Rajasthan Court March 1968 Judgments
Dholpur Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Raj ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR278(Raj)
CHHANGANI J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' by which the following question of law has been referred to us for our answer :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the payment of Rs. 60,000 under section 10(2) (xv) and/or section 10(1) ?'The material facts are these.The assessee is the Dholpur Glass Works Ltd., a public limited company (hereinafter referred to as the assessee-company), formed in the year 1946. By an agreement dated February 18, 1945, the assessee-company appointed the firm of M/s. Agarwal Brothers of Agra as its managing agents. M/s. Agarwal Brothers were to be paid managing agency commission equivalent to 12 1/2% of the net profits of the assessee-company besides office allowance of Rs. 1,000 per month. Initially the assessee-company started manufacturing commercial glasses w...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Budhram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj48; 1969CriLJ311
Lodha, J. 1. The State has filed this appeal from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar dated 5th August, 1964 by which the conviction and sentence passed against the accused-respondent by the Magistrate First Class, Ganganagar under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act (No. 8 of 1878) were set aside.2. The prosecution case briefly was that Shri J. P. Tandon, Deputy Superintendent, Customs, Sri Ganganagar received information on 14-9-1958 that the accused Budhram was in possession of some dutiable and prohibited goods. He, therefore, obtained a search warrant from the First Class Magistrate, Ganganagar authorising Shri Heerasingh, Inspector, Land Customs, to search the premises of the accused. In execution of the warrant, Shri Heerasingh searched the house of the accused situated in Sri Ganganagar the same night and recovered 11 bars of gold which contained foreign markings. Further investigation was made in the matter and eventually the Collector of Central Excis...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Nidhansingh Shersingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ585
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, has made this reference for quashing the commitment of Mastansingh, son of Ajabsingh by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur (vide his order dated 20th August, 1967), to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, for trial under Section 302/34, I.P.C., along with other accused. Mastansingh was tendered pardon under Section 337, Cr.P.C., by the District Magistrate, Ganganagar by his order dated 1-7-1967. and he was made an approver in the case. The learned Public Prosecutor made an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, to whom the case had been transferred for trial to the effect that the commitment, of Mastansingh was illegal and should be set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, therefore, recommended that the order of commitment of Mastansingh be set aside. It appears that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur, did not interpret correctly the provisions of Section ...
Tag this Judgment!R. B. Seth Moolchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-1968
Reported in: [1968]70ITR245(Raj)
G. M. METHA J. - This is reference by the Income-tax Appellant Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B', under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred to by the Appellant Tribunal, are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the prospection licence fee of Rs. 3,200 is allowable as revenue expenditure ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appropriate part of Rs. 1,53,800 was allowable as revenue expenditure ?'The reference has arisen out of the following facts :The applicant before the Tribunal, R. B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand (Mining Department), Udaipur, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, was working certain emerald mines in the Udiapur area where the head Office was situated. The relevant assessment year under reference was 1952-53. At the head Office of the assessee, the accounts are closed On October 31, 1951, and at the branch on March 31, 1952, and thos...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chaganlal Durga Prashad, Beawar.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1968
Reported in: [1968]70ITR314(Raj)
The judgment of the court was delivered by :BHANDARI, ACTG. C.J. - The income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'C'), hereinafter called the Tribunal, has referred the following question under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (Act No. XI of 1922) hereinafter called the Act :'Whether the assessments made for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56 on an association of persons were bad in law ?'As the statement of case shows, this question arose under the following circumstances :Messrs. Chaganlal Durga Prashad, hereinafter called the assessee, filed the return of income-tax for the assessment year 1954-55 under section 22(1) of the Act claiming the status of a firm. This return was accompanied by an application for registration under section 26A of the Act. Another return for the assessment year 1955-56 was filed on a notice under section 22. This return was also accompanied by an application for renewal of registration. According to the assessee, the firm was a partnership firm...
Tag this Judgment!Sriram Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Raj321
ORDERKan Singh, J.1. The writ petition raises a short question about the powers of a Regional Transport Authority to grant a temporary variation of an existing non-temporary permit so as to include a new area or route in such permit for a limited period pending an application for granting the variation on non-temporary basis The relevant facts are briefly these.2. There is a route Reengus-Danta Ramgarh Via Rhatu and Bai in the Jaipur region. It is 31 miles in length and is said to be a 'C' class route. There are four operators on this route and petitioner Sriram is one of them. Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 held non-temporary permits for Sikar-Renwal via Palsana. Khatu Shamji and Khachariawas route. This latter route is a mixed 'A' and 'C' class route, 53 miles in length, When the respondents applied for permits on Sikar-Renewal route some time before 1963 there was opposition from the operators of Reengus-Danta Ramgarh route and this led to several proceedings but it is not necessary for th...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra JaIn and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj68; (1969)IILLJ44Raj
ORDERKan Singh, J. 1. These are two identical writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ Petition No. 592 of 1967 is by one Kailash Chandra Jain. Writ Petition No. 578 of 1967 is by the State Roadways Workers Union, Jaipur. They concern the legality of certain orders of transfer in respect of certain employees of what was the Roadways Department of the State Government. The employees came to be transferred by the impugned orders to other departments of the State Government. The petitioners pray for appropriate writs, directions or orders in these matters. 2. It will be convenient to narrate the facts with reference to Kailash Chandra Jain's writ petition. 3. Kailash Chandra Jain came to be appointed as a Conductor on 7-4-1960 in what was then the State Roadways Department of the Government of Rajas than. With effect from 1st October, 1964, Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation was constituted in pursuance of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The Corporation was a bod...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Hari Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj86; 1969CriLJ445
L.S. Mehta, J. 1. In the city of Jodhpur towards the West there is a highway known as Umaid Hospital Road. This road is fed by traffic from the south-eastern feeder roads, namely, Chopasani Road, 5th Road Sardarpura, and Pal Road. On its northern side, traffic emerges from Siwanchi Gate. On September 5, 1965, at about 1-15 p. m., accused Hari Singh, aged about 60 years, was driving bus No. RJQ 2694. He arrived on Umaid Hospital Road from the side of Pal. At that time Kumari Indu, a girl of about 16 years, also came on the said road on a bicycle from the side of Siwanchi Gate. She suddenly collided against the said bus somewhere near point marked O in the site plan Ex. P-9. She was run over by the rear right-wheel of the bus, as a result of which she sustained fatal injuries and died instantaneously on the spot. After this accident Hari Singh stopped the bus after plying the same upto a distance of about 7 ft. First information report of this mishap was lodged that very day by the accus...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ35Raj
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Anil Kumar and by it he seeks to question the legality of an order passed by respondent 2, General Manager, Northern Railway, whereby respondent 4 Chain Singh was placed above him in the seniority list of charge-men in the grade of Rs. 280-350 P.S. 335--425 A.8.--vide Ex. 6 on the record. He has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondents.2. It is common ground between the parties that the petitioner Anil Kumar entered the service of the railway as an apprentice mechanic on 17 August .1948, he completed his training period of five years as an apprentice mechanic in 1953 and was absorbed as chargeman in the grade of Rs. 100--185 per mensem from 17 August 1953; that he was appointed as chargeman in the grade of Rs. 205--280 A.S. from 16 December 1955, that he was confirmed as chargeman in the grade of Rs. 205--280 A.S. on 28 October 1959, that he was promoted as chargeman i...
Tag this Judgment!Balia Vs. Heerji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj119; 1969CriLJ513
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This appeal of Balia is directed against the judgment of the Special Judicial (Railway) Magistrate, Jodhpur, whereby respondent Heerji has been acquitted by the learned Magistrate of the charge under Section 500 Indian Penal Code.2. The circumstances leading to this appeal are as follows: Mst. Pushpa. daughter of Heerji. was married to the appellant about eight years back and the 'muklawa' ceremony was performed after five years of the marriage. According to Mst. Pushpa, Balia was not potent and. therefore, in spite of the fact that on many occasions Balia tried to have sexual intercourse with her but he failed to do so, and hence Pushpa out of frustration left her husband's house and ultimately Came to live with her parents.On 24th May, 1964, it so appears that a caste panchayat was summoned to consider a charge against Heeriji that he was not willing to send his daughter Pushpa to her husband's house. Heerji was also called to meet that charge and it is said that Hee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »