Rajasthan Court August 2007 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. A.M. Singhvi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Raj)1; [2008]302ITR26(Raj)
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment delivered by Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, in ITA No. 395/1999, by which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue and affirmed the order passed by CIT(A).2. The question which requires consideration in this appeal is whether the expenditure incurred by respondent-assessee in connection with renovation of his office be treated as capital expenditure or the revenue expenditure?3. The respondent-assessee is an advocate mainly practicing before the Supreme Court of India. For the relevant asst. yr. 1996-97, he disclosed his professional receipts at Rs. 1,40,78,129 for the previous year. Besides professional receipts, the assessee also derived income from house property, dividend, interest, agricultural income, etc. In all, for the relevant previous year, the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 12,43,902 under the head 'Office repairs and maintenance'. During the aforesaid period, the assessee, who was occupyi...
Tag this Judgment!Koheera Finishing Centre Vs. Regional Director, E.S.i. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ541; RLW2008(1)Raj27
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Since common question of law is involved in connection with maintainability of Civil Special appeal against the decision of the learned Single judge, all these matters are disposed of by this common order.2. All the special appeals are preferred against the decision of learned Single Judge delivered in various civil misc. appeals. The Civil misc. appeals were filed either under Section 96 of C.P.C. or under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act or against the order of ESI Court or any other special statute. However, the fact remains that the learned Single Judge has passed the orders on merits in various such S.B. Civil misc. appeals, therefore, the question which arises for determination is whether the civil special appeal is maintainable against the decision of learned Single Judge passed in civil misc. appeal, in view of provisions of Section 100A C.P.C. and recent judgment of Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of RSRTC v. Vaibhav Kumar and Ors. reported in .3...
Tag this Judgment!Alok Tiwari Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1102
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner Alok Tiwari alleging that his so called wife Arpita-daughter of respondent No. 4 Ambika Prakash Pathak is under the illegal detention of her father and she is not allowed to live with her husband-petitioner herein. On the aforesaid averment, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents which included respondent No. 3 - the Station House Officer, P.S. Bani Park, Jaipur and respondent No. 4 - Ambika Prakash Pathak directing the S.H.O. to produce the detenu as the Court comes across cases when even a major girl is pressurised to live with anyone including her parents against her wishes.2. The matter thereafter was listed on 3.8.2007 when we had made it clear to the petitioner that he should be absolutely sure that his wife is under the illegal detention of her father as it is not appropriate to seek settlement of a matrimonial or personal dispute by filing a habeas corpus petition as that is surely not th...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ratan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1278
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants nine in number, were put to trial before learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, who vide judgment dated August 12, 2002 convicted and sentenced each of the appellants as under:Ram Ratan:Under Section 302 I.P.C.:To suffer imprisonment for life.Under Section 148 I.P.C.:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.Under Section 447 I.P.C.:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Batti Lal, Manbhar, Dhapa, Sammi, Ram Parsi, Kajod, Bharat Lal and Charat Lal:Under Section 326/149 I.P.C.:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.Under Section 147 I.P.C.:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.Under Section 447 I.P.C.:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that on October 26, 2001 informant Nanag Ram (PW-3) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Malarna Doongar (Sawai Madhopur) to the effect that on the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Brijendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1460
Guman Singh, J.1. This jail appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.5.2004 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City, district Karauli, in Sessions Case No. 09/03 (69/02) whereby the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302 IPC,to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer three months additional rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 324 IPC,to suffer two years simple imprisonment.Under Section 323 IPC,to suffer six months simple imprisonment.Under Section 448 IPC,to suffer six months simple imprisonment.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on June 27, 2002, at 2.15 PM a written report (Ex. P. 11) was handed over by Narsi (PW.12) R/p Jindaun-ka-Pura (Kamri) to the SHO, Police Station Nadauti, Camp P.H.C. wherein it was stated that on ...
Tag this Judgment!Jasveer Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN251
Prakash Tatia, J.1.Though the writ petition is listed in the Court on application under Article. 226(3) of the Constitution of India but both the learned Counsels for the parties prayed that the matter may be decided finally.2. It appears from the order-sheets placed on record by the petitioners(Annex.-7) that the Superintending Engineer was busy in administrative work on 30.04.2007 and before that and on that day itself, the matter was posted for arguments. On 30.04.2007, the learned Superintending Engineer specifically mentioned that he was busy in the programme of Hon'ble Chief Minister and because of heavy work load, therefore, he could not decide the matter. On the next date i.e. 07.05.2007, the order was pronounced by the Superintending Engineer.3. The contention of the petitioners is that the matter was not heard on 30.04.2007 which is apparent from the order-sheet itself. The Superintending Engineer was not in position to hear the arguments because of the reason mentioned in th...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Shyam Bihari Gupta Vs. the Rent Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj262
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The writ petitioner is defending a petition for eviction (Case No. 57/2003) filed by his landlord and pending before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur. It appears from the material placed on record in this writ petition and cognate Writ Petition No. 4127/2007 relating to the same eviction petition and being decided by a separate order today, that the issues in the matter have been framed on the questions of reasonable and bona fide requirement, material alteration and acquiring of suitable alternative accommodation by the tenant.2. It appears that the petitioner earlier sought an amendment in the reply that was directed to be allowed by this Court on 17.08.2006 while deciding writ petition No. 2823/2006; and this Court expected the Tribunal to decide the matter within two months.3. After the present petitioner filed the amended reply and the landlord filed rejoinder thereto, a prayer was made by the petitioner for amendment of the issues that was rejected by the Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Champawat Kisan Seva Kendra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj393
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the action of the respondents No. 2 and 3, who have stopped supply of petroleum product to the petitioner without passing any order on the ground that the respondents found that the petitioner was involved in selling adulterated petroleum product.3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., since 2005. On 28.2.2007, the petitioner received petrol and diesel through tanker, which was brought to the place of the petitioner by the transporter -respondent No. 4. As per the procedure, the petitioner was supposed to take two samples before allowing un-loading transporter's tanker to his tank and he was required to keep it in. sealed container. One sample was to be retained by the dealer and another is to be given to the transporter. This procedure has been prescribed so that in case, there is allegation of adulteration on the dealer, then the deal...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Bihari Gupta (Dr.) Vs. the Rent Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN191
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The writ petition is defending a petition for eviction (Case No. 57/2003) filed by his landlord and pending before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur. Though a copy of the eviction petition has been filed with this writ petition as Annexure-1, but copy of the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been annexed; however, the fact that the present petitioner is a tenant in the premises in question seems not to be in dispute.2. It appears from the material placed on record in this writ petition and cognate Writ Petition No. 7369/2006 relating to the same eviction petition and being decided by a separate order today, that the issues in the matter have been framed on the questions of reasonable and bona fide requirement, material alteration and acquiring of suitable alternative accommodation by the tenant; and this Court by the order dt. 17.08.2006 passed in an earlier writ petition has expected the Tribunal to decide the matter within two months thereof.3. While the matt...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Kumar Vs. Smt. Sonila Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Raj75
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of Family Court, Udaipur dated 3-3-2004, rejecting the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage filed by the appellant.2. Marriage of the appellant husband and respondent was solemnized on 28-1-1993 at Udaipur. According to averments made in the application dated 3-10-2000 he has claimed dissolution of his marriage on the ground that the respondent wife has treated the petitioner and has conducted herself with cruelty towards the appellant and has deserted him by leaving the matrimonial home on 12-4-1996 and since then she has not returned to matrimonial home without any just and reasonable cause.3. The facts which have been proved are that soon after marriage the wife has desired that the appellant should remain away from his parents and stay at Jaipur, with the mother of the respondent wife for which appellant was not agreeable. Since the appellant has declined to leave his parents ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »