Rajasthan Court December 2007 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.
Laxmi Engineering Industries Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)319; [2008]298ITR203(Raj)
1. These three appeals seek to challenge the order of the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dated July 14, 2003, deciding three appeals numbers 300 to 303 (JP) 2002.2. All these appeals were admitted on November 18, 2003, by framing the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had material and were right in law in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 3,03,475 being commission paid to M/s. Laxmi Stone Pvt. Ltd.?2. Whether the finding that the appellant could not give specific evidence regarding nature of services rendered by the said company is without evidence and contrary to the evidence on records, are perverse and have vitiated the conclusion?3. The precise controversy relates to the disallowance of the commission paid by the assessee to M/s. Laxmi Stone Pvt. Ltd., in the three relevant assessment years. The claim of the assessee had been, that when the company was formed, an Indian machine was installed which was previously imported...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Raniwas Porwal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1270
Rajesh Balia, A.C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. All these appeals raise common issues about fall out of amendment made in General Note 8 relating to the Education Department appended to Schedule-V of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998 by inserting Sub-clause (ii) and Sub-clause (iii) in the Note vide Notification No. F.16(5) FD (Rules)/98 dated 8.6.2001. This amendment was to come in effect retrospectively w.e.f. 1.7.1998.3. All the respondents-petitioners are Senior Teachers drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 and continue to draw pay in the scale as senior scale without considering the eligibility period of service for the senior scale prescribed under this order. This provision was also made applicable to the respective equivalent posts mentioned in the Schedule (i) issued by the Education department. Since all the incumbents were drawing pay in selection grade of 6500-10500, they were accordingly fixed therein on commenceme...
G.P. Agrawal and ors. Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1537
ORDERK.S. Rathore, J.1. Since these two review petitions are involving similar question of law, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are B.E. and were initially appointed as Project Engineers (Junior) by the Rajasthan Housing Board against the substantive posts in the year 1989 and their services are being regulated by the Rajasthan Housing Board Employees (Conditions of Recruitment and Promotion) Regulations, 1976 (for short 'the Regulations of 1976'). The post of Project Engineer (Senior) is to be filled 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. The promotion quota was further bifurcated into 25% to be filled from Diploma holders and 25% to be filled from Degree holders. The Board vide its resolution No. 137.20 dated 09.12.1987 amended the said ratio of promotion quota to 30% to be filled from Diploma holders and 20% to be filled from Degree holders and this amendment was approved by the State Government vid...
Amrit Kumar Garg Vs. Addl. Distt. Judge No. 3 and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1547
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner-landlord has challenged the order dated 28.10.2005 (Annex. 1) whereby the Addl. Distt. Judge No. 3, Ajmer allowed the application Under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant-tenant-respondent and passed interim stay order for payment of rent @ Rs. 80/- per month with other conditions of Order 41 Rule 5 CPC.2. Submission of counsel for the petitioner-landlord is that in case of grant of interim stay order against passing of the decree of eviction, he is entitled to get rent @ Rs. 30,000/- per month by way of mesne profits. The counsel placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in Atmaram Property Pvt. Ltd. v. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. 2005(1) RCR 1 and Anderson Wright and Co. v. Amar Nath Roy 2005(1) RCR 624. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner-landlord has placed sufficient material on record to substantiate the aforesaid claim of Rs. 30,000/- but the Court below has ignored the same and...
Harpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN58
R.M. Lodha, J.1. A writ of quo warranto issued by the Single Judge vide his order dt. 19.11.2007 which has resulted in displacing the present appellant from the membership and Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Buhana is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.2. The present appellant filed his nomination paper for election to the membership of Ward No. 25, Panchayat Samiti, Buhana on 13.01.2005. In his declaration, he declared that no Court has ever taken cognizance against him in a criminal case and that no criminal case was pending against him. His nomination paper was accepted by the Returning Officer. The voting took place on 29.01.2005 and after counting of votes, on 08.02.2005, the appellant was declared as a member of ward No. 25, Panchayat Samiti, Buhana. Having been elected as a member of Panchayat Samiti, Buhana, he also contested the election of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti and he was declared elected.3. Dharam Singh the present respondent No. 2 who was an unsuccessful candidate ...
Mohini Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN175
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the cancellation of the auction of the commercial plots knocked down in their favour and so also the fresh auction proceedings sought to be initiated by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sumerpur in pursuance of directions issued by the District Collector, Pali vide communication dt. 06.12.2005 (Annex.8).2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Municipal Board issued an auction notice dt. 27.06.2005 (Annex.1), whereby various residential and commercial plots, shops, godown/plinth level plots were proposed to be auctioned. After depositing the earnest money, the petitioners participated in the auction for the shops/commercial plots mentioned at Sr. No. 5 of the auction notice. Petitioner Mohini Devi was the highest bidder for shop No. 1 and petitioner Tej Singh Deora was the highest bidder for shop No. 3, accordingly, the auction was knocked down in their favour and in pursuance thereof, the...
Harish and anr. Vs. Roshan Baheti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN281
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel at length.2. This second appeal filed by the appellant-tenant is against the concurrent findings of two Courts below ordering partial eviction of the one out of the two shops situated at 6th 'A' Road, Sardapura, Jodhpur on the ground of bonafide necessity of the mother of the landlord. Roshan Baheti, a minor at the time of filing of suit in the year 2003.3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff Roshan Baheti S/o Ramchandra Baheti inter alia on the ground that one of the shops was required for carrying on the business of tractor parts owned by the mother of the plaintiff-landlord Roshan Baheti. The Courts below found that mother of the plaintiff Smt. Saroj w/o Sh. Ramchandra Baheti had started business in the name of M/s Bhawani Sales for dealing in tractor parts and since the suit premises were situated at the place where auto parts market was readily available, therefore, there was a bonafide necessity for the landlord and accordingly, the ...
Kamal Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj192
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. Two ancient maxims viz; (1) Judicis est jus dicere non dare: The judge's duty is to declare law and not to make it and (2) Talis interpretation semper fienda est, ut euitetur absurdum el inconveniens, et ne judicium sit illusorium: That interpretation must be chosen which avoids an absurdity or inconvenience and which does not make a decision of court illusory, are coupled with the controversy involved in the present seventeen writ petitions, whereby the Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, hereinafter referred-to as 'the New Act' in toto and Section 32(3)(a) of this New Act and Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, later styled as 'the Old Act', have been challenged by declaring them as ultravires to the Constitution of India. Though different reliefs have been sought in these petitions but broadly, they are of three categories.The relief sought in the first set of petitions is to declare the Ne...
Shaitan Vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1429
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.2. This appeal, on behalf of the plaintiffs, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Ajmer, Camp at Beawar, in Civil Suit No. 112/2005 (219/2004), whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for compensation under the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act, 1855').3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for compensation on 24.2.2004 under the provisions of the Act, 1855, against the defendants in the trial Court, wherein it was pleaded that the defendant No. 3 Chhotu Singh S/o Gheesa Singh had an electricity connection at his well from the defendants No. 1 and 2. In the night of 17.3.2000, one Mangi Lal went to the well of defendant No. 3 to bring water therefrom in his tanker, a...
Vijay Laxmi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Indian Red Cross Society and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN166
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Core question that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is:Can the High Court while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the order of punishment and alter the penalty imposed by Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities?2. Appellant R.C. Pareek (since dead and represented by legal representatives) was served with a memo of charge sheet on 13.09.1997. The Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of all the charges and submitted his report on 11.11.1991. The Managing Committee of the Indian Red Cross Society, Rajasthan State Branch, Jaipur vide its resolution passed in the meeting held on 12.02.1992 constituted a Committee of four members to scrutinise the enquiry report and to recommend a suitable disciplinary action against the appellant. However, out of four members only two had taken decision to dispense with the services of appellant signed the report and the other two members did not agree with the decision and refused to sign on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »