Rajasthan Court November 2007 Judgments
In Re: Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: [2008]86SCL153(Raj)
ORDERAjay Rastogi, J.1. Company Petition has been filed seeking confirmation under Section 78 of Companies Act, 1956 ('the Companies Act') as to reduction of securities premium account of Mangalam Cement Limited (for short, 'the Company') incorporated in the year 1976 having its two cement units Mangalam Cement and Neer Shree Cement and registered Office at Aditya Nagar - 326520, Morak (Kota district).As per Special resolution passed at Annual General Meeting held on 14-7-2007, shareholders of the company with the consent, approved reduction on securities premium account for the purpose of meeting the deferred tax liability by utilization of credit balance in securities premium account. Under orders of this Court passed on 5-10-2007, a Notice was published in the Form No. 5 appended to Rule 25 of Company (Court) Rules, 1959. After its publication in daily newspapers 'Indian Express' (national Edn.) and local newspaper 'Dainik Bhaskar' (Raj. Edn.) of 20-10-2007, the matter came up on 16...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Chitra Devi Soni
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Raj)118; [2009]313ITR174(Raj)
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the order dt. 17th Sept., 2002, passed by Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, in IT(SS)A No. 7/Jp/1997, [reported as Chitra Devi v. Asstt. CIT(2002) 77 TTJ(Jd) 640-Ed.], Revenue has preferred this appeal.2. While the defects were overruled by this Court on 6th Aug., 2003, and admitting the appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed:1. Whether for having recourse to assessment for block period under Chapter XIV-B, a valid search under Section 132 is a condition precedent and mere fact of search is not enough to give jurisdiction to the AO to have recourse to provision under Chapter XIV-B?2. If so, whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was right to hold that the search conducted in the present case was invalid?3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are, that assessee, Chitra Devi, filed appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the validity of the assessment order, being violative of principle of natural justice....
Tag this Judgment!Agarwal Salt Company Vs. Additional Commissioner (Vat and I.T.) Commer ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: (2009)11VatReporter229; (2008)13VST443(Raj)
ORDERSangeet Lodha, J.1. The learned Counsel Mr. Vinit Mathur accepted notices on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally heard and disposed of.2. The petitioner, an industrial unit, was granted the benefit of exemption from payment of tax on the sales made within the State and in course of inter-State trade or commerce of the goods manufactured by it within the State, under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 (in short, 'the Incentive Scheme, 1987' hereinafter) notified by the State Government vide notification dated May 23, 1987 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.3. As per Clause 4(e)(i) of the Incentive Scheme, 1987 the benefit of exemption extended to the petitioner-industrial unit was subject to the condition that after having availed the benefit of exemption, it shall continue its production at lea...
Tag this Judgment!Balwant Singh Bhari Vs. Durga Shankar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN419
Rajesh Balia, Actg. C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 23.08.2007 finding the appellant guilty of committing contempt of Court for breach of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road dt. 12.04.2007 by which he declined to accept the bail application submitted by the respondent, who was to remain present on 16.04.2007 and punished him for seven days imprisonment.3. Facts of the case are that the respondent accused in Criminal Original Case No. 577/2001 has remained absent on 09.03.2007 on which date his application for exemption from attendance was accepted and thereafter matter was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 15.03.2007. The accused remained again absent on 15.03.2007. In these circumstances, the bail of the accused was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated.4. The order dt. 15.03.2007 was subject...
Tag this Judgment!Shyokaran and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1265
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Like autumn leaves about to be scattered by gust of wind, the petitioners, who are convicted prisoners undergoing their sentences at Central Jail, Jaipur are about to be blown away to Central Jail, Bikaner by the respondents. Since, the petitioners are aggrieved by their proposed transfers from Central Jail, Jaipur to Central Jail, Bikaner, they have sought the refuge of this Court under the writ jurisdiction. Since the grievances are common in all these petitioners, they are being decided by this judgment.2. Obviously, the petitioners have different backgrounds with regard to their criminal cases, which have landed them in the Central Jail, Jaipur. But, the factual matrix of their criminal cases are neither relevant, nor pertinent for the just decision of their case. What is essential to note is that the petitioners' share a common denominator : they are convicted under Section 302 and have been sentenced to life imprisonment. They are undergoing their sentences at ...
Tag this Judgment!UmarddIn Behleem and Etc. Vs. Dr. Chandra Shekhar Baid and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Raj41
ORDERDeo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. By this common order, the applications filed under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. read with Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in both the Election Petitions by respondent No. 1 Dr. Chandra Shekhar Baid, who was elected as a Member of the Twelfth Legislative Assembly for Rajasthan from Tara Nagar Constituency (21) on 4th December, 2003 on the banner of Indian National Congress vide Annex. 9, are being disposed of.2. Though the main grounds for declaring election to be void in both the Election Petitions are about improper rejection of nomination papers filed by the petitioners as contemplated under Section 100 (C) of the Act and also not impleading the other contesting candidates as respondents by virtue of Section 82 of the Act but in Election Petition No. 5/2004 filed by Bhanwar Singh, an additional ground of corrupt practice committed by respondent No. 1, who is a returned candidate, has also been tak...
Tag this Judgment!Saheb Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1467
Raghvendra Singh Rathore, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.2. This second application for bail has been filed primarily on the ground that a compromise has been entered into between the parties. The earlier bail application was considered and decided by this Court on 1.10.2007.3. Broadly speaking the facts of the case are that an incident took place on 19.6.2005 and the report came to be lodged by one Siya Ram on 20.6.2005. The petitioner had been named in the said report. Therefore, the investigation commenced and the challan came to be filed on 15.7.2006 wherein the Investigating Agency had made eight persons as accused including the petitioner. As against the petitioner, the challan came to be filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C., Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 23.7.2007. According to the petitioner, a supplementary challan has now been filed against the petitioner.4. The prosecution case, against the petitioner, is that he was c...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Chand Gangwal Vs. Commissioner, W.C.C. Act and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR1083]
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 Madan Nath filed a claim petition before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner in the year 1992 stating therein that while working on crusher machine, he suffered injuries and become permanent disabled. Therefore, compensation as claimed by the respondent No. 3 has been awarded.The case of the petitioner is that the Om Prakash Singhal is the owner of M/s. Laxmi Stone Crushers and the petitioner is hot working as manager or looking after the affairs of firm M/s. Laxmi Stone Crushers. It is submitted that the award was passed ex-parte on 31.7.1998 without serving notice upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 26,216/- along with interest.2. Since, the aforesaid payment was not paid by the petitioner, therefore, the S.D.O., Ajmer vide its order dated 5.3.2001 has attached the marshal jeep bearing No. RJ-Q1-7985 for recovery of the said amount.3. When the petitioner came to know about the ex-parte award moved an applic...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Roopchand Nawal Chand Gandhi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-2007
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Raj)273
ORDER1. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Tribunal dt. 25th June, 2002 said to have been received by the Revenue on 9th July, 2002. Appeal No. 11 of 2003 was admitted vide order dt. 17th July, 2003 by formulating the following two substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,46,879 made by the AO on account of undervaluation of closing stock?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that investment in the purchase of stock in trade required for the business not recorded in the regular books, and as appearing in seized diary, pertains to asst. yr. 1988-89 and not to 1987-88?While Appeal No. 13 of 2003 was admitted on 27th Feb., 2003 without framing any substantial question of law.2. The matters were argued with the understanding that both the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late Manohar Lal Soni
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Raj)395; [2009]316ITR365(Raj)
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue, against the judgment of Tribunal, dt. 28th Nov., 2001. This appeal was admitted vide order dt. 9th Dec., 2002, by framing the following substantial question of law:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified while interpreting the provisions of Section 158BB(1)(c) of the Act that credit of the income is to be given while computing undisclosed income even if no return is filed under Section 139(1) in the cases of below taxable income ?2. The facts of the case are, that the assessment was made for block period 1988-89 to 1999-2000, and that matter was carried upto the Tribunal, and the Tribunal, ultimately while deciding ground No. 8, relating to deletion of addition of Rs. 1,57,467, held that the addition was deleted by the CIT(A) holding that the assessee was not having taxable income during the period, and was not under the obligation to file a return, and so merely on account of non-filin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »