Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2005 Page 7 of about 69 results (0.010 seconds)

Sep 13 2005 (HC)

Bajaj Sevasharam Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-13-2005

Reported in : (2005)199CTR(Raj)535; [2006]280ITR480(Raj)

1. this appeal raises a simple issue which is arising as a result of certain incongruity arising from the tribunal's own order which is principally not under challenge.2. the questions which have been framed at the time of admission of the appeal are as under :1. whether, while considering allowance of revenue expenditure incurred for advertisement during any assessment year can be spread over by an assessee on principle of deferred revenue expenses on the ground that the benefit of such expense would flow for subsequent years also ?2. whether, in the facts and circumstances, the ao having accepted the principle of spreading over of expenses incurred in one assessment year by treating the same to be deferred revenue expense for earlier years and did not allow the deduction of full amount of expense was right in refusing to allow the deduction of unadjusted expense during the assessment year in question on the ground that the principle of spreading over of allowable revenue expenditure is not permissible in law ?3. the factual matrix on which these questions have arisen relates to the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 37(1) for the expenses incurred by him on advertisement through audio visual media which in turn creates certain rights in audio-visual clippings which are published and advertised through the medium of audio-visual films whether by telecasting or through the clippings shown on the screen in the cinema halls. since the assessee was deriving the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2005 (HC)

Rukmani Devi and anr. Vs. Nand Kishore Through Its Legal Representativ ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-21-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj340; 2005(4)WLC734

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. the plaintiff appellants in the instant special appeal seek to quash the judgment dated january 27, 1986 of the learned single judge whereby three civil first appeal, bearing nos. 202/1973, 56/1974 and 185/1974 were decided.2. it is contended on behalf of the appellants that finding of learned single judge that family settlement was not compulsorily registrable is erroneous, as terms of family arrangement were reduced into writing in it. the counsel for the respondent nand kishore, on the other hand supported the impugned judgment.3. having considered the submissions advanced before us and scanned the material on record, we notice that the learned single judge in the impugned judgment observed that the family settlement between the members of the family had taken place as per ex.a-1 which was signed by all the parties, except chunni bai. it was also held that since the family settlement was acted upon by the parties, nothing remained to be partitioned by the court. ratio indicated in kale and ors. v. deputy director of consolidation and ors. : [1976]3scr202 , was considered by the learned single judge and it was held that the family settlement was not compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the registration act.4. in kale and ors. v. deputy director of consolidation and ors. supra, their lordships of the supreme court indicated that the family arrangement may be even oral in which registration is not necessary. registration would be necessary only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2005 (HC)

Laj Kaur and anr. Vs. Shanti Devi Through Lrs.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-09-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Raj115; RLW2006(1)Raj562; 2006(1)WLC609

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. in civil second appeal no. 192/1981 following substantial question of law was formulated on july 17, 1981 :-whether the lower appellate court entertained the appeal after expiry of the prescribed period of limitationthis court considered the question and allowed the appeal of the landlord on october 17, 1997 while granting six months time to the tenant to vacate the suit premises.2 an application seeking review of the said order was filed by the tenant on april 7, 1998, which was dismissed in default on october 1, 1999. thereafter the tenant filed instant misc. application on april 27, 2004 under sections 151 and 152 of the code of civil procedure seeking amendment in the judgment dated october 17, 1997 rendered in second appeal no. 192/1981.3. it is contended by mr. a.k. bhargava, learned counsel for the tenant applicant that on october 17, 1997 the tenant and his counsel could not appear before this court and the landlord did not place correct facts before this court, since the material facts were concealed, the judgment dated october 17, 1997 is required to be recalled. reliance is placed on s.p. chengalvaraya naidu v. jagannath 1994 dnj (sc) 7, mangi lai v. state of raj. 1997 (2) rlr 755 : rlw 1997 (3) raj. 2017, shri paresar v. municipal board, mount abu 1996 (1) rlr 649, sushil kumar mehta v. gobind ram bohra : (1990)1scc193 , beli ram v. chaudhri mohammad afzal air (35) 1948 privy council 168, asharfi lal v. koili : air1995sc1440 and collector, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2005 (HC)

Uma Kant and Co. Ltd. Vs. Niranjan Prasad Mahesh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-15-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Raj46; 2005(4)WLC716

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. learned additional district judge alwar vide judgment and decree dated november 11, 1974 decreed plaintiffs suit for specific performance and directed defendants nos. 1 to 5 to execute sale deed and to effect its registration. the defendants 1 to 5 preferred civil regular first appeal against the said decree. learned single judge vide judgment dated august 14, 1986 dismissed the suit against defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 but decreed it only against defendant no. 3, who was directed to execute sale deed for his undivided l/9th share. the plaintiff in the instant special appeal has assailed the findings of learned single judge.2. as per the pleadings of the plaint the plaintiff is a firm registered as a private limited company under the companies act, of which shashi kant is the managing director. there is a plot of land measuring 33,173 sq. ft. near station road in alwar which is known as bawari and bagichi modiyan, belonging to defendant's ancestors. defendant no. 1 niranjan prasad and defendant no. 2 vishveshwar prasad are brothers being sons of bakhtawar mal; whereas ramesh chand defendant no. 3, suresh chand defendant no. 4 and naresh chand defendant no. 5 are the sons of gangadeen modi (since dead) and who was son of bakhtawar mal and brother of defendant nos. 1 and 2. defendants were originally residents of alwar but now they have all shifted from alwar. defendant no. 1 was staying in meerut, whereas defendant no. 2 was staying in chandigarh and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2005 (HC)

Madan Singh Vs. State and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-16-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj1246; 2005(3)WLC5

r.p. vyas, j.1. the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned orders dated 30.11.1995 (annex. 3), 03.5.1996 (annex. 4) and 23.10.1997 (annex. 5) may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.2. brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are as follows:3. the petitioner while working as l.d.c. under the respondent no. 3, was served with a memorandum alongwith charge sheet dated 6.10.1995 (annexure 1) under rule 17 of the rajasthan civil services (classification, control and appeal)4. the petitioner filed the reply dated 10.11.1995 (annexure 2) to the above mentioned charge sheet within the time prescribed by the respondent no. 3, denying the charge levelled against him, on the ground that laxman singh, udc (force-clerk) was on leave w.e.f. 16.5.1995 to 22.8.95 and there was no order in writing to took after his work, in his absence. it was further replied that no handing over taking over the charge has taken place between the petitioner and laxman singh.5. it was also replied that the work of cashier was also given to the petitioner as an additional work and he was carefully doing the said work alongwith his daily routine official.6. it was alleged in the reply that the application was submitted by sh. magna ram, constable, through proper channel, for forwarding the same to the higher authorities, i.e. assistant sub-inspector, intelligence. it was also alleged .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 2005 (HC)

Madan Lal Mahaveer Prasad Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-17-2005

Reported in : [2008]296ITR377(Raj); 2006(1)WLC117

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. the instant petition relates to proceedings carried out for levy of penalty under section 271e of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short '1961 act'), in respect of a default under section 269t of the 1961 act for which the penalty of rs. 25,000 was levied by the respondent authorities in terms of section 271e of the 1961 act upon the petitioner-firm. the petitioner-firm seeks to quash the impugned orders dated november 19, 1993, july 12, 1994 and december 20, 1994.2. the contextual facts depict that the petitioner-firm had furnished a return of income for the assessment year 1990-91 with the income-tax officer. the income-tax officer processed the return under section 143(3) of the 1961 act and except for making routine additions in respect of interest paid to partners to the tune of rs. 4,000 from out of loss of rs. 13,484 claimed in bardana account, and another amount of rs. 1,000 from out of expenditure incurred for tea, coffee, etc. and for a balance-sheet difference of rs. 87, the returned figures were accepted by him. by the same order the income-tax officer also granted continuation of registration in terms of section 185 of the 1961 act. the assessment order was passed on january 30, 1991. the income-tax officer, however, initiated proceedings under section 271e of the 1961 act in respect of repayment in cash to shri heera lal gupta vide order dated january 30, 1991. however, subsequently the deputy commissioner of income-tax, range-i, jaipur, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 2005 (HC)

Sugan Chand Vs. Madan Lal Through Lrs. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-12-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj557; 2006(1)WLC412

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. this is plaintiff's second appeal against the decree and judgment dated july 21, 1979 of the district judge sawai madhopur reversing the decree and judgment dated october 17, 1977 of munsif sawai madhopur whereby plaintiff's suit for possession of the suit land was decreed and the defendants to remove their material from the suit land and to close the door and windows. the defendant respondents have filed cross objection.2. this court while admitting the appeal on january 21, 1980 framed following substantial question of law:-(i) whether the interpretation put by the learned district judge on the various documents of the title showing the ownership of the disputed land of the plaintiff is proper or not?(ii) whether the sale of the disputed land by the municipal board, sawai madhopur without the permission and approval of the collector is proper or not?(iii) whether the lower appellate court could have ignored the site inspection note of the learned munsif while deciding this appeal and in the absence of failure to take into consideration the said inspection note, the judgment of the learned district judge is vitiated or not?in case the decision of the learned munsif in the matter of appreciation of evidence is not improper, was the district judge empowered to set aside and give a different version of his own in the circumstances?3. initially this appeal was decreed on january 17, 2000 but the review application filed by the defendant respondents was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 2005 (HC)

Official Liquidator of Amfort Agro Finance Ltd. Vs. Madan Lal Kumawat

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-12-2005

Reported in : [2006]67SCL346(Raj)

orders.k. keshote, j.1. heard the official liquidator and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire application.2. in this application under sections 446 and 447 of the companies act, 1956, the applicant has made following prayer:(i) the respondent(s) may be summoned and may be examined under section 477 of the companies act of 1956 on oath in order to fix up the liability with regard to the aforesaid amount and order for payment of rs. 7,400 (rupees seven thousand four hundred only), as on 7.8.1999 plus further interest @ 9 per cent on the amount thereafter till the date of payment may be passed in favour of the applicant-petitioner and the respondents may be held liable for payment jointly and severally.(ii) in the alternative the application may kindly be tried under section 446 of the companies act, 1956 and a decree for the outstanding amount may be passed.(iii) any other appropriate order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant.3. for the matters of this nature amfort agro finance limited (in liquidation), i have no hesitation to state that the poor persons, who took the loan of petty amount, are coming up and putting appearance before this court with all fairness and honesty. the persons, who took the loan of higher sum, they are manipulating or managing even the service of the notices. the respondent has already deposited the principal amount of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 2005 (HC)

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Madan Lal Sharma and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-11-2005

Reported in : I(2006)ACC529

orderk.s. rathore, j.1. the present controversy is fully covered by judgment rendered by hon'ble supreme court in case of national insurance co. ltd. v. baljit kaur and ors. reported in : air2004sc1340 wherein hon'ble supreme court directed the insurer to satisfy the awarded amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle simply by initiating a proceeding before the executing court without filing a separate suit. the same view has been taken by the division bench of this court while considering the judgment in the case of national insurance co. v. kamla and ors. reported in : [2001]2scr797 and held that the appellant assurance company will be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the owner/driver.2. in view of the ratio decided by hon'ble supreme court and this court, the appellant-insurance company is entitled to recover the amount of award from the owner of the vehicle by initiating the proceedings before the executing court in the same proceedings. the amount awarded by the claim tribunal be disbursed according to the terms and conditions of the award dated 2.6.2001 passed by the mact, kota.accordingly, the misc. appeal stands disposed of.

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2005 (HC)

Jagir Singh Vs. Ranjeet Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-15-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Raj105; RLW2005(4)Raj2941; 2005(4)WLC447

v.k. bali, j.1. the significant questions of law that need adjudication in the context of the contentions as have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties are as to whether mere denial of agreement dated 31.1.1977 executed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1, which has been held proved by both the courts, would shift the onus on plaintiff of proving that defendant nos. 2 to 8 were bona fide purchasers for value with consideration and without notice of any earlier agreement with the plaintiff, or that the initial onus of the issue being on defendant nos. 2 to 8 they had to lead some satisfactory evidence and further that determination of this question also depended upon attending facts and circumstances of the case. another question that needs to be determined would be that if agreement dated 20.1.1977 (ex.a.1) set up by defendant nos. 2 to 8 is a forged and concocted document, would it be not per se or read with other circumstances not enough to conclude that defendants nos. 2 to 8 had knowledge of agreement dated 31.1.1977 and the plea of bona fide purchasers for value raised by them shall have to be rejected. other significant question that also arises is as to whether the plaintiff would not be entitled to a decree for specific performance in view of the provisions contained in section 20 of the specific relief act even though the agreement in his favour is proved but a period of 27 years has gone by in litigation.2. the facts, in so far as the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //