Rajasthan Court December 2007 Judgments
Laxmi Narayan Vs. Nathdwara Temple Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1592
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Initially this petition was filed by late Laxmi Narayan in the year nm challenging the order dated 19.10.1994 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondents whereby petitioner Laxmi Narayan was compulsorily retired from service. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died and his legal heirs filed application under Order 22 Rule 3, CPC for substitution and taking them on record. This Court vide order dated 23.1.2006 allowed the said application and legal representatives of the late petitioner were ordered to be taken on record. The amended cause title was also filed after taking on record the legal representatives of late petitioner Laxmi Narayan.2. According to the facts averred in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk 1.10.1962 in the pay-scale of Rs. 30-55. In the year 1980, he was promoted to the post of U.D.C.; and, thereafter, the petitioner was promoted and posted as A-Grade Bhandari in the year 1991. Petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through Its Chairman and anr. Vs. Mah ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN337
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 24.05.2007, whereby the Single Judge allowed the writ petition; quashed the orders dt. 13.01.2004 and 13.02.2004 and directed the present appellants (respondents therein) to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension as per the guidelines dt. 02.07.1991.2. Two fold submission was made by the counsel for the appellants, namely:(i) that paragraph 11 of the guidelines issued by the Government of Rajasthan (State Enterprises Department) dt. 02.07.1991 for absorption of employees of State Public Enterprises is applicable and not-paragraph 11(b) of the said guidelines; and(ii) that having withdrawn the entire amount of CPF Scheme before his absorption in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (Now Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited), the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to the benefit of pension scheme under the said guidelines. In this connection, the counsel for the appellants relied upon two judgments of the Sup...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. Management Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR685]
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated September 17, 1997 of the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge modified the award of the Labour Court dated September 21, 1988 directing that the workman (appellant herein) shall not be entitled to the back wages and if the management (respondent-company herein) recruits any casual worker, the appellant would be given the work.Contextual facts depict that the appellant rendered his services as helper in the electrical maintenance department of respondent-company in the year 1975, 1976 and 1977 as per the Certificate dated October 21, 1978 (Annexure-2 in the writ petition). The appellant was not allowed to work on July 31, 1977 and his services were terminated orally without furnishing any notice or affording any opportunity of being heard. A settlement was arrived at between the management of the respondent-company and the Union of the workers on March 31, 1977 and May 10/1980 whereby it was se...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Soni Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Raj)398; [2009]316ITR361(Raj)
ORDER1. This is an assessee's appeal, seeking to challenge the order of the learned Tribunal dt. 11th May, 2002 (Annex. 2), partly allowing the appeal against the block assessment, made by the AO. A search was undertaken on 5th Jan., 1996, and consequent thereupon proceedings were initiated, and vide Annex. 1, assessment was made under Section 158BC of the Act, assessing a total undisclosed income of Rs. 12,19,481, and assessing tax thereon.2. The appeal was admitted vide order dt. 9th Dec, 2002, by framing four substantial questions of law. First being, as to whether for the purposes of block assessment under Section 158BC, the computation of undisclosed income can include income of any previous year, which was below taxable limit, but for which no return under Section 139 was filed since there was no obligation under the Act to file return. Then second question is, as to whether the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the burden of proof lies heavily on the Department to show that...
Tag this Judgment!Shravan Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1452
ORDERRaghuvendra Singh Rathore, J.1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed, primarily, for quashing the First Information Report No. 38/1993 lodged before Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau, Jaipur on 5-3-1993. The petitioner has also prayed to declare all actions for initiation, sanction and continuance of prosecution of the petitioner in the matter relating to the said First Information Report as mala fide, illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio.2. Broadly speaking, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Hanumangarh. Thereafter, he was transferred to Sidhmukh Project Circle, Bhadra vide order dated 14-8-1992. However, the said order was cancelled on 31-8-1992 and accordingly, the petitioner joined his duty on 1 -9-1992 in the Office of Assistant Engineer, Pilibanga Section. The petitioner is said to have found certain unauthorized pipe outlets. The Assistant Engineer, Pilibanga had ask...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Rawat Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR152]; (2008)IIILLJ659Raj
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the award dated June 6, 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur in case No. 224/1993. By the impugned order, the Labour Court allowed the reference and passed the order of reinstatement of the respondent No. 1-workman w.e.f. January 1, 1991 and also ordered that the respondent-workman shall be entitled to one-third of the amount of back-wages from January 1,1991 till the date of the award.The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute on the ground that his services were illegally terminated by the department from January 1, 1991 even though he was regularly recruited by an order dated January 15, 1979 as Cattle Guard in the Forest Department at Karauli. The dispute was referred by the competent authority for adjudication before the Labour Court on the following terms:Whether the decision of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Karauli, District...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. Smt. Mangli Bai and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR684]; (2008)IIILLJ907Raj
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner-Municipal Board, Lakheri has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Kota dated September 22, 2001, by which the Labour Court has passed the ordered reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 without back wages.The respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute on the ground that her services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Water Server in the department and it is her case that even though she had completed more than 240 days of service, her services were terminated without assigning any reasons on December 12, 1995. The Labour Court after considering the evidence on record ultimately came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 has completed more than 240 days' service, therefore, her services could not have been terminated without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court accordingly found that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Mehta Vs. Bapu Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1448
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This writ is directed against order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal Udaipur in Original Application (Rent Control) No. 383/04, whereby an application preferred on behalf of the petitioner herein under Section 15(4) read with Section 21(1)(2)(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short 'the Act of 2001') seeking leave to file additional reply to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 herein has been rejected.2. The brief facts in nutshell relevant to the controversy involved in this writ petition are that respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 9(1) of the Act of 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur for eviction of petitioner from the shop let out to him, inter alia on the ground of reasonable bonafide necessity. It is stated that son of the respondent No. 1 was earlier doing his business in a rented shop in the name and style of 'Balaji Earth Movers', at Emarld Tower, Hathi Pole, Udaipur. It is averred in the...
Tag this Judgment!Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Judge, Labour Co ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR78]
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, (for short 'the Act').2. The said application has been filed by the respondent-workman (or getting benefit under Section 17-B of the Act. It is not in dispute that the order of reinstatement has been stayed by this Court. In that view of the matter, the petitioner-employer is directed to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act from the date of order of tire Labour Court within a period of two months from today as the workman-employee has filed an affidavit to the effect that he is not in a gainful employment. The said provisions shall be complied with by the petitioner-employer during the pendency of this writ petition. In the meanwhile, in case the petitioner is able to get some factual information about the gainful employment of the respondent-workman elsewhere, it will be open for the petitioner to apply for mollification of this order in accordan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kanhaiyalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Raj)611; [2008]299ITR19(Raj)
ORDER1. These two appeals seek to challenge the order of the Tribunal dt. 30th Oct., 2001, deciding two appeals of the assessee, for the asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89, and thereby setting aside the penalty imposed by the assessing authority, and upheld by the CIT(A), which was imposed under Section 271(1)(c).2. These appeals were admitted on different dates.However, the question framed in Appeal No. 40 of 2003 is as under:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view that the assessee in his statement under Section 132 has agreed to surrender undisclosed income of Rs. 3,50,000 for asst. yr. 1987-88, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of immunity from levy of penalty under Exeeption-V of Section 271(1)(c) notwithstanding that the assessee has not surrendered his undisclosed income for the asst. yr. 1987-88 but has spread over the same for 5 years.While the Appeal No. 42 of 2003 was admitted on 15th Sept., 2003, by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »