Rajasthan Court December 1973 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mukandas Vishnukumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN649
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'B' by its order dated March 21, 1969. has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following question for answer, namely:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no penalty could be imposed under Section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for default Under Section 18A (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 2. The circumstances, which it is necessary to notice for the disposal of this reference, briefly stated are these: Gokuldas, Pradeepkumar and Mukandas Vishnukumar, the two Hindu undivided families, Came into existence as a result of partial partition of the bigger Hindu undivided family of Seth Thakurdas Khivraj. The business of Seth Thakurdas Khivraj was taken over by a partnership firm of M/S Thakurdas Khivraj. The first assessment in the hands of the two undivided Hindu families after partial partition was to be made for the assessment year 1959-60....
Tag this Judgment!M.K.M. Moosa Bhai Amin, Kota Vs. Rajasthan Textile Mills, Bhawanimandi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj194; 1973()WLN994
S.N. Modi, J.1. This first appeal is brought from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Kota, dated 23-9-71 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of money.2. The plaintiff is a registered-firm carrying on business at Kota. The defendant carries on business at Bhawanimandi, district Jhalawar under the name and style of Rajasthan Textile Mills. The defendant purchased between 5-5-62 and 18-9-62 asbestos cement sheets worth Rs. 78,254.24 paisa and certain hardware articles worth Rs. 4,936.31 P. total Rs. 83,190.55 P. and paid Rupees 72,896.63 P. on various dates leaving a balance of Rs. 10,293.92 P. When the balance was not paid, the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted against the defendant on 6-8-63 for the recovery of Rs. 10,293.92 P. as principal and Rs. 721/- by way of interest at the rate of 12% per annum total Rupees 11,014.92 P. The defendant contested the suit and pleaded that Rajasthan Textile Mills is not a legal person and no suit was maintai...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Vs. Durga Parsad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN967
C.M. Lodha, J.1. These are two connected appeals directed against the judgment and decree by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu dated 1-6-1972 by which the learned Judge upheld the judgment and decree by the Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu dated 30-9-1966 in Civil Suit No.166 of 1960.2. Idol of Thakurji Shri Dwarkadheeshji installed in kund Boharaji, situated in the town of Khetri filed the suit through its Sewak and manager Durga Prasad against the defendants Gopal and Ramdeo on 4-6-1960 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jnunjh nu all hging that there was a garden 'Bagh' enclosed with a 'pucca' compound wall within the boundary of the temple and the pond 'kund' attached to the temple, measuring 16 Bighas 2 Biswas bearing Khasra Nos. 1399, 1404, 1406, 1417, 1421, 2081/1403 and 2082/1402. The land in the pond, well, garden and the temple, are constructed was granted to one Dwarka Prasad an ancestor of Durga Prasad by the which Raja of Khetri on Migsar Bad 4, Section 1907. The original 'patta' had been pla...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector Coustoms Vs. Surajmal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN862
S.N. Modi, J.1. The relevant facts giving rise to this criminal reference are as follows.2. The Customs Preventive Staff, Bikaner, on 13-6-72 in pursuance of a search warrant issued by the Superintendent, Customs, Bikaner, took search of the godown of the business premises of Surajmal located in Fad Bazar, Bikaner, and seized cloves packed in polythene bags and two gunny bags weighing 49 killos 500 grams, for taking action under the Customs Act as it was believed that the goods was liable to be confiscated. On 15.6.72 Surajmal moved an application in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate that a false case has been foisted against him by the Customs Officer, that he had purchased the goods from Messrs. Balkishen Brothers in Delhi and that he had committed no offence. He prayed that the goods seized may be returned to him on security. The learned Magistrate entertained the application and issued notice to the Prosecuting Inspector. The application was opposed by the Customs Preventi...
Tag this Judgment!Banarsi Devi Vs. Prahlad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN863
K.D. Sharma, J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of a single judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu on 7th June, 1972 upholding the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Jhunjhunu, dated 19th May, 1970 in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. As there are common questions of law and fact involved in these two applications in revision, they are disposed of by one judgment.2. The relevant facts giving rife to these revision petitions may be shortly slated as follows. The Station House Office', Police Station, Ghidawa initiated proceedings under Section 145, Cr P.C. against the parties in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu on 12th August, 1968. It was alleged by the police that there is an agricultural land measuring 24 bighas and 2 biswas under a well popularly known as 'Swamiwala Will' situated in khasra No. 529 at village Ojatu Out of this land one half, i.e. 12 bighas and 1 Biswa belong to Nathudas and his daughter Kamali and her husba...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax (Recovery) Vs. Official Liquidator, Golcha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN885
R.D. Gattani, J.1. Messrs. Golcha Properties (Private) Limited, (In Liquidation), briefly 'the Company' was on 10 5-1968 by this Court, ordered to be wound up in Company Petitions No. 9 and 10 of 1966. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed Liquidator of 'the Company'. After the passing of that order the Official Liquidator is carrying on the business of 'the Company' for the beneficial winding up of it.2. This application has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Recovery), New Delhi for grant of the leave of the Court against 'the Company' for the recovery of Rs. 31,31,620/- in respect of the alleged liability of 'the Company' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, briefly' the Act' for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73. According to the application, tax for the assessment year 1969-70 was assessed as Rs. 5,91,935/, for the assessment year 1970-71 as Rs 10,38,374/- and for the assessment year 1971-72 as Rs. 11,94,274/-. Out of this latter ...
Tag this Judgment!Juglal and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN972
J.P. Jain, J.1. Fakir Chand son of Ramrakh Jat was found murdered in the Khaliyan of Buddha Nayak in village 'Dhani' on 22-11-68. In this connection two sons of Buddha, Juglal and Mansingh were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu and were found responsible for causing the murder of Fakir Chand They were convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Both the convicts have challenged their conviction in this appeal.2. Arjun (PW1) was grazing his herd of she-goats in the nearby field on that day. Sometime before duck he heard a cry from the Khaliyan of Buddha. He saw Juglal and Mansingh inflicting blows by 'Khotan' to Fakir Chand. He went near the field of Buddha but he was threatened by the accused to dire consequences and as such he did not dare go to the place of occurrence. He, however, went to the village and met Mukhram (PW 2) at his house. Bhera Ram (PW 3) was also sitting with Mukhram. Arjun informed them about the incident and st...
Tag this Judgment!Hetram and anr. Vs. Bhader Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN981
S.N. Modi, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff Hetram and his minor brother Sahabram is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Ganganagar, dated 31-5-71 dismissing the suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits.2. The disputes to agricultural land measuring 16 bighas 2 biswas which is a part of khasra no. 167messuring 32 bighas 6 biswas in villag Dilmana, tehsil Suratgath, distt. Ganganagar. By a deed of sale dt. 9-9-59 which was registered on 10-9-59,Gangaram alias Nandram, the father of the plaintiffs, sold the disputed land measuring 16 bighas 2 biswas to the defendant-respondent Bhaderam for Rs. 10304/-. On 25-10-68 the plaintiffs brought the present suit alleging that the entire khasra No. 167 belonged to their grand-father Arjunram and on the death of Arjunram it devolved upon their father Gangaram. They further alleged that the sale-deed dated 9-9-59 executed by their father was entirely without consideration and no amount whatsoever was...
Tag this Judgment!University of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Pankaj Rani Bajaj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-01-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN955
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This appeal involves interpretation of certain Ordinances of the University of Rajasthan and arises out of the following facts. The respondent-plaintiff Pankaj Rani passed her First Year T.D.C. Examination in Science (Biology) from the University of Jodhpur in the year 1970-71, with two compulsory subjects General English and Genetal Hindi. Thereafter she sought admission to Second Year T.D.C in Maharani's College, Jaipur affiliated to the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur and appeared at the Second Year T.D.C. Examination of that University in 1972. However, she did not pass & was required to appear at a supplementary examination in Zoology, Accordingly she appeared at the Supplementary Examination in that subject but her result was withheld, as, according to Ordinance 218 of the Rajasthan University it was necessary for her to pass in one more compulsory subject prescribed for First Year T.D.C. Examination. As already stated above, Pankaj Rani had only two compulsory ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›