Rajasthan Court November 2008 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.
Prahlad Singh Vs. Suraj Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Raj53; RLW2009(2)Raj1789
ORDERDalip Singh, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 17-7-2004 passed by the learned appellate Court by which the learned appellate Court has rejected the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. on 3-8-1998.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction which came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 6-9-1998 and an appeal came to be filed which is pending before the learned lower appellate Court. In the suit the plaintiff relied upon a registered sale-deed dated 26-7-1926 (Annexure-1) executed by one Bhahwaria and based his title in the property upon the said sale-deed. The said registered sale-deed, it may be mentioned here, is in Urdu script and language, as would be evident from the perusal of An-nexure-1, a photostat copy of the sale-deed dated 26-7-1926 which has been filed before this Court also and annexed to this writ petition.3. After filing of the appeal against the dismis...
Perfect Thread Mills Vs. None
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2234
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner-company has submitted this application under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 read with Section 151 CPC for seeking further directions pursuant to the order passed toy this Court in S.B. Civil Petition No. 5/2000 decided on 14.10.2008.3. It will be appropriate to narrate brief facts leading to filing of this 35 application by the petitioner.4. Vide order dated 28th Sept., 1999 the recommendations were sent to this Court by BIFR after rejection of appeal by AAIFR vide order dated 2.12.1999 for winding up' the petitioner-company for taking appropriate action for completion of winding up of the company. In view of the above recommendations, the S.B. Civil Petition No. 5/2C00 was registered before this Court. Several proposals for revival of company were submitted and ultimately, vide order dated 14.10.2008 this Court in S.B. Company Application No. 3/2004 in terms of the prayer made in 10th additiona...
Subhkaran Singh Vs. Kishan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2298; RLW2009(3)Raj2117
ORDERRaghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 14-12-1989 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Alwar, whereby he had rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner and accepted the Final Report, submitted by the investigation agency in F.I.R. No. 24/1985. Being aggrieved of the said order, the complainant-petitioner preferred a revision petition and the same came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Alwar on 2-7-1998.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner had lodged a report on 17-2-1985, at Police Station Malkhera, District Alwar, for the offences under Sections 120-B, 416, 467, 468 and 420, I.P.C. After registration of the report, the police investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that no offence was made out and, as such, they submitted a Final Report before the concerning Court. The petitioner-complainant then filed...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.i. Industries Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Raj)259
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal dt. 28th July, 2006, allowing the appeal of the assessee, and setting aside the order of the assessing authority, and the CIT and thereby allowing deduction for the full amount of Rs. 1,06,57,907 in the relevant year being the expenditure claimed under Section 37(1) of the IT Act, being the amount paid by the assessee, under the approved Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), which scheme was approved under Section 10(10C) vide order dt. 12th Sept., 2000.2. The appeal was admitted on 29th March, 2007 by framing following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in error in allowing the entire claim of deduction under Section 37(1) of the amount paid by the assessee towards the dues of its employees whose services were brought to an end under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme ?3. The necessary facts are that the assessee implemented a Voluntary R...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Distillery Company Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Raj)566; [2009]316ITR426(Raj); [2009]180TAXMAN76(Raj)
N.P. Gupta, J.1. These four appeals arise out of different orders of the Tribunal, passed on different dates, and relate to different assessment years, but relate to the same assessee. Likewise, various questions were involved in the impugned judgments; however, all these appeals have been admitted only on one substantial question of law, vide different orders. The question as framed in ITA Nos. 12, 99, 124 reads as under, while in ITA No. 142 the language is bit differently worded but in substance that also covers the same controversy:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case deletion of additions made by AO under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act were founded by ignoring the relevant considerations which were required to be taken into account in terms of sub-s. (2)(a) of Section 40A of the Act?2. The necessary facts in this regard are that the assessee entered into a lease agreement to have full finance for purchase of an effluent and a bottling plant, and other assets on ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Inani Carriers
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Raj)264; RLW2009(1)Raj772; 2009[13]STR230; (2009)22VST44(Raj)
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue, against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 27-6-2006, accepting the appeal of the assessee, against the Order in review dt. 7-10-2005.2. The appeal was admitted vide order dt. 25-1-2007, by framing following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances the Commissioner of Central Excise could exercise his power of revision under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 to the extent the order of Adjudicating Authority was found to be erroneous by him and about which no appeal lay at the instance of Revenue notwithstanding that to the extent the assessee was aggrieved, he had preferred the appeal and the order in appeal has been passed.3. The necessary facts are, that the, assessee was issued show, cause notice for short/delayed payment of service tax for the quarter ending September, December, 2000, March, June, September and December, 2001 and quarter ending March, 2002. The necessary adjudication was made vi...
Shri Sardarmal Sancheti Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Raj)617
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dt. 27th Jan., 2005 (Annex. 7) as passed by the CIT-I, Jodhpur whereby an application moved by the petitioner trust for renewal of exemption under Section 80G of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') has been rejected essentially on the ground that the petitioner trust made a donation of Rs. 71,000 to one Oswal Chhatrawas, Jodhpur out of its income of Rs. 6,90,250 for the period ended on 31st March, 2004. The learned CIT was of opinion that the purpose of the said donee-institution being apparently of religious nature and for a particular community, donation to such an institution could not be considered as expenditure for charitable purpose; and, while finding that the petitioner trust spent more than 5 per cent of its total income on religious purpose and while relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. CAT : [1997]227ITR578(SC) , the learned CIT c...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rabindranath Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2008
Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Raj)410
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The AAC allowed deduction of ex gratia payment amounting to Rs. 48,575 received under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) under Section 89(1) over and above the exemption provided in Section 10(10C) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The Revenue took exception to the order of the AAC by filing an appeal before the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The Tribunal noticed the decisions of the Madras High Court in the cases of G.N. Badami v. CIT : [1999]240ITR263(Mad) and P. Arunachalam v. CIT : [2000]241ITR827(Mad) and the decision given by the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal wherein it was held that the amount received under the VRS constitutes compensation for 'termination of service' for the purposes of Section 17(3) and that the conditions laid down under Section 89(1) are satisfied and the assessee is entitled to relief on the amount received under the VRS as reduced by exemption under Section 10(1OC) of the Act.3. In the case of CIT v. J. Visalakshi : [1994]206ITR531(Mad) , the qu...
Bajrang Lal and ors. Vs. Dal Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Raj36
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellants are aggrieved against the impugned order dated 26-4-2005 by which the first appellate Court - Court of the Additional District Judge, Ratangarh (Churu) dismissed the appeal of the appellants as abated due to the death of defendant/respondent Dal Chand as in regular first appeal, the plaintiff/appellant did not choose to file any application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Dal Chand.3. Brief facts of the case are that one of the defendants Khetu Lal took loan from another defendant Revat Mal. Said Revat Mal filed a suit for recovery of the money which was decreed by the trial Court as back as on 20-10-1965. Said Revat Mal submitted execution petition No. 46/67 for recovery of the said decretal amount of Rs. 609/- only and in the said execution, the house of judgment debtor Khetu Mal was auctioned for a consideration of Rs. 9,775/-. The reserve price was Rs. 5,000/- only. After the said a...
State Vs. Lalaram Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ809; RLW2009(2)Raj2256
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No. 2 of 2007 pursuant to submission of the proceedings made under Section 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) alongwith two companion appeals being D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 835 of 2007 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2007 filed under Section 374(2) of the Code one through jail authority and another through Advocate by appellant Lalaram ('A-1' for short), arise out of judgment and order dated 07.09.2007 rendered in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2006 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Pali, by which A-1 is convicted for offence of murder of five persons under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) as well as under Section 201 and 380 IPC and sentenced to death and fine of Rs. 100 in default of payment of fine further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC with a direction that A-1 should be hanged by neck till his death subjec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »