Rajasthan Court November 1971 Judgments
Smt. Dhani Devi and Jhavermal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1971
Reported in: [1973]89ITR96(Raj)
Jagat Narayan, C.J. 1. On an application by the accountable persons under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has referred the following question of law to this court; ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire property held by the deceased was correctly included in his estate as property passing or deemed to pass on his death for purposes of estate duty ' 2. The facts giving rise to the reference are these Budhmal Dugar, the deceased person, along with his brother, Sumermal Dugar, constituted a Hindu undivided family hiving ancestral properties. There was a partition between the brothers in 1938 and the deceased received his share of the family properties. He died on March 17, 1954, leaving his widow, Smt. Dhani Devi, who adopted Jhavermal to her husband 11 days after his death. Smt. Dhani Bai and Jhavermal filed a return under the Estate Duty Act in which they claimed that the deceased constituted a Hindu undivid...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN708
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a special appeal against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 4-5-67 dismissing the appellant's application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts giving rise to his appeal are briefly these. The appellant Shri Shanti Lal Ahuja was a member of the Indian Administrative Service For some time he was the member of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue and later on he worked as a Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries and Commissioner,(frood Supplies) to the Government of Rajasthan. He retired from service with effect from 17-11-1959 and was granted 120 days refused leave on his retirement. He was appointed a member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as R P.S.C.) by an order of the Governor of Rajasthan dated 23-11-1959. In his order of appointment as a member of the R.P.S.U there was an endorsement while forwarding the copy to the Accountant General, Rajasthan, Jaipur, containing th...
Tag this Judgment!The Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur Vs. the State of Rajasth ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj143; 1971(4)WLN656
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J. 1. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the Board) has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the State Government dated 13th of November, 1968, passed in appeal upholding the award dated 14th August, 1967, given by the Electrical Inspector under Section 24(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, in a dispute raised by respondent No. 3 Shri Govind Singh Mehta, proprietor of the Chitra Cinema at Mehta Market, Jodhpur.2. The facts giving rise to this dispute are, in a nutshell, as follows:The Board used to supply electricity to respondent No. 3 at two separate points and at different voltage. The consumption of electricity was measured by the Board by installing two separate meters, one for light and the other for power, and the Board charged electricity consumed for light at the rate of 40 P. per unit while the supply of power was charged at the rate of 13.5 P. per unit. In 1964 the Board prescribe...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Prithvi Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN696
Kan Singh, J.1. The State of Rajasthan who was the defendant has brought the appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Pali dated 25-9-67 decreeing the plaintiff-resplendent No. 7 of 1965 suit against the State in a sum of Rs. 12,250.70 parse with costs.2. The claim of the plaintiff-respondent No 1 was based on the final determination of his compensation in respect of the resumption of his jagir. The plaintiff averred that jagir was resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') with effect from 1-8-54. The final award regarding the compensation payable to the ex-Jagirdar was given by the Jagir Commissioner on 10-6-63 vide Ex. 1. The total amount payable as compensation was fixed at Rs. 201310.50 parse and it was payable at Rs. 2 50 percent per annum from the date of resumption till it was paid. The plaintiff further averred that out of this amount Rs. 22,850/- were paid to him as the am...
Tag this Judgment!Brimco Bricks, Bharatpur Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj145
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J. 1. Messrs. Brimco Bricks, Bharatpnr, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The main business of this firm is to manufacture bricks from brick earth. It is said that the petitioner firm has agricultural lands in its Khatedari bearing Khasra Nos. 891, 802, 893 and 907 to 916 in the town of Bharatpur. Since 1958 this firm is manufacturing bricks and the brick earth is taken out from its agricultural fields. According to the petitioner's contention, the Government of Rajasthan in the beginning used to collect royalty on the brick manufactured by the petitioner firm through one Hardwarilal Thekedar, but this practice was given up by the Mining Department after 1965 and thereafter the Department itself started raising demands for the payment of royalty from the petitioner. From the correspondence exchanged between the petitioner firm and the department, it transpires that the petitioner firm was prepared to pay the royalty but it objected to ...
Tag this Judgment!indra and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN686
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench, 'B' has state a case and referred to us the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for our answer:1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the penalty proceedings had been validly initiated for levying penalty on the assessee under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the penalty of Rs. 19,689. 34 paisa levied under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been validly reduced to Rs. 5,000/-?The question No. 1 is at the instance of the assessee and the question No. 2 is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-Tax. The relevant facts are these.2. The assessee is a registered firm and the relevant assessmant year is 1960-61. A notice under Section 22(2) of the Income tax Act, 1922 was served on the assessee on 1st June, 1960, The return was, however, filed on 18th July, 1962. The as...
Tag this Judgment!Dayalal and anr. Vs. Pyar Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj149
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal and the facts leading to it are briefly these:--There is a temple in village Kurabad, Tehsil Girwa, district Udaipur which has the idol of 'Shri Adinath Bhagwan' installed in it. The plaintiffs were the representatives of the Bees Panthi Amnai amongst the Digamber Jains and the defendants were the representatives of Terah Panthi Amnai of Digamber Jains. The plaintiffs claimed that the temple was constructed by the Bees Panthis some 50 years before the filing of the suit and some 37 years back the idol of 'Shri Adinath Bhagwan' was installed in it, according to the rituals and tenets practised by the Bees Panthis. According to the plaintiffs, the mode of worship in the temple was according to the beliefs and usages of Bees Panthi Amnai. It is regarding this that the two sects are divided. According to the Bees Panthis, the mode of worship is that the idol is anointed with saffron and flowers and fruits are offered to it in the course o...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Sadul Shahr Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory Vs. the Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj40
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10th February, 1968, of the Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar.2. Firm Sadul Shahr Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory Sadulshahr whose supply of electricity for the purpose of running the factory remained disconnected from 28th March, 1965, to 15th April, 1965, instituted the present suit against the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as the Board) for recovery of Rs. 10,993/- as damages. The suit is founded both on tort and on contract, but the lower court has found that no agreement was executed between the parties, although plaintiff's case was that it had submitted the agreement to the defendant but the same was not returned after completion. The ground ran the basis of contract is not pressed in this Court. It was also alleged in the court below that the disconnection was due to the malicious action of Shri Prishan Singh, Assistant Engineer of the Board, who wanted to disconne...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ991; 1971(4)WLN679
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. An inquiry was in progress under Section 386, I. P.C. in the Court of Munsiff-Magistrate, Pali, in case No. 107 of 1970 against Ganpat Singh. Arun Kumar. Jagdish Lal and Bhawani Singh, February 16, 1971, was posted for cross-examining the prosecution witness' Mst. Anusuia. The witness went to Pali from Jaipur for appearing into the witness-box. That day accused Ganpat Singh due to illness could not put in appearance, nor did his Advocate attend the Court. The Munsiff-Magistrate, therefore, forfeited the bail bonds of Ganpat Singh and ordered for the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against him. On the verbal request of the counsel for the accused, who were present before the Court the Magistrate gave one more chance to get the witness cross-examined, provided they paid Rs. 40/- on account of her diet money and travelling allowance.2. A revision application was taken against that order to the court of learned Sessions Judge. Pali. The said Judge observed in his o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhera Vs. Rameshwarlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN684
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is a special appeal by the leave of a learned Single Judge of this Court and arises out of a suit for redemption of an agricultural holding filed by one Hema on 12-9-50. Hema is now represented by Rameshwar Lal, respondent. The suit was filed against Moolcband and Smt. Chandi who were the heirs of the original mortgagee. The mortgagee rights have since been assigned to Bhera, appellant.2. The suit was decreed by all the courts below.3. The contention of the appellant is that the suit is governed by Article 7 of the Qanun Miyad Mewar and is barred by Limitation. The holding in suit was mortgaged in the year 1899 AD. by means of an unregistered deed. The suit for redemption was filed an 12-9 50.4. It may be mentioned here that before 1-3-72 the law of limitation & the law of registration in Mewar were contained in different circulars issued from time to time. These laws were codified for the first time in 1932 and were brought into force with effect from 1-7-32...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »