Rajasthan Court October 2007 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D.M.R.A.W.A. Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Raj)330; [2008]304ITR166(Raj)
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is contended therein that vide Circular of CBDT dt. 27th March, 2000 to the effect that if revenue involved is not more than Rs. two lacs, no appeal shall be preferred to the High Court, therefore, the appeal was not filed. However, since the judgment of Tribunal impugned in the present appeal, was taken as a precedent in other matters involving heavy revenue, and those matters have been challenged before the Court and, therefore, it was decided to file present appeal.2. In our view, the fact remains that revenue involved in the present matter is less than the amount prescribed by the circular. In that view of the matter, simply because at a belated hour Department has taken decision to file the appeal, it cannot be said that it furnishes any sufficient ground to the appellant to seek condonation of delay. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant was prevented by any su...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaveer and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1300
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Mahaveer Prasad, Ramotar and Gurudayal, appellants herein, along with five co-accused, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu, who vide judgment dated December 19, 2001 while acquitting co- accused persons, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section 447 IPC:Each to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 323/34 IPC:Each to suffer simple imprisonment for one year.Substantive Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that on September 25, 1996 informant Mahaveer Prasad (PW.1) submitted a written report (Ex.P.1) at Police Station Khetri District Jhunjhunu to the effect that on the said day around 6-6.30 PM. Mana Ram, Chanda Ram, Pala Ram, Nancha Ram, Ramotar, Mahaveer, Gurdayal and their ladies armed with ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Uchab Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN48
Manak Mohta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Award dt. 30.08.1995 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nimbahera in MACT Case No. 109/92 whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and has awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,85,200/- plus interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 23.10.1992 in favour of claimants/respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and against the non-claimant No. 2 and 3.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 alleging therein that on 01.05.1992 at about 6'O clock in the morning an accident took place between two trucks nearly one Km away from Mangalwad Crossing. At the time of accident, Shivnath Singh (deceased) was travelling in truck No. RSH-7055. He was aged 28 years and was engaged in the business of selling water pumping set, spare parts etc. at Malgalwad Crossing in the name of M/s. Shiv Traders. It was further stat...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Gulecha Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1099
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.9.1992 (Annexure-14) as well as order dated 24.9.1993 (Annexure-16) and prayed for consequential benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.,2. According to the facts inter-alia narrated in the writ petition, the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Engineer in the respondent Department and he was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan civil Service (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 vide memorandum of charge-sheet dated 01.03.1986 (Annex.-1). The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior Engineer on temporary basis. Thereafter, he was appointed as Assistant Engineer after due selection through Rajasthan Public Service commission vide order dated 31.10.1974. in the charge-sheet under memorandum dated 01.03.1986 under Rule 16 of the RCS (CCA) Rules it was alleged that the petitioner remained absent from duties...
Tag this Judgment!M.D.S. University Vs. Kailash Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR541]; (2008)ILLJ961Raj
J.M. Panchal, C.J.1. The instant appeal is directed against judgment dated May 8, 2007 rendered by the learned single Judge in SBC WP No. 7357/2006 by which the prayer made by the appellant to set aside award dated January 9, 2006 made by the Labour Court, Ajmer in LCR No. 37/99 directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent in service with 10% back wages, is refused.2. The respondent-workman was appointed on April 18, 1988 on daily wage basis. He served the appellant University upto January 4,1989. His services were orally terminated. Therefore he raised dispute regarding validity of the order by which his services were terminated. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Ajmer for adjudication. The respondent riled his statement of claim on July 7, 1999. On October 12, 1999, the appellant University was represented by its lawyer before the Labour Court. However, on May 3, 2000, another lawyer i.e. Mr. L.S. Mathur filed appearance on behalf of the appellant University. Again...
Tag this Judgment!Dhariya @ Dhara Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1219
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Dhariya @ Dhara Singh (appellant herein) and co-accused Bhairu Singh were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhalawar, who vide judgment dated August 5, 2002 while acquitting Bhairu Singh, convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:Under Section 302 I.P.C.:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 3/25(1-B)(A) Arms Act:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 27 Arms Act:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Substantive Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that on July 8, 2001 informant Devi Singh (P.W.10) submitted a written report (Ex.P/13) at Police Station Gangdhar to the effect that on th...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Mahandiratta Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2007
Reported in: II(2008)DMC614
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. This criminal revision petition of the complainant under Section 397 read with Section 401, IPC (sic. Cr.P.C.) is directed against the order dated 9.5.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 34/2007 whereby the application filed by the complainant petitioner to frame charge under Section 304B, IPC has been dismissed and the accused respondent Ramesh Chand has been discharged of the offence under Section 304B, IPC.2. Brief facts giving rise to this criminal revision petition are that the complainant petitioner submitted a report before SHO, Manila Thana, Alwar at the General Hospital, Alwar at 3.15 p.m. on 14.12.2006 wherein it was stated that the marriage of his daughter Reena was solemnized with the accused respondent Ramesh Chand on 17.2.2005. After the marriage Reena was subjected to harassment in connection with demand of dowry and on 14.12.2006 the accused respondent after pouring kerosene on Reena set her on fire. ...
Tag this Judgment!Samurai Software (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: [2008]299ITR324(Raj); (2007)213TTJ(NULL)449
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant assessee company in challenging the order of the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dt. 10th June, 2002 is that if the Tribunal is held to be justified in making the addition of Rs. 4,37,048 in the hands of the appellant company then the said amount could not have been taxed in the hands of the director Shri Mahesh Toshniwal as was done by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal ought to have, to that extent, modified the order of the CIT(A).2. We are satisfied that the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration:Whether Tribunal ought to have clarified in view of its order that the addition of Rs. 4,37,048 has to be made in the hands of the appellant company that the said addition is not taxable in the hands of its director Mahesh Toshniwal as was done by CIT(A) ?3. The afore-referred question arises in the facts and circumstances which may be briefly noticed by us immediately now. The appel...
Tag this Judgment!Tafzil Ahmed Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1834
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. These two review petitions have been filed with the prayer that the judgment dated 25.5.2007 whereby seven identical matters were decided, in so far as it has allowed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 689/1996 Ramesh Chand Jain and Ors. v. Rajasthan Housing Board may be reviewed and recalled and the said appeal may kindly be ordered to be dismissed with the clarification that the petitioners having been substantively appointed as Project Engineer (Junior) on May 21, 1987 and regularly promoted through DPC on November 21, 1987 cannot be treated as junior to those who were subsequently appointed.2. Factual matrix of case giving rise to these review petitions is that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc temporary basis as Project Engineer (Junior) with the condition that they shall be confirmed if their work is found satisfactory. On being adjudged suitable by the screening committed, they were made substantive in service by order of the Rajasthan Housing Board ('...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Firm J.N. Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2007
Reported in: IV(2008)BC49; RLW2008(1)Raj605
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 20.10.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 1, Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 41/1983, whereby the suit preferred by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,968/- has been decreed to the extent of Rs. 13,575/-. The plaintiff has also been held entitled for interest on principal amount Rs. 11,075/- @ 6% from the date of the filing of the suit till the recovery thereof.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the defendant-appellant M/s. Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant Corporation'), a government of Rajasthan concern, used to organise exhibition cum sale in the various parts of the country of the handicraft products manufactured by small industries in the State. The plaintiff, a manufacturer of inter-alia wooden hadicraft articles was permitted to keep its product i.e. w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »