Rajasthan Court May 1961 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Chhagan Lal and Others Vs. Income-tax Officer, B-ward, Bikaner, and An ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR351(Raj)
B.P. BERI J. - These three petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India have been submitted by three different assessees in regard to notices served on them under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Officer, Bikaner. The petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or prohibition for quashing the notices in question and for prohibiting the Income-tax Officers concerned from taking proceedings thereunder. Since these petitions raise a common question of law about the interpretation of section 34 of the Act, we propose to dispose them of by one judgment.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 153 of 1959We may state the material facts relating to each of the writ petitions. In the case of Chhagan Lal, the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Bikaner, issued a notice to him under section 34 of the Income-tax Act on 14th March, 1959, stating that he had reason to believe that the income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1950-51 had escaped assessme...
Tikuda Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Raj216
Dave, J.1. This is a reference arising out of an application in revision by one Tikuda against the order of the Additional Sessions judge, Jaipur District, dated the 15th Of October, 1959.2. The facts giving rise to it are that on the 24th of June, 1959, the petitioner presented an application to the Superintendent of Police, Amber, requesting him to take proceedings against Ghasi Balai and 6 others under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Superintendent of Police forwarded that application to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Govindgarh. After investigation, the Station House Officer, Govindgarh, presented a report in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amber, requesting him to take proceedings against Ghasi and 6 others under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It was stated in the said report that a field (Khasra No. 24), appertaining to what was known as Kothi Nadiawali, was in the possession and cultivation of the petitioner Tikuda since ...
State Vs. Ugam Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Raj268
Bhandari J.1. This Court while deciding the Civil Writ Petition No. 197 of 1959 (Madan Singh v. Union of India and others) by its order dated 28-10-1960, directed Bansilal and Ugamsingh to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for swearing and presenting false affidavits in this Court.2. On a complaint lodged by Shri Radhe Shyam, the Train Examiner, Uterlai, Madan Singh was charge-sheeted on 12-2-1958, for misconduct, in a departmental enquiry held on that complaint. Madan Singh cited three witnesses in defence, two of them were Bansilal, fitter and Ugamshigh, Oiler, before the Enquiry Committee, of which Mr. Walters, Carriage and Wagons inspector, was the Chairman.These two persons showed their reluctance to give evidence in presence of Madansingh, as they apprehended that he will take retaliatory action against them, if they stated against him in his presence. The members of the Committee examined these two persons in the absence of Madansingh under Rule 1707 Clause (d) and Ru...
Devi Lal Vs. (Goswami Maharaj) Govind Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Raj283
D.M. Bhandari, J. 1. This is a Civil Second Appeal in a suit for the recovery of damages for breach of contract.2. The suit was instituted by Munsarim of the Nathdwara temple on the 11th of February 1944, in the court of the Munsiff, Nathdwara, alleging that the temple stood in need of purchase of 251 Mds. of ghee on the 9th of August, 1945. Merdhants dealing in the supply of ghee were called at the premises of the temple and bidding took place for quoting the rates at which they were prepared to supply the requisite quantity of ghee to the temple by Bhadwa Sudi Poonam Sambat 2001. The bid of the defendant Devilal to supply ghee at Rs. 54/- per maund (according to the weighment prevalent in the temple) was accepted. He also executed the document (Ex. P/2) agreeing to supply the ghee at that rate by Bhadwa Sudi Poonam, Sambat 2001 and in case of default to compensate for the loss that it might incur in purchasing it from the market and further agreed to pay Rs. 2/- per maund over and ab...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›