also realised afterwards. The realised amount was invested by the OL in FDR with the Corporation Bank (respondent). The respondent-Bank is a secured creditor. The FDR's were directed to be made on the request of the respondent-Bank itself.3. The respondent-Bank filed a recovery application in DRT for the recovery of its dues as a secured creditor as against the company in liquidation and the Guarantors. The DRT allowed the recovery application on 14-8-1996 and passed decree for a sum of Rs. 5...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »