Rajasthan Court December 1964 Judgments
Ghevarchand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj175
Kan Singh, J.1. These are 275 writ petitions before us under Article 226 of the Constitution, and as they raise common questions of law, it will be convenient to dispose them off together. For facility of understanding the points arising for consideration, we may narrate the facts with reference to Writ Petition No. 649 of 1964--Ghevarchand v. The State of Rajasthan &c.;By this petition, a writ of mandamus is sought to restrain the respondents from levying or realizing any increased or additional tax under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (Act No. XI of 1951) (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Taxation Act' for the sake of brevity), in excess of what is properly leviable according to the load carrying capacity as mentioned in Registration Certificate and Permit of Public Carrier Truck No. RJZ. 745, which plies for hire. As according to the petitioner, the respondents are withholding the token and fitness certificate of the vehicle with a view to compelling the paymen...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Badri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj152; 1965CriLJ246
Tyagi, J. 1. These are two connected cases which may well be disposed of by one single Judgment. S. B. Criminal Revision No. 428 of 1963 is a revision application filed by the petitioner Badri against his conviction and sentence passed under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur, on 4th June, 1963, and upheld by the appellate Court whereby he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default or payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while disposing of the appeal of the petitioner, recorded his conclusion that under the circumstances of the case, the offence committed by the petitioner was the third one and therefore his sentence of imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of the law should be enhanced from one year's rigorous imprisonment to two years' rigorous imprisonment and the fine be increased from Rs. 2,0...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Maharaja of Bikaner.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1964
Reported in: [1966]60ITR477(Raj)
I. N. MODI J. - This is an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, praying that we should compel a reference thereunder by the Income-tax Tribunal, Delhi, under the circumstances hereafter mentioned.The assessee before us is His Highness Maharaja Karni Singhji of Bikaner. He was assessed to income-tax for the year 1955-56, the accounting year being that ending on March 31, 1955. The dispute is about two sums of Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 which were alleged to have been advanced by the after of the assessee, late His Highness Maharaaj Sardul Singhji of Bikaner, to one Ihsan-ul-Haq on the basis of two agreements dated the 26th November, 1948, and the 8th December, 1949 (see annexures 1 and 2 to this application). The assessee claimed a deduction for the total of Rs. 2,50,000 as bad debts under section 10(2)(xi) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer repelled this contention. His findings, put briefly...
Tag this Judgment!Mangharam Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj210; 1965CriLJ681
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an application in revision by Mangharam against the order of the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, First Class Ajmer City West dated 19th November, 1932 in refusing to take further proceedings in the complaint against the non-petitioners Shri Triloki Nath Chaturvedi, Administrator, Municipal Council, Ajmer and Shri Prayag Raj Mathur, Commissioner, Municipal Council, Ajmer on the ground that prior sanction of the State Government as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not obtained by the petitioner for their prosecution. 2. The present complaint was filed by the petitioner on 2nd June, 1961, and the material allegations made in the complaint are set out in the judgment of this Court in Mangharam v. The State ILR (1962) 12 Raj 601. On the facts alleged it was stated that the non-petitioners had committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 427, 451, 380, 411 and 500 read with Section 34/109 of the Indian Penal Code. ...
Tag this Judgment!Liladhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj193
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution whereby the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondents for compelling them to renew the petitioner's lease for the manufacture of brick earth for a period of five years from 1-4-1963 in accordance with Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Ruless, 1955 (hereinafter called 1955 Rules) and Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1859 (hereinafter called 1959 Rules). 2. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacture of bricks at Bhadra in District Ganga-nagar. He had obtained an allotment of Khasva No. 331 frond the colonization authorities for the purpose of setting up a brick kiln and thereafter he had set up the brick kiln. The petitioner also obtained a lease from the Mines Department in accordance with 1955 Rules for quarrying earth for the purposes of manufacturing bricks. This lease purports to have been granted under Rule 57 (2) of the 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›