Rajasthan Court September 2007 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kamal and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Raj)200; [2009]308ITR129(Raj)
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, referred following question for its answer/opinion of this Court vide its order dt. 16th Feb., 1999:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that additions made on the basis of material collected during the course of such survey was illegal?2. Revenue had moved an application for seeking reference on three questions pertaining to the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 765, 663 and 664/Jp/1992. Out of three questions, Tribunal referred only question No. 3 with some modification.3. The brief facts giving rise to the question referred are that a survey under Section 133A of the IT Act was conducted on 25th Feb., 1987. During the course of survey, excess stock was found, thereby addition was made by a sum of Rs. 3,24,544 by the AO. Aggrieved by the said addition, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. Assessee and Depa...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Singh Vs. Ramveer Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ290
ORDERG.S. Saraf, J.1. This criminal revision petition by the complainant petitioner is directed against the order dated 2-11-2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur whereby the accused respondent No. 1 Ramveer Singh has been held to be juvenile in conflict with law.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition in brief are that Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3 by order dated 16-4-2003 held the respondent No. 1 as juvenile and directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Sewar to file a separate charge sheet against him for offences under Sections 306, 376, 457, I.P.C. in FIR No. 288/2002 Police Station Sewar and directed the respondent No. 1 also to appear before the Juvenile Board, Bharatpur on 8-5-2003. The present petitioner challenged this order by filing a revision petition before this Court. Learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 22-8-2006 (allowed the revision petition, set aside ...
Tag this Judgment!Govind M. Pujara Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Raj36; RLW2008(2)Raj1112
R.M. Lodha, J.1. We shall refer to the parties thus : respondent No. 1, the bank', respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the borrowers' and petitioner, 'the guarantor'.2. The bank filed an application on 22nd December, 2003 for recovery of its dues under the Recover}' of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, the Act of 1993') against the borrowers and the guarantor. The bank also applied for an interim order. On 20th January, 2004, the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal')) passed an order restraining borrowers and the guarantor from selling, alienating or disposing of the property secured with the bank including hypothecated goods.3. On 15th January, 2004, the bank is said to have made an application for attachment of the property of the guarantor. Notices of the said application are said to have been issued and on 2nd April, 2004, the order was passed by the Tribunal attaching the property of guarantor.4. According to the guarantor, the order of attachm...
Tag this Judgment!Poonam Arora (Mrs.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1321
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed on 10th August, 2001 is impugned by the original applicant in this writ petition.2. Smt. Poonam Arora-petitioner herein (for short, 'the delinquent') was appointed on the post of Senior Clerk on 22nd May, 1989. She was posted in the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Kota. She was thereafter promoted to the post of Head Clerk on 18th March, 1994.3. She was served with a memorandum of charge for imposing minor penalty under Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short, 'the Rules of 1968') on 28th November, 1995. The allegation against her was that she had submitted a proposal for assessment of 18 posts of Chief Clerk in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 (RP) of Establishment Branch to the Additional Divisional Railway Manager through the Assistant Personnel Officer-II taking into consideration anticipated vacancies-(a) due to retirement; and (b) due to promotion in ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand M ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj791
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Core questions emerge for consideration in these appeals are:(i) Whether the decision to abolish post of Law and Enquiry Officer was taken in good faith by the Administrator?(ii) Whether the powers of judicial review were rightly exercised by the learned Single Judge?2. Contextual facts depict that the respondent Gulab Chand Mittal who possessed the degree of LLB was serving on the post of Statistical Officer w.e.f. June 25, 1983 in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board (for short 'the Board'). A post of Law and Enquiry Officer (for short 'LEO') was created in the pay scale of Rs. 2650-4500 vide order dated September 3, 1994 in pursuance of the Resolution No. 48 of the Board. Because no work was available, the post of Statistical Officer was abolished and post of LEO was created. The respondent was found suitable for the post of LEO and selected vide order dated September 6, 1994. It appears that prior to creation of the post of LEO, the functions rela...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ex Lans Nayak Bega Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN56
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. This Special Appeal by Union of India is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby while allowing the writ petition of respondent Ex Lans Nayak Bega Ram, he quashed the proceedings of summary Court Martial dt.23.09.1992 and ordered to make payment of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation in lieu of six months' rigorous imprisonment and dismissal, with order of reinstatement and all consequential service benefits.2. In the writ petition, it is stated that the respondent joined Indian Army on 27.09.1983 and was serving in the 4th Battalion of Rajputana Rifles as Lans Nayak. On 13.09.1992 when the respondent was ordered by Sub Jai Karan Singh of the Unit to leave immediately at 2100 Hrs for patrolling duty at 5 A.P., he picked up his loaded rifle, cocked the same and threatened to shoot him by uttering the following words 'Who the hell are you to tell me, I will shoot you'. The chargesheet was issued to the respondent and summary Court martial was h...
Tag this Judgment!Rajmata Gayatri Devi Vs. Distt. Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1197
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 11/5/2007 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur thereby rejecting her application filed on 26/4/2007. This application was filed by the petitioner in the pending proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred in short as the 'Act') which in fact was jointly filed on 20/2/1998 by the petitioner, Rajkumari Lalitya and Rajkumar Dev Raj, respondents No.2 and 3, respectively for issuance of Succession Certificate with regard to properties of late 'Maharaj' Jagat Singh who died on 5/2/1997. When notices of the petition under Section 372 of the Act were issued, other legal representatives of late 'Maharaj' Jagat Singh namely; Maharaj Prithvi Singh and 'Maharaj' Jai Singh admitted to the claim of the aforementioned three applicants to inherit estates of late 'Maharaj' Jagat Singh in equal proportion. Yet another brother 'Maharaj' Bhawani Singh objecte...
Tag this Judgment!Gurudeo Singh and ors. Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN209
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. It appears from the facts of the case that Sarva Shri Chunni Lal, Ram Lal and Kundan Lal were three brothers. The petitioners' case is that the disputed land was allotted only to Chunni Lal under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act of 1954'). His successors obtained Sanad on 01.04.1966 and thereafter sold land to the petitioners on 11.01.1977. In view of the above reasons, the petitioners became khatedar tenants of the land in question. However, Kundan Mal, brother of Chunni Lal, preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act of 1954 against the order dt. 31.05.1971 passed by the Managing Officer, Ganganagar whereby he treated all the heirs of Chunni Lal as sole successors of Chunni Lal after the death of Chunni Lal and substituted the name of Chunni Lal with the name of heirs of Chunni Lal. Kundan Lal submitted that in fact, the land in dispute was the joint prop...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Gupta and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj969
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Although this matter came up for consideration of the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 seeking vacation of ad-interim stay order dated 6.1.2000, but since the arguments that were raised for deciding that application, would be sufficient for deciding the main case itself finally, therefore, the matter was taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.2. Bone of contention between the parties is a piece of land admeasuring 881.68 sq. yards which lies in front of plot Nos. 66, 67 and 68, Kanota Bagh, JLN Marg, Jaipur. While on the one hand, the petitioners claim that the said piece of land, described as strip of land, was offered to be sold to the petitioners by the then Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur vide letter dated 29.8.1970, they are entitled to allotment of the same. On the other hand, the private respondents No. 4 to 8 claim that they having purchased the aforesaid plots Nos. 66, 67...
Tag this Judgment!Ridhi Sidhi Builders and Party Vs. Urban Improvement Trust and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN276
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner participated in the auction conducted by the respondent Urban Improvement Trust (for short 'UIT') for sale of commercial plot situated at Sector No. 5, Hiran Magri, Udaipur. The petitioner deposited earnest money of Rs. 5,000/- in cash and the reafter, he gave bid of Rs. 311/- per sq. ft. That bid was highest. The total cost of the plot thereby came to be Rs. 15,86,100/-. The petitioner deposited amount of Rs.75,000/- in cash with the UIT and thereafter, deposited Rs. 3,20,000/- with in time, to complete Rs. 4,00,000/- which is 1/4th of the amount which was required to be deposited by the bidder on acceptance of his bid by the auctioneer/respondent. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of receipts dt. 17.01.1996 and cash challan of Rs. 3,20,000/- as Annex.2 and 3along with the writ petition. According to the petitioner, sale was confirmed by Chairman on 18.01.1996. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »