Rajasthan Court August 1966 Judgments
Jagjit Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Raj24
Tyagi, J. 1. This writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Jagjit Singh and nine other bus operators on the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route challenging the legality of the proceedings taken by the Home Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan under the notification dated the 24th January, 1962 issued by the Government of Rajasthan under Section 43(1) (iii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in pursuance of which the respondents Nos. 4 to 33 were granted permits to ply their buses on Jaipur-Bikaner route via Sikar, Salasar. Sujangarh, Nokha. 2. The case of the petitioners is that about 31 bus operators, who were plying their buses on the Jaipur-Alwar route, were displaced on account of the nationalisation of the said route. In order to rehabilitate them, the Government of Rajasthan, purporting to act under the provisions of Section 43(1) (iii) of the Act, published in the Rajasthan Gazette a draft notification No. F. 1 (4)...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New De ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1966
Reported in: [1967]65ITR112(Raj)
KAN SINGH J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and raises a short question whether the loss amounting to Rs. 21,770 sustained by the assessee as a result of sale of certain Government securities between May 8, 1958, and May 25, 1958, could be treated as a trading loss or the same was capital loss which could not be claimed as a set-off against the income of the assessee. The question referred is in the following terms :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 21,770 suffered by the corporation on the sale of securities of the amount of Rs. 30,00,000 has been rightly treated as capital los ?'The assessee is the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur, herein after to be referred as the 'corporation' and the relevant assessment year is 1959-60, the relevant previous year being the financial year 1958-59. The facts of the matter were as follows :The corporation was established by the State Government in exercise of i...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Lal Bansal Vs. Arjunmal Dudani and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj85
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by one Sohanlal against an order of the Civil Judge, Ganganagar, dismissing the objection that the reference to arbitration was invalid because other partners have not joined in it.2. Sohanlal applicant, Arjunmal respodent and some others entered into a partnership on 8-11-63. Under Clause 10 of the partnership agreement it was provided that in case of a dispute between the partners the matter shall be referred to arbitration mutually agreed upon between the parties. Arjunmal invoked this clause and asked Sohanlal to refer to arbitration the dispute between the two with regard to partnership matters. An award was eventually tiled in Court by the arbitrator and Sohanlal filed an objection inter alia on the ground that the reference was invalid as all the partners had not joined in it. The learned Civil Judge dismissed this objection. Against that order the present revision implication has been filed.3. The contention on behalf of t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shanti Bai Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1966
Reported in: [1968]21STC458(Raj)
1. This is a writ application by Smt. Shanti Bai (widow of Sayarchand) and other heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Suganchand against an assessment order under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The assessee was a partnership firm M/s. Rampratap Suganchand which carried on business in cloth at Sikar. This firm consisted of two partners Suganchand and Rampratap. The period for which the assessment was made extended from 15th May, 1957, to 15th April, 1958. It is admitted that this firm was a registered one under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The assessment order was passed on 28th February, 1961, by which the tax amounting to Rs. 3,789 less Rs. 1,330.59 already deposited, was apparently imposed on the deceased Suganchand and he was further asked to pay a penalty of Rs. 4,800 under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act.2. We need not narrate at length the course which this case assumed thereafter, as it is admitted before us that it was the deceased Sugan-chand's ca...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Kishore Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Taxation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ231Raj
Modi, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against en order of the Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Sikar, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated under Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules.2. The petitioner Kamal Kishore was appointed as a lower division clerk in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Sikar, in a temporary capacity on 16 May 1958 (vide Ex. 1). He was allowed to continue In service on the came basis until 9 July 1962 when his services were terminated (see Ex. 2). The petitioner went up in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, but met with no success. He, therefore, preferred the present writ application questioning the order dated 9 July 1962, The attack against that order is twofold. In the first place, it is contended that the respondent Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Sikar, was not competent to terminate his service under Rule 23A because he wa...
Tag this Judgment!Kendriya Sarvodaya Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Jaipur Vs. Shri Jawan Singh and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Raj33; (1967)ILLJ270Raj
Kan Singh, J.1. These are two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Kendriya Sarvodaya Sahkari Sangh Limited, Jaipur, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Sangh', by which the Sangh questions the validity of two awards given by the Industrial Tribunal, Ra.jasthan, Jaipur, holding that the termination of the services of Sangh's employees; Shri Ram Swarup Mathur in the one case and Shri Jata Shankar in the other, were illegal and unjustified and in consequence awarding compensation to both of them, though their reinstatement was not ordered The Government made two identical references to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, at the instance of Saranjan Udyog Karamchari Union, Jaipur As the two writ petitions raise some common questions of law, they can conveniently be disposed of together2. We may first advert to the facts in Shri Jata Shankar's case. The Sangh was a Co-operative Society registered under the Rajas-than ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›