Rajasthan Court July 2007 Judgments
Hanuman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj232
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Hanuman Singh, appellant herein, was put to trial for having committed murder of Laxman before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ajmer, who vide judgment dated October 12, 2001 convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.2. In the blue print, drawn for the purpose of erecting superstructure of prosecution case, parents of the deceased viz. Mohan Singh and Lali Devi were not shown as eye witnesses of the occurrence but they became eye witnesses at the trial. Anand, the brother of Laxman, who was not named as witnesses, also became eye witness of the incident. In the written report lodged by Mohan Singh on June 23, 1997 at 12 AM at Police Station Alwar gate Ajmer, it was stated that his son Laxman, who had left the house at 8 AM was seen by him around 10.30 PM sitting on a slab near his house. He (Mohan Singh) then went to sl...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Narayan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj239
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, nine in number, along with other co-accused, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4 Jhalawar, who vide judgment dated November 15, 2003, while acquitting co-accused, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Appellants Ram Narayan, Shiv Lal, Bal Chand, Champa Lal, Jagannath, Sujan, Badri Lal, Kanhi Ram and Onkar Lal:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer one year rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section 147 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. In the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P-1) recorded on April 28, 2001 at 9.30 ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eid Mohd. Nizammudin
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Raj)13; [2007]294ITR139(Raj)
The liability of Rs. 11,80,973 written back by the assessee in P&L; a/c was treated as income in the asst. yr. 1996-97 by the AO relying upon Expln. 1 introduced in Section 41(1) w.e.f. 1st April, 1997. The CIT(A), at the instance of the assessee set aside that finding of the AO. The Tribunal in the appeal of the Department upheld the view of the CIT(A). This is how this income-tax appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961.2. Though the counsel for the Revenue sought to rely upon Section 28(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 in support of her contention that the AO was justified in treating the aforesaid amount written back by the assessee as the income, we are afraid that neither the said section was relied upon by the AO nor was pressed into service by the Revenue in appeal before the Tribunal. That section even otherwise has no application.3. Section 41(1) of the IT Act as was existing in the year of assessment (1996-97) before introduction of Expln. 1 came up for consid...
Tag this Judgment!Lord Venketshwara Caterers Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2007
Reported in: (2007)10VST535(Raj)
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These three revision petitions filed by the petitioner-assessee are directed against the impugned order of the Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby the Tax Board, Ajmer, allowed the Revenue's appeals and restored the penalty under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') for assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner-assessee was running a canteen for serving foods and drinks in the factory premises of M/s. Electrolux Maharaja International Limited, Shahajahanpur for the employees of the said company and it received 75 per cent of the subsidy from the employee welfare fund and the employees were paying only 25 per cent of the cost of food or breakfast served in the said canteen. The said petitioner-assessee did not obtain any registration under the sales tax law nor it collected any sales tax from the employees of the said company. On a survey made by the asses...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Deys Medical Stores Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj432
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This group of four writ petitions is between the same parties and involves the identical controversy and, therefore, it is disposed of by common judgment.2. The principal question that arises for consideration by us in this group of writ petitions relates to the classification of two products namely 'Keo Karpin Hair Vitalizer' and 'Keo Karpin Baby Oil' for the purposes of Sales Tax under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. According to the respondent No. 1, the aforesaid products fall in Entry 60 in the notification issued on 8.3.1988 in exercise of power conferred by Section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short the R.S.T. Act) while according to the department (petitioners herein) the aforesaid products are covered by Entry 69 of the said notification.3. Entry 60 reads thus:60 Medicines, Drugs and all kings of pharmaceutical preparations excluding chroquine. 4. Entry 69 reads thus:Perfumery (excluding 'Agarbatties' 'Dhoop' and 'Loban') cosmetics, including took ...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj613
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Husband of the petitioner died while in service on 31.3.1995. Petitioner being widow with two minor children applied for compassionate appointment on 12.3.1996. The application in due proforma had also been submitted accordingly. On receipt of application, the same was also forwarded by the concerned authorities to the State Government for giving relaxation of period for filing the application. However, since no action was taken, there was no option for the petitioner but to seek protection of this Court in the present writ petition.2. In reply, the facts as stated above have not been disputed so far. However, only technical objection as taken by the respondents is that the application was not submitted within 45 days as prescribed under the Rules of 1996. In a welfare State when a benefit is given to mitigate hardship of the family of deceased employee, the authorities are not supposed to be so insensitive to take such hyper technical objection. A widow illiterate ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pratap Vs. Lrs. of Mansukhram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN120
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. This appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 17.01.2007, decision rendered by the Board of Revenue dt. 30.07.1990, as well as the decision of the Revenue Appellate Authority dt. 12.09.1983. The appellant further prayed for restoration of the order passed by the Assistant Collector dt. 05.11.1981.2. The facts giving rise to the controversy are that the appellant-petitioner preferred a suit under Sections 88, 188 and 92-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') before the Assistant Collector, Nohar. The appellant had come out with a case that land of old Khasra No. 346 was in continued possession of the appellant's father since before Samvat 1990 and, in Samvat 2005, the appellant was separated from his father and the land was given to him. Since Samvat 2005, the appellant claimed to be in continuous peaceful and unobstructed possession of the land. In para 2 of the plaint, the...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Satya Prakash and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN228
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 11.10.1996, wherein appeal of the petitioner was allowed. Against the Order dt. 11.10.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 726/1986. State of 2. The petitioner non-appellant preferred a writ petition, stating that he was appointed as Laboratory Assistant on 04.09.1965. While working on the post of Laboratory Assistant, he had acquired qualification of B. Ed. in the year, 1976. According to the petitioner non-appellant, he became entitled for the benefit of three grade increments in terms of the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scale) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1969') as was amended vide Notification dt. 27.10.1971 on acquiring additional qualification of B.Ed.3. The petitioner non-appellant was granted benefit of three grade increments on 26.10.1976 by the Department treating him to be entitled for such benefits. Howev...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Raj)579; [2008]302ITR201(Raj)
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this appeal, the CIT, Bikaner has challenged the order dt. 27th March, 2002 passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in ITA No. 2145/Jp/1996, which pertains to the asst. yr. 1993-94, by which, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A)-I, Jodhpur.2. The respondent-assessee is a contractor and for the purpose of his business, he had taken certain loans from its sister concern. The particulars of loan taken by the respondent-assessee on various dates find place in the order of the AO and the same are as under:Date of loan/deposit Amount27.09.92 Rs. 2,00,00015.10.92 Rs. 2,00,0005.11.92 Rs. 5,30021.11.92 Rs. 1,00,000---------------Rs. 5,05,300---------------It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the aforesaid transactions are in violation of Section 269SS of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as the payment was made by cash and not by way of cheque or t...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Shramik theka Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Raj235
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This regular first appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 19-7-1991 passed by the District Judge, Pall in Civil Original Suit No. 32/82 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of money was dismissed with cost on the ground of limitation.2. The plaintiff disclosed in the suit that In pursuance of notice inviting tenders issued by defendant-respondent No. 3 the plaintiff submitted its tender for 'labour charges for laying cement and concrete'. The said tender was accepted by the defendant department and, under agreement work contract was given to the plaintiff on 1975. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the abovementioned work was completed as per contract agreement. Thereafter, the plaintiff requested the authorities concerned for making payment of the final bills but it was not done and the authorities deducted an amount of Rs. 400/- from the second running bill of the plaintiff for the use of machinery of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »