Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: Hitesh Parihar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.21/2014 Date of Judgment :::21. t November 2014 HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI HONBLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Dr.Nupur Bhati ) Mr.Ravindra Singh ) for the appellant Mr.B.L.Bhati, Government Counsel for the respondents (Reportable) BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, Actg.CJ) 1. The appellant-petitioner was engaged as 'Vidhyarthi Mitra', on contract in the year 2006 and thereafter to teach the students in Government Primary School, Chhipi, District Jalore. His services were dispensed with on completion of three months, after which, he was re-appointed on contract in the year 2009 and worked upto January 2010.2. The appellants in other Special Appeal are amongst a large number of persons, who were appointed as 'Vidhyarthi Mitras', in the School of Elementary Education and the Schools of Secondary Education on the vacanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10491/2009 Bhanwar Lal Mundra & Ors. V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors. Date of Order::- 13th.5.2015 PRESENT HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr.M.S.Singhvi, Sr.Advocate with ) Mr.Hemant Dutt )-for the petitioners. Mr.P.R.Singh, Addl.Advocate General ) Mr.Dinesh Ojha ) Mr.A.K.Dadhich. )-for the respondents. ORDER (Reportable) BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, Chief Justice) 1. The petitioners are residents of Mundron Ka Bas, Gram Panchayat Napasar District Bikaner. By this petition, they have prayed for a direction to declare the Notification dated 18.9.2009 issued by the State Government as illegal and to quash the same with consequential directions, by which the Notification dated 6.10.2008 issued by the State Government under the authority of the Governor of Rajasthan declaring the Gram Panchayat Napasar as Municipality (Nagar Palika) Class IV, was wi...
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
SMT. SABANA @ CHAND BAI & ANR. VS. MOHD. TALIB ALI & ANR. (S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.362/2011) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER SMT. SABANA @ CHAND BAI & ANR. VS. MOHD. TALIB ALI & ANR. (S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.362/2011) Dated:- 30th October, 2013 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. D.N.Yadav } Ms. Purnima Yadav } for the petitioners. Mr. N.K.Bohra } for the respondent. Mr. S.D.Purohit } Mr. Amit Sharma } Mr. D.S.Beniwal } Mr. M.K.Trivedi } Mr. Anuj Kala }Counsel assisting the Court. BY THE COURT:( PER HON'BLE MR. SANGEET LODHA,J.) Reportable 1. The legal question that falls for our determination in this reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court reads as follows: Whether the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be applied retrospectively specially where the aggrieved party (wife) was divorced by the respondent (husband) prior to the Act coming into force on Oc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2003]259ITR79(Raj); 2003(2)WLN515
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has made the instant reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, seeking opinion of this court on the following questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 1988, removing wealth-tax on stock-in-trade was a substantive law and hence not retrospective in operation 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in directing that the immovable properties be valued as per Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment of assessment year 1984-85 whereas the said Schedule III came into existence with effect from the assessment year 1989-90 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Sharwan Kumar Swamp and So...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2003]260ITR167(Raj)
Y.R. Meena, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order and judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated January 31, 2001. The issue for our consideration in this appeal is whether unabsorbed loss can be carried forward and allowed in the case of this assessee when the loss was suffered by four co-operative societies in the preceding year 2. There were four co-operative societies duly registered with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for Rajasthan, Jaipur. The co-operative societies are : (i) Rajasthan Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Gulabpura ; (ii) Gangapur Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd., Gulabpura ; (iii) Ganganagar Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Hanumangarh ; and (iv) Gulabpura Cotton Ginning and Pressing Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Gulabpura. The Government of Rajasthan had major shareholding in the aforesaid co-operative societies. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur, made an order under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, read w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1995)128CTR(Raj)325; [1996]217ITR799(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. Both the matters are disposed of by this single order since the question of law involved is common.2. In D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 9 of 1992, the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1987-88 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in granting the benefits of amendment to Section 43B which was applicable with effect from the assessment year 1988-89 to the assessee in an appeal for an earlier year, thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 30,112 made under Section 43B ?'3. In D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 26 of 1992, the following two questions have been referred :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of Rs. 92,122 being the unpaid sales tax on November 4, 1983, i.e., the last date of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1998]229ITR252(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. In respect of the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 at the request of the Revenue, the Tribunal has formulated the following two questions of law arising out of its order dated May 20, 1984, and referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the allowance under Section 36(1)(viii) is to be computed before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A as well as any deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that interest amounting to Rs. 17,65,281 (assessment year 1978-79) and Rs. 17,70,210 (assessment year 1979-80) on cases in litigation could not be treated as income of the assessee ?'2. The questions relate to the interpretation of the provisions of Clause (viii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Income-tax Act for computin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2008)219CTR(Raj)465; [2008]301ITR240(Raj); RLW2006(4)Raj2692
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dated 19.9.2003 to the extent the order was against the Assessee. It was challenged by way of D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 8/04 which has since been decided by a separate order dated 17th April 2006.3. Following two questions of law were framed while admitting the appeal on 14.7.04:1. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,78,980/- on account on cessation/remission of liabilities when the same liabilities were written back and the creditor failed to lodge their claim before BIFR?4. The question No. 2 was not framed clearly and needs some modification. The modified question required to be considered in this appeal, reaas as under:2. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law as well as on facts by deleting addition of Rs. 97,22,082/- on account of disal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1997]225ITR142(Raj); 1996(3)WLC373; 1996(1)WLN36
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court with respect to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1977-78 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there could not be a partial partition both with regard to an asset of the Hindu undivided family and its members and sustaining the inclusion of the jewellery of the value of Rs. 89,892 for the assessment year 1975-76 and Rs. 94,000 for the assessment year 1977-78 in the net wealth of the assessee ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Hindu undivided family consisting of the coparceners Sarvashri Lalchand -- karta of the Hindu undivided family -- and his two sons, Jawahar Lal and Lalit Kumar. On Kartik Wadi 3, Samvat year 2031, a partial partition of the asset relating to jewellery held by the Hindu undivided family ...
Tag this Judgment!