Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)119CTR(Raj)472; [1994]206ITR345(Raj); 1994(3)WLC301
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of its order dated July 22, 1980, for the assessment year 1974-75 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 16,426 is a business loss and not a speculation loss ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had shown a loss of Rs. 16,426 in the cotton account and the entry was passed through the 'Nakal Bahi' on the last date of the accounting year. This difference was paid on account of purchase and sale of 100 cotton bales which were through Messrs. Basant Kotak and Bros., Bombay. The Income-tax Officer held that it is a speculative transaction and as such cannot be adjusted against the business income and has to be carried forward for adjustment in the subsequent years against speculation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1959)IILLJ656Raj
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. The petitioner is the Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills, Ltd., Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'company'; represented by Sri V.N. Soral, secretary, and the respondents are the Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills, Ltd., Mazdoor Union, Jaipur, represented by its President, Sri Ainshilal and the Judge of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan. The petition invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and prays that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order of injunction against the respondents and quash the interim award of the industrial tribunal dated 23 July 1958 so far as it decided about the question of wages to be paid to the siders working double sides in the ringframe department of the company.2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows.That, in the ringframe department of the company before 24 March 1958 only single si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1974CriLJ581; 1973()WLN322
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J.1. This is a revision petition directed against the order of Sessions Judge. Bhilwara, dated 10-3-1971. passed in Criminal Revision No. 52 of 1970. arising out of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C.2. The facts which has led to this revision before me stated in brief are these : There is a Khasra No, 2 measuring 268 Bighas. 11 Biswas, in village Nilki-kheri, in Tahsil Mandalgarh. On a report by the S.H.O.. Police Station, Mandalgarh. proceedings under Section 145. Cr.P.C. were instituted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhilwara. in respect of the aforesaid Khasra. The Samuhik Krishi Sahkari Samiti Ltd.. Mandalgarh (hereinafter called Party No. 1) alleged that the said Khasra has been allotted to it and it was in possession of the same. On the other hand, the respondents of the village Nil-ki-kheri alleged that they were in possession of the land. There was thus a dispute in respect of the said Khasra and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate being satisfied that there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1995)IIILLJ598Raj; 1987(1)WLN670
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378, Cr. P.C. against the judgment dated 27-6-86 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Jaipur in Criminal Case No.24/75, whereby the accused non-petitioners were acquitted from the offence under Section 85(a) & (b) of the Employees, State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').2. Briefly the facts of this case are that the Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed a complaint against the accused non-petitioners and Shri B.S. Rathore, Manager, Man Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd., alleging that it is a factory as defined under Subsection (12) of Section 2 of the Act. The non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 of the case are the Chairman and Managing Director, respectively, and B.S. Rathore is Manager of the said Corporation. It is contended that they are principal employers of the aforesaid factory as defined in Sub-section (17) of Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, under Section 40 of the Act read...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2003)IIILLJ445Raj
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The question of law is whether good-work wages paid to the respondent by the appellant in the present case are wages within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1948') and if so, the appellant is enjoined to pay contribution under the Act of 1948 or not.2. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated April 28, 1997 passed by the learned Judge, E.S.I. (CJM), Bhilwara in E.S.I. Case No. 3/95 by which the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed holding inter- alia that the good-work wages paid to the respondent-defendant by the appellant-plaintiff are wages within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Act of 1948 and thus, appellant-plaintiff was liable to pay contribution over that good-work wages.3. It arises in the following circumstances. -The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of E.S.I. (CJM), Bhilwara against ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1979WLN151
M.L. Joshi, Actg. C.J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the leaned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated January 21, 1976, whereby be upheld the order of the learned Executive Magistrate, Udaipur, dated October 23, 1975, who permitted the continuance of the proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), even after the expiry of fix months from the date of the commencement of the proceedings.2. A complaint was filed by the police under Section 110 of the Act against the accused-petitioner in the court of the City Magistrate, Udaipur on March 6, 1975. That complaint subsequently came to be transferred to the court of the Executive Magistrate, Udaipur. The same was registered by the learned City Magistrate, Udaipur, woo issued summonses to the accused-petitioner for his appearance in his Court on March 22, 1975. The summonses for hearing on March 22, 1975, were taken to be served on the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972CriLJ1588; 1972()WLN169
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. Kallua was acting as Sarpanch. Gram Panchayat. Khanua police station, Roopbas. He alone with other Panchas of the Gram Panchavat ordered the demolition of the eastern wall of the complainant Parsadi's house on January 16, 1966. Complainant Parsadi initiated proceedings against Kallua and others under Sections 166. 167 and 120B I. P. C in the Court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate. Bavana. In the course of the proceedings an objection was taken by Kallua oh August 1, 1966. that he acted or purported to act in the discharge of his official duty as Sarpanch in issuing the order for the demolition of the wall and that as Sarnanch was removable by the State Government he could not be prosecuted without the sanction of the Government by virtue of Section 197 of Cr. P.C. That objection was rejected by the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate. Bavana by his order dated October 15. 1968. A revision-petition was filed by Kallua in the court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, against th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)ILLJ1139Raj
Israni, J.1. This Special Appeal has been filed against the order dated April 18, 1991, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. Briefly stated, the appellant, who is resident of Kota, was appointed in the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Kota, as a Salesman in the Country Liquor Shop, situated at Kota. He was appointed w.e.f. April 9, 1975 on Rs. 5.50 per day, on daily wage basis, vide Office Order dated May 4, 1975. Subsequently, he was given Rs. 200/- per month. He also worked as Clerk from March 7, 1976 to April 3, 1976. His services were terminated w.e.f. April 3, 1976, by order dated March 24, 1976 (Anx.3). In Anx.3, by which services of the appellant, alongwith fifteen others, were terminated, it was stated that as they were temporary/ad hoc, their services were terminated w.e.f April 3, 1976. A dispute was raised by the appellant, which was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that employment of the appellant was temporary and ad hoc, there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ631Raj; 1994(1)WLC1
R.S. Verma, J. for himself and on behalf of Rajendra Saxena, J.1. These two appeals raise questions of vital importance for Hand Pump Mistries engaged in repairs and maintenance of hand-pumps throughout the State of Rajasthan. By consent of all concerned, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. Potable water is the prime necessity for any human civilization to survive. Public Health Engineering Department (for short PHED) was initially charged with the duty of supplying neat and clean drinking water in the State. Hand Pumps were installed throughout the State for this purpose. These hand pumps were being repaired and maintained by the PHED. However, the PHED did not find it convenient and feasible to maintain and repair these handpumps in the far flung rural areas. By virtue of Section 23(2) of Raj. Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishad Act, 1959 (for short the Act) read with Entry 4(iii) of the Schedule to the Act, 'provision of drinking water facil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1989CriLJ1618; 1988(2)WLN285; 1988WLN(UC)302
S.N. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a criminal revision petition against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota, dismissing the appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Kota, convicting the appellant Under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act for a period of 4 months and Rs. 200/- fine, in default of payment of fine, one month's R.I.2. This revision petition came up for arguments before the learned single Judge, who has referred this revision to larger bench to decide the following question : ---Whether the report dated 23rd June, 1979 can be considered sufficient to hold that the article contained in the packet was Opium? This question has been referred to us because there is conflict of views in the two judgments of this Court in Mana Ram v. State 1981 Raj LW 583 : 1982 Cri LJ 696 and S.B. Criminal Rev. No. 24/80 Bajrang Lal v. State decided on 7-4-1986.3. We had issued a general notice to all the Advocates to appear and address the...
Tag this Judgment!