Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-25-1983
Reported in : 1983WLN237
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the Judgment dated August 19, 1982 of the learned single Judge of this Court by which he allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent without any order as to costs.2. The appellants and respondeat were non-petitioner and petitioner before the learned single Judge and they will be referred is such herein.3. The petitioner was holding the post of Junior Accountant with non petitioner No. 1, the Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Fedsration Ltd. (herein after referred to as the Federation) in its Jodhpur Dairy Unit. By order (Anx. 2) dated June 3, 1981 the petitioner's services were, terminated with immediate affect and he was asked to hand over charge to one Shri Om Dutt. It is alleged that this order came to the notice of the petitioner on June 6, 1981. The order (Anx 2) (typed copy Anx. 3) filed by the petitioner runs as follows:Since you are holding a responsible post and y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-01-1983
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)314
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the award dated May 1, 1982 passed by the Labour Judge, Bikaner, Petitioner has raised only two points before me during the course of argument; (i) that the State Government was not appropriate authority, as defined Under Section 2(e) read with Section 14 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to make the reference; and (ii) that the labour Court was not justified in granting the relief of re-instatement and 50% salary.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the case of Som Prakash v. Union of India . The relevant portion of Head Note 'A' leads as under:The preponderant considerations for pronouncing an entity as State agency or instrumentality are (i) financial resources of the State being the chief funding source (ii) functional charter being governmental in essence, (iii) plenary control residing in Government, (iv) prior history of the same activity having been carried on by Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-27-1983
Reported in : 1983WLN295
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. The question which arises in this appeal is as to whether a suit for accounts can be maintained except when there is specified relationship between the parties.2. The plaintiff's case is that he along with the proforma defendant Vishwanath had taken up a contract from the State of Rajasthan for completion' Hon of works specified in the plaint. The plaintiff and the proforma defendant bad completed the works in respect of which the contract was given to them, but they have not been paid the full amount in respect of the work done by them and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- has been wrongly deducted by the defendant The plaintiff also alleged that according to the terms of the contract she defendant was to supply material including coal and machinery like pumps, which the defendants provided but no proper accounting bad been made. The plaintiff and his partner bad also deposited security deposits with the defendant which have not been refunded. The plaintiff requested the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-28-1983
Reported in : 1983WLN688
..... section 30(a)(i), section 30(a)(ii), section 30(b) & section 30(c) are deleted sections of section 10(2)(i) and (ii), section 10(2)(v) section 10(2)(ix) & section 10(2)(iv) respectively of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (here in after to be referred as 'the act of 1922'). section 31 deals with repairs and insurance of machinery plant and furniture. section 31(i) and section 31(ii) are deleted sections of section 10(2)(v) and section 10(2)(iv) of the act of 1922. section ..... commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test. if the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling the management and conduct ..... commissioner of inland revenue v. granits city steamship co. in city of london contract corporation v. styles bowen l.j. observed as to the capital expenditure as follows:you do ..... repairs would restore the asset to its original condition of working but in actual life and especially while running a business it was not possible to restore the asset to ..... act, 1961 (act no. xliii of 1961) (which will here in after for the sake of brevity be referred to as 'the act')., and cit, delhi v. s.b. ranjit singh , regal theatre v. cit delhi (1966) 59 i.t.r. 49, gotan line syndicate v. cit : [1966]59itr718(sc) and hols by cables ltd. v. atherton 10 tax cases 155. he also considered humayan properties ltd. v. cit (5) & cit v. mahalukshmi textiles mills ltd. (1956 .....
Tag this Judgment!