Rajasthan Court April 1964 Judgments
Seth Pushalal Mansinghka Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1964
Reported in: [1967]63ITR109(Raj)
SHINGHAL J. - This is a consolidated reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (Act 11 of 1922), hereinafter called the 'Act', at the instance of the assessee, Messrs. Seth Pushalal Mansinghka Private Limited, Bhilwara. The question which has been referred for our consideration on the reference is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to any rebate under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order in respect of its income from the mining business for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52 ?'The assessee is a private limited company with its mines, factory and head office at Bhilwara in Rajasthan, and was incorporated as a company in the former State of Udaipur on 12th November, 1946. The assessee carried on mining business at Bhilwara and was engaged in the cutting, processing, sorting and packing of mica which was sent almost entirely by railway to Kodarma and Girdih villages in Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Hamara Radio and General Industries Ltd. Co., Delhi Vs. State of Rajas ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj205
Modi, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bharatpur, dated the 19th November, 1964, by which he dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.2. The appellant Hamra Radio and General Industries Limited being a public limited Company incorporatedunder the Indian Companies Act, 1913, was the plaintiffin the Court below. It has its registered office in Delhi.For facility of reference, we shall refer to it hereafter asthe plaintiff. This suit was originally brought againstthe State of Rajasthan only, which is defendant No. 1 inthe suit. The Union of India was also impleaded as defendant No. 2 later. The plaintiff's case, briefly put, was that on the 4th October, 1947, the 2nd October, 1947, mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of the plaint seems to be a mistake for the 4th October, 1947) it had entered into an agreement (Ex. 12) with the State of Bharatpur as it then was. Among other terms It was stipulated in the agreement that the Government of the Bhar...
Tag this Judgment!Modern Transport Co., Kota Vs. State Transport Authority, Jaipur and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj275
Dave, C. J. 1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it arises in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner is a bus operator. He has got a permit to ply one bus on a route which is known as 'Kota-Chambal-dam route'. There are six more permit holders on the same route. Non-petitioners Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Lajpat Rai and Shantilal and a few others filed applications under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which will hereinafter be referred as 'the Act,' for the grant of fresh permits on the said route. These applications were filed by them suo motu that is without any application having been invited by the authority. Those applications were published in the Rajasthan Gazette. The petitioner and other existing permit-holders filed objections to the grant of fresh permits. The Regional Transport Authority Kota fixed September 11 and September 12, 1963 for consideration of five applications including those of non-petitioners Nos. 3 and 4. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rehman Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj1; 1965CriLJ78
ORDERD.S. Dave, C.J. 1. This is an application in revision by Abdul Rehman against the order of the District Magistrate, Ganganagar, dated the 16th October, 1962. 2. The facts giving rise to it are that on a complaint for an offence under Section 313 I. P. C. filed by one Gangabishan, accused Doshu Mohd. was required to furnish a personal bond for Rs. 1000/- together with one surety for the like amount. The accused accordingly executed a personal bond on 22nd May, 1962 for his appearance in the Court on 12th June, 1962 and the following dates, if any, which were to be fixed by the Magistrate. The present petitioner Abdul Rehman stood surety for him. The accused failed to put in his appearance in the Court of Tehsildar who was Second Class Magistrate at Hanumangarh on 12th June, 1962. The said Magistrate, therefore, forfeited the bond and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000/- on the petitioner. Aggrieved by that order dated the 31st July, 1962, the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of D...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Tulsi Bai Vs. Chunilal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj243
Modi, J.1. This is a first appeal against the judgment and decreeof the District Judge, Udaipur, dated 3rd December, 1953,in an application for divorce wider the Hindu MarriageAct, 1955.2. The appellant is the wife Mst. Tulsi Bai while the contesting respondent No. 1 is the husband Chunilal. It is common: ground between the parties that they were married some thirty years ago before the present application came to be filed on the 19th July, 1958, and that there Is one son named Shantilal born of this marriage, who was 10 years of age In 1958. !t is also admitted that the respondent husband had instituted a suit being No. 220 of Smt. 1989 (corresponding to some time in 1932 A.O.) forrestitution of conjugal rights, against the appellant, and that suit was decreed in his favour subject to the condition that he must file a surety bond for a certain sum of money to the effect that he would not ill-treat his wife. It appears that the husband was not able to file the bond and consequently the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›