Court : Rajasthan
1. The important question which requires consideration in the present case is as to whether the first appellate authority, namely, Commissioner of the Income-tax (Appeals) or Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) have power to grant stay and decide the stay application filed along-with appeal/s filed before them under Section 246/246A of Act respectively or not. The concomitant question, which would arise is whether the power of the Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the Act of 1961 to grant stay is there with the Assessing Authority during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority; and how such powers of ‘treating the assessee as not being in default in respect of amount in dispute in the appeal’, have to be exercised by such Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the Act. 2. Before coming the provisions of the Act and interpretation thereof, a brief look at the facts in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
These writ petitions have been preferred by the students. In Writ Petition No.2635/2011, a prayer has been made to quash the order dated 20.2.2010 and the Notification dated 29.4.2010, Annex.28 and 32 respectively filed with the petition. A prayer has been made to quash the amendment made in the item No.33 of the First Schedule to the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984, hereinafter referred-to as “the Act of 1984”. A prayer has also been made to direct the registrations of the petitioners as Veterinary Practitioners. The respondent No.7 RPSC may be directed to treat the petitioners as qualified Veterinary Practitioners for recruitment on the post of Veterinary Officers. The students were admitted in the course of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, in short “BVSc and AH”, in the Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine, Jaipur. The fact remains that the Government of India and the Veterinary Council of India have not recognized the said institutio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2012CrLJ228(NOC)
MATHUR, J. By the judgment impugned dated 7.7.2005, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotara convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Nakhtaram :u/S.304-B IPC :Life imprisonment.u/S.498-A IPC :One years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.Kesararam :u/S.304-B IPC :Seven years rigorous imprisonment.u/S.498-A IPC :One years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.Smt. Puri :u/S.304-B IPC :Seven years rigorous imprisonment.u/S.498-A IPC :One years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.The facts necessary to be noticed are that on 5.9.2002 at 09:00 AM a written report (Ex.P/1) was submitted at police station Ramsar by Shri Jodharam (PW-1), stating therein that in the night of 4.9.2002 at 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9027/2011 AND 8985/2011 BINANI CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN Judgment dt:11/10/20111/24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. .. 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9027/2011 (BINANI CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8985/2011 (BINANI CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Judgment : 11th October, 2011PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the petitioner. --------1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. These two writ petitions have been filed by the the impugnedpetitioner Binani Cement Limited challengingrectification order and consequential demand notices issued against it for assessment year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 in which demand of approximately Rs.64.30 lacs has been raised against the said company manufacturing cement, as a consequence of amendment brought in Section 8 of the CST Act, 1956 including section 8(5) of the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11316/2010 & 11 other connected writ petitions ( See Schedule) Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur vs. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Ors. Judgment dt: 11/10/20111/53IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Jodhpur Development Authority, vs. Jodhpur State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Ors.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11316/2010 & 11 other connected writ petitions ( See Schedule) DATE OF : PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr. M.C.Bhoot, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Surendra Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: 1. The petitioner, Jodhpur Development Authority, through its 11th October, 2011Commissioner, has approached this Court by way of present batch of writ petitions, inter alia, claiming the quashing of judgment and order dated 26/10/2009 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jodhpur on a complaint filed under Section 12 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSTHAN AT JODHPUR .. :: O R D E R :: (1) Narpat Lal The State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10144/2010.Vs.(2) Sangeeta GehlotThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10143/2010.Vs.(3) Vimla DeviThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10145/2010.Vs.Date of Order::::11thOctober 2011.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, G.C., for the respondents. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSTHAN AT JODHPUR .. :: O R D E R :: (1) Narpat Lal The State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10144/2010.Vs.(2) Sangeeta GehlotThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10143/2010.Vs.(3) Vimla DeviThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10145/2010.Vs.Date of Order::::11thOctober 2011.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, G.C., for the respondents. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSTHAN AT JODHPUR .. :: O R D E R :: (1) Narpat Lal The State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10144/2010.Vs.(2) Sangeeta GehlotThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10143/2010.Vs.(3) Vimla DeviThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10145/2010.Vs.Date of Order::::11thOctober 2011.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, G.C., for the respondents. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4790/2009 SHREE CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN DTD. 11.10.20111/105IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4790/2009 Shree Cement Ltd. V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Judgment : 11th October 2011PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr.S.Ganesh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr.Ramit Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bapna, Advocate General and Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet Mathur, Lokesh Mathur, Mr.Sunil Beniwal, for the respondents. BY THE COURT -1. How negative executive interventions, lack of political will and wisdom can cause laggard, sluggish and distorted industrial growth in a State, though rich in minerals, lime stone in present case in the State of Rajasthan and sufferer is a cement manufacturing unit, will be borne out from what follows in this case. 2. Another caveat on legislative practices, particularly subordinate legislation and executive policy decisions and the decision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. This criminal appeal under Section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been filed against the order dated 07.05.2011 passed by the Special Judge, National Investigation Agency, Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby the application (No.47/2011) for bail filed by the accused-appellant had been rejected. 2. The prosecution case was initiated on lodging of a First Information Report (No.85/2007), at Police Station Dargah, Ajmer for the offences under Section 302, 307, 323 and 295 IPC and also under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act. Thereafter, during the pendency of the investigation, which commenced after lodging of the said report, the case was handed over to the National Investigation Agency, New Delhi by Government of India, vide order dated 01.04.2011. Therefore, the investigation in the present matter was conducted by the Agency from 06.04.2011 onwards and an F.I.R. (No.4/2011) came to be registered by the National Investigation Agency. 3. Later on an application for grant ...
Tag this Judgment!