Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001CriLJ800; 2001(2)WLC632; 2000(3)WLN39
ORDERChauhan, J. (1). The cases, deal with here, have chequered history as there have been several rounds of litigation before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in different forms at different stages and also before this court in bail matters.(2). The instant criminal miscellaneous applications have been filed for quashing the complaint (C.R. No. 403/1996) registered at the Police Station, Kotwali, Pali, as also the further investigation pertaining to offences under Sections 120B, 195, 196, 342, 347, 357, 368, 388, 482 I.P.C. and Sections 17, 58(1)(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the 'N.D.P.S. Act').(3). The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that on 17.10.1996, one Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, a Practising Advocate filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, alleging that shop No. 6 in Vardhaman Market, Pali, owned by Smt. Amri Bai w/o Shri Jayant Raj had been taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2002Raj252; 2002(2)WLC783
Madan, J.1. By this petition, a writ of mandamus is sought for directing the respondents:-(a) not to modify sale agreement's term dated 19.4.93 with Gouri Cements (P) Ltd. as unit sold in public auction held on 26.3.93; (b) not to allow the purchaser Gouri Cements (P) Ltd. in possession of the petitioner's unit in the event of breach of agreement term dt. 19.4.93; (c) to sell petitioner's unit by public auction in case of breach of sale agreement dt. 19.4.93 so also by affording opportunity to the petitioner to offer highest bid so as to receive back the unit; (d) to pay to the petitioner No. 1 balance of sale proceeds of the unit after adjusting his dues, alongwith interest @ 22% p.a. from 26.3.93 (auction date) till its payment of alternatively to give unconditional guarantee for such balance amount alongwith interest; (e) to submit monthly account to the petitioner No. 1 until payment of balance amount with interest. (f) to issue discharge certificate letter to the Registrar of Comp...
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 : AIR1973Raj173; 1972()WLN476
Chhangani, J.1. This is plaintiff's first appeal from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Balotra dated 28/8/5S dismissing the plaintiff-appellants' suit for the enforcement of a mortgage. The appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. One of the questions raised before the Division Bench related to the invalidity of the registration on account of the non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 35 and 61 of the Marwar Registration Act which are similar to the provisions of the Indian Registration Act except for some changes in Section 35 of the Marwar Registration Act A question relating to the validity of the registration deed on account of the non-presentation of the deed and non-admission made by some of the executants of a deed arose before a Division Bench in Civil First Appeal No. 30 of 1957 (Raj): Bhaniram v. Mukandass and was referred to the Full Bench. Having regard to this reference, the present appeal was also directed to be heard by a Fu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(141)ELT352(Raj)
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.2. This application is under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This has arisen because the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'CEGAT') by its order dated 20-2-2001 has rejected the applicant's application under Section 35G(3) of the Act of 1944. An application to refer the following question said to be arising out of its appellate order to this Court for its opinion has been made :-'Does the learned Tribunal has the power to allow the benefit of Modvat credit to the goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which are otherwise not specifically mentioned in the Rule itself ?'3. The question has been raised in the context of the facts and circumstances about which there is no dispute that the articles in question are voltage regulators. The assesses has claimed Modvat credit of Rs. 30,320/- in respect of excise duty paid on voltage regulators used by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1997]226ITR561(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This order shall dispose of all the above listed matters which have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for opinion of this courtsince the controversy involved in the above cases is as to whether a cinema building or hotel building is plant or not for the purpose of claiming depreciation.2. In the case of Lake Palace Hotels and Motels Pvt. Ltd., the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated September 2, 1988, in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were justified in holding that hotel is to be treated as plant and accordingly depreciation should be allowed at the rate applicable to a plant, and in further holding that the hotel being run 24 hours a day is also eligible to ext...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992(2)WLC510; 1992WLN(UC)31
N.K. Jain, J.1. This revision Under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act against the judgment of learned Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer dated 4.7.1986 in Sales tax special appeal No. 85/82.2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-petitioner M/s. Chhogalal Akodia is a registered dealer leading in 'mica' cutting who is now being represented by his L.Rs. The assessee for the assessment year 1972-73 for the period 1.1.72 to 31.12.72 filed return. The assessee had purchased certain 'mica' for the purpose of resale on the strength of declaration in form ST-17. Some 'mica' was sold after cutting its edges and dressing the 'mica' blocks. The assessing authority treating this process as a process of manufacture of 'mica' and charged tax @ 1% on 'mica' purchased by the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) which was partly allowed on 1.3.1977. Being aggrieved by the order of Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has moved an appeal before the Board...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2009)224CTR(Raj)488; [2009]318ITR48(Raj); [2009]184TAXMAN243(Raj)
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. While considering application Under Article 226(3) of Constitution seeking vacation of interim orders dt.23/05/08, this Court vide order dt.16/01/09 observed to finally dispose of the petition at admission stage; hence instant petition was finally heard at joint request.2. Instant petition is directed against order dt.31/03/2008 (Ann.4) in Misc.Appl. 8/JP/2008, whereby Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench ('ITAT, Jaipur') in exercise of powers Under Section 254(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act') re-called its earlier order dt. 29/03/2006 (Ann.1) and further directed both the appeals (ITSSA-105/JP/2004 & 35/JP/2005-Asstt. Year-Block Period 01/04/88 to 23/03/99) to be heard by ITAT Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in terms of order dt. 04/04/05 (Ann.3) of the President ITAT, Mumbai (respondent No. 4).3. Basic issue raised herein is as to whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law and in facts in re-calling its final order passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2002)77TTJ(NULL)849
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, dated 9-9-1994.2. Ground No. 1 [(a) and (b)] relates to the common issue of priority of set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation over unabsorbed investment allowance and deficiencies under section 80J.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee while returning his total income for assessment year 1991-92 adjusted the unabsorbed investment allowance prior to unabsorbed depreciation against the income of the current year. His claim as regards priority for set off between unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance was rejected by the assessing officer in view of the provisions of section 32(2) and the legal position emanating from the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the case of Bihar State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT : [1987]165ITR671(Patna) and that of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3527
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.BY THE COURT1. Since common questions of fact and law relating to not operating the waiting list of RPMT-2008 and giving admissions in M.B.B.S. only on the basis of PC-PMT of BDS as well as 10+2 are involved in all these writ petitions, therefore, all the aforesaid writ petitions have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided together.2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider and give admission to the petitioners in MBBS Course in Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital by considering their candidature against the available 85% seats of 150 seats for their admission in MBBS on the basis of their respective merit in RPMT-2008 by holding counselling and further no person be admitted against the aforesaid seats from any other source except the RPMT-2008. In order to better appreciate the aforesaid issue involved in the matter, the leading facts have been taken f...
Tag this Judgment!