Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1997]225ITR1032(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated February 26, 1986, in respect of the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 of Abdul Karim Stone Contractor and for 1982-83 in the case of Raj. Flooring Stone Co. and Agarwal Flooring Stone Co. Kota :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow extra depreciation and investment allowance for dumpers which claim had not been put up by the assessees before the Income-tax Officer but was for the first time taken by them before the Commissioner of Income-tax in proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act ?'All the three matters are being disposed of by this common order as the question involved is common.2. The dispute in the present matter relates to the claim for depreciation on dumpers owned by the assessees. They derived income from owning of mines, extracting stones...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1997Raj217; 1997(1)WLC218; 1996(2)WLN328
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. In the instant writ petition petitioner questions impugned order dated 29-6-96. Anx. 2, passed by the Chancellor nominating Dr. S. L, Verma, Retired Professor (Department of Political Science) of University of Rajasthan, as his nominee in the syndicate of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur thereinafter referred as respondent University )w.e.f. 28-6-96 for a period, three years in supersession of his earlier order dated 15-9-95 a communication whereof is filed and marked as Anx. I.2. The genesis of challenge of the validity of the impugned order terminating petitioner stunure as nominated member of Syndicate of the respondent University before expiry of the period of three years is based on grounds inter-alia that power of the Chancellor to nominate a member of Syndicate under clause (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of Jai Narain Vyas University Jodhpur Act, 1962 thereinafter referred as Act No. 17 of 1962) stands exhausted with nomination of the petitioner.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ608Raj; 1997WLC(Raj)UC1
Verma, J. 1. Admittedly the petitioner's Establishment in both the above writ petitions are fully covered under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter called as the Act). The Bonus Act has been enacted as a welfare measure to the working class employed in certain establishments and the employees are entitled to the bonus on the basis of the production or productivity or profit and for the matters connected therewith. The bonus is regarded as a deferred wage payable to the employees which can be claimed by them as a matter of right under the provisions of the Bonus Act. Statutory liability for payment of bonus to employees (sic) employed in establishment is also caused on the employer. Bonus is to be paid by the employer in the accounting year in accordance with the provisions of the Act after calculating the allocable surplus. Under Section 8 of the Bonus Act, every employee is entitled to be paid the bonus by the employer in the accounting year in accordance wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2439
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. As common questions of law of considerable significance are involved in both these petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. these are disposed of by this common order.2. In S.B. Cr. Misc. Petn. No. 215 of 1997 Mukesh petitioner is alleged to have been found on 26-3-1989 keeping in his possession in a godown at 22, Godowns Factory Area, Jaipur 15 drums containing different kinds of petroleum products like mobile oil, greese liquid and black-hard and solid black oil, soap wash etc. with certain instruments and utensils to be used in preparing adulterated petroleum products. He was possessing no license to deal in petroleum products. He was, therefore, accused of having contravened clauses 3 and 4 of Lubricating Oil and Greese Order 1987 punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (The Act). A police report under Section 170/173, Cr. P.C. was made against him to the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) Cases on 1 -3-1993 and on the same day the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ810Raj; 1998(1)WLC1; 1997(2)WLN658
M.G. Mukherji, C. J. 1. The reference is at the instance of the learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6345/ 1992 and S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3784/1993. In the first writ application filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('RSRTC' for short hereinafter) the award dated December 3, 1991 as passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara in Labour Case No. 9/1991, formerly numbered as 39/1987 has been impugned by the RSRTC whereby the learned Judge, Labour Court having found the order of termination dated October 8, 1994 to be unsustainable directed reinstatement of the workman Gopal Singh treating his case to be one of continuous employment and observed that the said Gopal Singh would be entitled to 50% of his backwages till the date of the award and would be entitled to full wages thereafter. His two annual grade increments were withheld. The, RSRTC was also declared to be entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 8000/- to which extent it sustained as a loss on accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : I(1999)DMC121; 1998(2)WLC12; 1997(2)WLN646
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The wife-Smt. Santosh has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce, dated April 29, 1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalore, under Section 13(1-A) of the Act on the ground of non-compliance of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights for a period of more than one year.2. The factual position does not appear to be in dispute. The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu custom and rites in the year 1970, and they lived at Jalore. From their wedlock there is no issue. In the year 1980, the wife went to her parent's house at Bikaner and when she did not return to her matrimonial home, the husband-respondent filed a petition in the Court of District Judge, Jalore for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 alleging that the wife had fully deserted him without any lawful excuse. This petition was filed on Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1998Raj165; 1998(1)WLC277
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. Petitioner was running the business of Carver Ivory, popularly known as Mammoth Ivory under the license as issued by the State which license stood renewed from year to year. There are certain restraints on his business which have been provided under the Wild Lite (Protection) Act. It is stated by him that because of certain amendments made in Sections 5, 27, 33, 34, 35 and 37 vide Act No. 44 of 1991 in the aforesaid Act, his livelihood has been effected and exercising powers under Section 49 of the Amended Act, he has been informed vide Annexure-4 dated 23-12-1991 to the effect that the import of ivory has been banned and, therefore, the petitioner is restrained from dealing with ivory in any and whatsoever manner subsequent to 29-2-1992. The letter Annexure-4 has given a cause of action to the petitioner for challenging the amended sections of Act 44 of 1991. It is stated by the petitioner that the provisions of the amended law do not and cannot have effect of pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2000Raj180
1. The State has preferred this misc. appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') challenging the judgement and decree dt. 16-7-1996 passed by the District Judge Jhalawar, whereby deciding objections of the State tothe application of the respondent M/s Navabharat Construction Co. (for short 'the Company') of claiming compound interest, the learned District Judge Jhalawar awarded simple interest @ 15% p.a. on the original award of Rs. 29,96,060/- from the date 16-7-1996 of its order till realization and further ordered to pass a decree entitling the respondent Company to recover whatever its claim granted under Award dt. 29-5-1995 from the State and also make Award amount a part of the decree. The decree passed is reproduced as under :--'With reference to the Award by Shri V. K. Gupta dt. 29-5-1995 the decree is passed asbelow :-- (i) An amount of Rs. 29,96,060/- (Twenty nine lakhs, ninety six thousands sixty only) will be paid by the non applicant for the...
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 : 2000(2)WLC524
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. A large number of writ petitions have been filed challenging the Constitutional validity of the provisions of Rule 73 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955, as amended vide Notification dated 26-2-1977, being substantive ultra-vires and for quashing the order dated 1-3-1997 issued by the Inspector General of Stamps providing, the applicability of the amendment even in pending revisions. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners purchased a piece of agricultural land measuring 20 Biswas comprise of Aaraji No. 1028 at village Rayala, district Bhilwara, for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. The said document was presented before the Registering Authority (respondent No. 3) for registration. However, the Authority took the view that the sale-deed, purported to have been made of an agricultural land, was in fact, sale deed of a commercial plot and the value of the land in dispute was required to be computed at the commercial rate and, ...
Tag this Judgment!