Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2007)209CTR(Raj)143; [2007]288ITR116(Raj)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dated December 17, 1999, in two cross-appeals arising out of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1989-90. The substantial question of law framed at the time of admitting the appeal reads as under:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has correctly construed the provisions of Section 80HHC, in the matter of computing profits and gains of their business, in the context of the said provision for granting deduction2. One of the assessee's business in which the assessee is engaged in the business of export out of India of goods and merchandise to which Section 80HHC applies.3. In the first instance, on October 31, 1989, the assessee had submitted a return of income declaring loss computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act at Rs. 62,63,970. The assessee filed a revised return for treating the cash compensatory support received during the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2007(4)Raj3110
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.6.2005 passed by the District Collector, Jaipur, the aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed by petitioner Ranjeet Singh questioning non-renewal of his arms licence. In the first Writ Petition No. 3513/2004, challenge has been made to the letter dated 22.4.2004 by which the authorised arms dealer, M/s Jindal and Company, Panch Batti, M.I. Road, Jaipur, with whom the petitioner had deposited his licensed arm viz. one 12 Bore DBBL Gun No. 75623 and 32 Bore Revolver No. B-1872 at the time of election, was directed not to return these weapons to the petitioner without prior permission of the Police Station, Mahesh Nagar. Under challenge in the second Writ Petition No.5635/2005 however is the order of the District Collector dated 24.6 2005 whereby he cancelled the licence of the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid two weapons and ordered their forfeiture. Since in both the writ petitions, dispute pertains to the same per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(1)Raj716
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, No. 7, Jaipur City dated 22.12.1980. The present appeal has been filed by the defendant Prem Chand son of Shri Gulab Chand, the judgment-debtor, now represented through his legal representatives.2. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are that the decree-holder-plaintiff Khajulal, now represented through his legal representatives Shri Motichand and others filed a suit for partition and possession of the half portion of a residential house known as 'Haveli' situated at Chokadi Ramchandraji in Jaipur. The said Haveli was a joint Hindu Undivided Family property of Gulab Chand and one Maliram having half share each. In a decree passed in favour of one Ganga Pratap against defendant Gulab Chand in execution case No. 654/42, the said half share of Gulab Chand of the Haveli was attached and auctioned, which was purchased by plaintiff Khajul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2000Raj416; 2000(4)WLC412
ORDER1. By this group of writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 19(g), 19(gg) and Proviso (ii) of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1999, All the writ petitions are disposed of by common judgment. 2. On 17-1-2000, one of the petitions came up for admission and a notice was given to the learned Advocate General. The case was posted for final hearing on 27-1-2000. Mr. Mahesh Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as the State has not filed reply, the petitioner is entitled to interim relief i.e. stay of offending provisions providing disqualification to contest election. Mr. Sagar Mal Mehta, learned Advocate General, submits that he is prepared to argue the petition finally without filing the reply. In view of this, we have taken up the group of writ petitions for final hearing at admission stage. 3. The Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj62
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, working on the post of Assistant (C) with the respondent National Insurance Company Limited [hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent Company'] and having been transferred from Divisional Office, Jodhpur to Branch Office, Balotara, has challenged the transfer order dated 18.08.2006 (Annex.7) as being violative of statutory requirements.2. Put in a nut-shell, the contentions of the petitioner are that a part of Transfer Policy as framed, and the consequential Administrative Instructions as issued by the respondent Company are not in conformity with the statutory Scheme related with such transfers; and that his transfer order has been issued by an officer who could not have been and has not been authorised to do so; and further that the transfer order has been issued even contrary to the terms of the Transfer Policy.3. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he was appointed by the respondent Compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1700
S.N. Jha, C.J. 1. The dispute in this group of writ petitions being the same they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. It may be stated at the out set that the petitions were allowed earlier on 25.11.2004 vide judgment reported in 2005(1) RLR 474. On application of the State, however, vide order dated 1.6.2005 the judgment was recalled in D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 449/2005 (def) and analogous, and the petitions were restored for hearing on merits. That is how the petitions came up for hearing.3. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5504/2004 was argued as the representative case and facts of the case, therefore, have been noticed from the record of that case.4. The dispute relates to appointment of B.Ed. Teachers on the post of Teacher Grade HI in upper primary schools in the State of Rajasthan.5. Before stating the case of the petitioners it would be appropriate to briefly notice the scheme of recruitment of teachers in primary schools in the State of Rajasthan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1642; 2006(3)WLC1
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioners- Institution seeks to challenge the order dated 1.8.1994 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal) in case No. 127/94 whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioners-Institution to fill the vacant post of Library LDC by promoting respondent No. 3 Beni Prasad Saini, who is class-IV employee.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Tribunal for seeking direction for filling the post of Library LDC by promoting him and further the advertisement issued for filling the same be quashed. It has also been prayed that in case during pendency of the appeal, the post is filled in pursuance to the said advertisement, then the same be declared illegal and contrary to law. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 3 has submitted that he is class-IV employee in Agrawal College since 25 years having qual...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993CriLJ3193; 1993(3)WLC569
N.L. Tibrewal, J. 1. This Larger Bench is required to answer the following questions of law referred to it:-i) Whether composition of offence/offences, except as provided by Section 320 Cr. P.C., can be permitted in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., specially when Sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr. P.C. expressly prohibits;ii) If the answer is given in affirmative, whether this permission can be granted after the conviction of the accused under the offence/ offences which is/are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. The necessity to answer second question shall arise only if question No. 1 is decided in the affirmative.2. The relevant facts necessitating the reference are:The petitioner-Mohan Singh was convicted and sentenced by the trial Magistrate under Section 326 IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- vide judgment dated March 29, 1985 for causing grievous injury to Gulab Singh. He preferred an appeal which was pending for disposal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj2056; 2005(2)WLC10
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The Trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for eviction of his tenant-respondent, from the suit premises, vide judgment and decree dated 16.8.1994. The appellate court reversed the judgment and the decree of the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 5.4.1997. Hence, this second appeal by the appellant-plaintiff-landlord against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 5.4.1997.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant, who was in service in the year 1974, let out one of his shop, out of his three shops, situated in his house to the defendant- deceased Kanhaiya Lal on 2.10.1974 on rent of Rs. 110/- per month excluding the charges for the electricity, water and house-tax. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction against the defendant-tenant on 28.10.1977. The plaintiff in his plaint stated that the suit shop was let out to the defendant for commercial purposes but instead of doing the business in his own name,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1971Raj128
Jagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan (defendant No. 2) against a decree of the District Judge, Kota, dated 25-9-58 decreeing a suit instituted against it and against the Union of India (defendant No. 1) by the Associated Stone Industries Kota (hereinafter referred to as the Company). 2. The relevant facts are that the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Kota entered into an agreement Ex. A on 2-5-45 with the Company for quarrying Kachcha stone from the Tehsils of Ramganj Mandi and Chechat. Monopoly rights for quarrying Kachcha stone in these two tehsils were granted to the Company for a period of 15 years from 1-10-44- The terms and conditions contained in Clause 18 (i) of the agreement ran as under :-- 'In consideration of the concessions and privileges granted by the Grantor and in lieu of income-tax, super-tax and excess profits tax, the Grantee covenant to pay to the Grantor royalty on the stone excavated at the rate of rupee one per 100 sq. ft., subject t...
Tag this Judgment!