Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2009)226CTR(Raj)417; [2010]186TAXMAN365(Raj)
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Since bunch of cross-petitions filed by Assessees as well as by Revenue assailing orders of Settlement Commission in cases of different assessees, involve self-same issue for consideration; hence at request, were finally heard together for its disposal by this common order at admission stage. Primary question for consideration in a bunch of writ petitions preferred by Revenue and cross petitions by different assessees is with regard to applications filed before settlement commission on or before 01/06/2007 and assailing orders of Settlement Commission, on the premise that if impugned order of Settlement commission Under Section 245D(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) is held to be legally unsustainable, in such an eventuality, whether matters are to be remitted back to settlement commission to examine afresh in accordance with law or to the assessing authority in view of proceedings initiated under Chapter-XIX-A on being held to be abated in terms of Section 245HA of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2010(1)Raj39; 2009(3)WLN113
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The application seeking immediate order for ejectment of the tenants from the demised premises (Case No. 1/1997: Old No. 10/1996) as made by the respondent No. 3 (hereinafter also referred to as 'the applicant' / 'the landlord') on 10.06.1996 with reference to the provisions of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' / 'the Act of 1950') came to be allowed by the Additional District Magistrate, Banswara on 13.05.1997 making an order for ejectment of the tenants from the suit premises. The order so passed on 13.05.1997 was challenged by the tenants under Section 16(11) of the Act of 1950 in Civil Revision Petition No. 1/2005 that came to be dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Banswara by the impugned order dated 15.12.2005. Aggrieved, the tenants in the first place preferred a regular first appeal (CFA No. 77/2006) that was dismissed by this Court on 12.05.2006 as being incompetent....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2009)IVLLJ225Raj; RLW2009(3)Raj2029; 2009(3)WLN571
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Petitioner Gopal Prasad Varshney was appointed on the post of Clerk in the respondent Bank on 23.01.1965 after giving age relaxation of two and half years in view of his additional qualification and retired from the post of Senior Manager on attaining age of superannuation on 31.07.1995. The pension scheme was introduced in the Banking Industry in November, 1993. The respondent Bank also framed its own employees pension regulation in 1993. The total service of the petitioner with the respondent Bank was 31 years, whereas for 100% pension 33 years service is required and for short of 2 years service, the petitioner wanted to take the benefit of Rule 26(c) of The Bank of Rajasthan Limited (Employees') Pension Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996') as prior to the service with the respondent Bank, the petitioner had served in the Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation for the period from 01.08.1959 to 09.01.1965. To this effect, the petitioner submitted his repre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1430; (2009)12VatReporter17
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These revision petitions have been filed by the Revenue under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994) being aggrieved by the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated 18/6/2067, whereby, the Tax Board decided a batch of sue appeals filed by the Assessee and another batch of six appeals filed by the Revenue. These cross appeals arose out of the order of first appellate authority - Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur dated 22/7/2006, whereby, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the levy of tax upon the assessee, whereas, set aside the levy of interest and penalty imposed by the assessing authority under Section 65 of the Act. So far as levy of tax was upheld, the assessee was aggrieved and, therefore, it preferred six appeals for six different assessment years namely A.Y.2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. As far as levy of interest and penalty is concerned, since first appellat...
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 : RLW2009(1)Raj46
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Rajasthan State Mines and Mineral Limited, a Government of Rajasthan Enterprises, RSMM, for short, against the Railway Administration challenging the vires of Railways (Punitive Charges for Over-riding of Wagons) Rules, 2004 framed under the provisions of Section 73 of the Railways Act, 1989 and framed in supersession of earlier Rules of 1990 prevailing in this regard.2. The petitioner had initially laid a challenge to the provisions of Section 73 of the Railways Act, 1989 also, but that challenge was given up before the Division Bench of this Court on 26.9.1997 and challenge was restricted to the validity of aforesaid Rules of 2004 and thus, the matter was remanded to the Single Judge. However, prior to that, on 6.12.2006, the Division Bench had passed the following Interim order in the matter:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh BaliaHon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan VyasMr. M.R. Singhvi, for the appellant.Mr. Kamal Dave, Mr. J.P. J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2008)217CTR(Raj)497
N.P. Gupta, J.1. These 11 appeals arise in almost identical circumstances, rather except Appeal No. 119, all ten appeals arise in exactly identical circumstances.2. Appeal Nos. 94, 99, 100, 101, 131 of 2005, and Appeal No. 1/2006 arise out of the common order of the learned ITAT dt. 10.8.2004, allowing the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1991- 92, setting aside the impugned orders of the Assessing Officer, and the Commissioner, and directed the Assessing Officer to compute the income from the house property, on the basis of the actual rent receipt, obviously to compute it in the year it was received.3. Then, Appeal Nos. 26, 84, 85 of 2006 and 45/2007 arise out of the common judgment of the learned ITAT dt. 5.5.2005, for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1996-97 partly allowing the appeals, and holding, that the receipt of arrears of rent, and enhanced rent, are taxable only in the relevant period when it is received, and thus setting aside ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2757
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios, S.A. (in short 'the petitioner- company') is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that the petitioner-company possesses the qualifying requirements and technical criteria laid down in Clause 3.00 of Part III of Specification under the caption 'special conditions of contract' and further to allow the petitioner-company to participate in the price bid, with a further direction to restrain the respondent from assigning any contract for 400 KV GSS at Bhilwara or Bikaner (TN 223 and TN 220) to any participant in the price bid for the said contract.Pleadings of The Parties2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner-company in the writ petition and the rejoinder, are that the petitioner-company company is a multi-national company with its headquarters at Madrid (Spain) having annual turn over of Rs. 9,000 Crores and has executed comparable p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
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!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!