Rajasthan Court October 1973 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Shanta Ben Mani Lal Patel
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1973
Reported in: [1975]100ITR229(Raj); 1973()WLN722
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), ior directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), to state the case and to refer two questions of law arising out of its order dated December 10, 1971, in the Estate Duty Appeal No. 3 of 1971-72 to this court which the Tribunal had refused to do by its order dated April 27, 1972. 2. Shri Manilal Shivlal of Kota (hereinafter called 'the deceased') died on February 9, 1965, and his widow, Smt. Shanta Ben, is the accountable person for the purposes of the Act. The deceased carried on business as the sole distributor of a reputed brand of 'bidi' under the name of Chandulal Jagjivandas & Co., Bhavani Mandi. In 1953, a partnership firm of the same name was constituted. The partners of this firm were the deceased and his brother, Purshottamdas Patel. Their shares were 15 per cent, and25 per cent., respectively. From the asse...
Dalichand Tejraj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR383(Raj); 1973()WLN744
1. At the instance of the assessee the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (herinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred this case to us for answering the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the transaction of giving Rs. 45,000 to Smt. Gatkoo Bai was neither a valid partition nor a family arrangement nor a valid gift and, therefore, disallowance of interest of Rs. 2,898, Rs. 2,838 and Rs. 2,336 in the assessment for the years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively, was correctly made ?'2. For answering the aforesaid question the following facts might be recalled. M/s. Dalichand Tejraj, Pali, is a Hindu undivided family owning a business and certain immovable properties and other assets, whom weshall hereinafter call as 'the assessee'. Three appeals relating to the assessment years 1959-60,1960-61 and 1961-62, were preferred by the assessee ...
Roop Chand Vs. Bhag Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN804
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. A preliminary decree for sale of mortgaged property for a sum of Rs. 13,430/8/6 together with interest and costs of the suit was passed in favour of Bhagchand, plaintiff, by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City, on July 26, 1956. The judgment-debtor was allowed six months' time to make payment of the decretal amount. As he failed to make payment of the aforesaid amount within the stipulated time, a final decree for sale of the mortgaged property was passed on April 24 1957 and sum of Rs. 15,279/9 was declared to be due to the plaintiff from the defendant. It was also provided in the final decree that the decree-holder shall be entitled to subsequent interest 'as may be payable under Order 34 Rule 11, C.P.C.' The final decree by the learned Senior Civil Judge was not challenged by either of the parties and as such it became final and conclusive.2. The decree-holder filed an execution application on September 14, 1957, claiming an amount of Rs 473/12/- as due un...
Shrikishan Vs. Bhanwarlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj96; 1973()WLN778
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a money suit based on a promissory note marked Ex. 1 on the record. 2. The plain tiff-appellant Shri-kishan's case as set out in the plaint is that Ganpatlal deceased took a loan of Rs. 1,000/- from him for joint family business on 29-1-1963 bearing interest at 'Rs. 1.50% per month and executed a promissory note and a receipt in lieu thereof as a collateral security, the same day. He has further alleged that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Bhanwarlal and Ramniwas brothers of Ganpatlal constituted a joint Hindu family with Ganpat Lal who left behind his widow Smt. Kamla Bai--defendant No. 2, three sons defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6--Mahendra, Kailash and Rajkumar respectively and a daughter defendant No. 7 Smt. Ramu Bai. A decree for Rs. 1,000/- principal and Rs. 75/- as interest was prayed for against all the defendants. Defendants 'Nos. 1 and 2 denied the execution of the promissory note as well as its consideration and fur...
Jawan Mal Vs. Gaj Singhji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj184; 1973()WLN756
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a revision petition directed against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated 15-2-1973 by which the defendant-petitioner's application dated 31-1-1975 for leave to amend his written statement was dismissed. A few facts relevant for the disposal of this revision may be stated as below:--2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner owns a Cinema known as Stadium Cinema in the City of Jodhpur. A lease of the said cinema was granted by the plaintiff to the defendant for a period of 3 years with effect from 26-1-1963. The lease deed was executed and signed by both the parties on 2-4-1964. The rent was settled at Rs. 6,101/- per month. On 10-1-1972 the plaintiff filed the present suit in the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur for ejectment of the defendant as well as for arrears of rent Rs. 1,42,852.48 paise upto 25-10-1971 and Rs. 37,161.29 paise by way of damages for use and occupation from 26-10-71 to the date of the suit, and thereafter at the rate ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Tekchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN774
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The plaintiff respondent filed the suit out of which this appeal arises in the Court of Munsiff (East), Ajmer on 1.4. 1966 praying interalia that a decree for Rs. 1732.18 paisa be granted in his favour against the appellant as the said amount had been illegally deducted from his pay on account of rent for the railway quarter occupied by him as Vigilance Inspector It was alleged that he was entitled to occupy railway quarter free of rent and that in any case he had been unlawfully discriminated against as two other railway employees, namely, Shri B.N. Bhatnagar, and Shri S.L. Khanna placed in similar posts were allowed to occupy quarters free of rent. The plaintiff has further alleged that in any case the defendant was estopped from making deductions on account of having created a bonafide belief in the plaintiff's mind that he would not be charged any rent. The suit was resisted by the Railway Seven issues were struck by the trial court on the pleadings of the parties....
Mohan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN749
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Appellant Mohan Singh has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated 22nd December, 1969, whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.2. The facts as revealed by Gyanchand (PW 4), the only eye witness in this case, are as follows.3 Gyaa Chand and his brother Jogender Singh were serving the accused as his Siris and they used to reside in a Kotha situate in the same Ahata where accused Mohan Singh used to live. On 11th of March, 1969, Jogender Singh hade gone out to Punjab His wife Mst. Taro and the only child 1 yrs. old were left in the custody of his brother Gyan Chand At about 8 or 9 in the morning Mohan Singh rebuked Mst. Taro for having committed theft of fodder from his field. It is said that Mst. Taro also called bad names to Mohan Singh At that time Mst, Taro was preparing tea in her kitchen situate outside the Kotha. Mohan Singh could not tolerate this insol...
Taranath and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN736
Dutt, J.1. This an appeal by Tara Nath, Shivji Nath, Hansa Nath, Dhanna Nath and Basti Nath against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge Merta, dated November 30, 1970, by which Tara Nath was convicted under Sections 302, 324 and 148, I P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302, I.P.C. and to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 324, I P.C. and to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, LPC. The other four appellants were convicted under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of fine each to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C, and each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 read with Section 149, I.P.C. Out of thes...
Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and O ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR721(Raj)
BERI C.J., - At the instance of the assessee this court by its order dated December 26, 1966, directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', to refer the following question for answer :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,500 on the assessee under section 18A(9) read with section 28(1)(c) of the Act was valid in law?'M/s. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. is a public limited company which manufactures electric meters, copper conductors, etc. The assessees accounting year ends on 31st December. For the period relevant to the assessment year 1957-58, a notice was served on the assessee on May 31, 1956, indicating that the assessee was liable to pay income-tax in the sum of Rs. 48,639.20 under section 18A(1). The assessee filed an estimate on June 12, 1956, showing a loss in the sum of Rs. 50,000 till that date. On September 13 or 14, 1956, the assessee voluntarily revised its estimates showing an estimated income in the ...
Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN960
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee this Court by its order dated December 26, 1966 directed the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Branch 'C to reter the following question tot answer:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,200/- on the Asesssee Under Section 18A(6) read with Section 28(1)(c) of the Act was valid in law.2. M/s Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. is a public limited company which manufactures electric meters, copppr conductors, etc. The assessee'a accounting year ends on 31st Dec For the period relevant to the assessment year 57-58 a notice was served on the assessee on 31-5-56 indicating that the assessee was liable to pay income-tax in the sum of Rs. 42.639/2/- Under Section l8A(1) The assessee filed an estimate on 12-6-1956 showing a loss in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- till that date. On September 13 or 14, 1956 the assessee voluntarily revised its estimates showing an estimated income in the sum of the Rs. 5...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »