Rajasthan Court October 1976 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.
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Bharat Krishi Yantralaya and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC451(Raj)
A.P. Sen, J.1. These six reference applications filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Jaipur, under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, for requiring the Board of Revenue to state a case, involve a common question and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The short question for consideration is whether the Board of Revenue was or was not justified in refusing to state a case. The question involved in all these cases was whether the list of agricultural implements given in Clause (b) of Item 8 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was exhaustive and inasmuch as disc-harrows and cultivators were not included In the list and, hence, these articles were liable to tax under general rate. That was the view of the Commercial Taxes Officer, but, in appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) treated them to be agricultural implements and held that their sale was exempt from tax. In revision, it was submitted on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Office...
Commercial Taxes of Officer and ors. Vs. Bharat Krishi Yantralaya and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN632
A.P. Sen, J.1. These six reference applications filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Jaipur under Section 15{2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, for requiring the Board of Revenue to state a case, involve a common question and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The short question for consideration is whether the Board of Revenue was or was not justified in refusing to state a case. The question involved in all these cases was whether the list of agricultural implements given in Clause (b) of item 8 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was exhaustive and in as much as discs borrows and cultivators were not included in the list and hence these articles were liable to tax under general rate. That was the view of the Commercial Taxes Officer but in appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) treated them to be agricultural implements end held, that their sale was exempt from tax, tri revision, it was submitted on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Office...
M.H. Shah Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN759
M.L. Jain, J.1. This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned two writ petitions.2. The petitioner was appointed as the authorised auctioneer of the Western Railway for conducing the auction of coal and, half burnt coal and scraps (sic) the Union of India under the supervision of the District Controller of Stores, Western Railway, Ajmer during the years 1962, 63 and 1963-64 under an agreement dated 7th April, 1962 Condition No. 17 of this agreement was that the auctioneer will be responsible to recover from the purchasers sales tax and other charges, if any, leviable on such sales conducted by him or obtain necessary licence or permission from the concerned Government. The assessee collected sales tax firm, the buyers in pursuance of this arrangement and also deposited the amount with the Government, but of course under a protest that he was not a dealer and that he was entitled to refund of the tax paid by him.3. In the year 1963, the petitioner worked as a sole proprietor in the ...
Smt. Asha Mishra Vs. Dhirendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)373
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Ac, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jaipur City, dated March 26, 1970, in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act.2. The respondent moved an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. It was alleged that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on May 27, 1937. The partied lived together up to the 1st week of April, 1963 and thereafter the appellant left the company of her husband and went to her father's house. The respondent made several efforts to call the appillant to his house, but to no avail. Ultimately, the respondent moved this petition which was allowed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, and a decree for restitution of conjugal, rights was passed against the appellant. It is against this order that the appellant has filed this appeal.3. In the lower court, the respondent raised th...
Kodumal Vs. the Rajasthan Small Industiries Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)477
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern both the aforesaid revision petitions.2. As notice was issued to the non-petitioner, Mr. Bapna appeared on behalf of the defendant non-petitioner. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties at considerable length.3. In the suit filed by the applicant Kodumal issues were framed by the trial court of July 1, 1975 and the case was fixed for September 12, 1975, for recording the evidence of the plaintiff and the parties were allowed to file the lists of their witnesses within the statutory period of 30 days. It is common ground that note of the parties filed a list of its witnesses within the cried of thirty days. On September 12, 1976, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff prayed for an adjournment, which was allowed on payment of Rs. 10/- as costs and then the suit was fixed for October 3, 1975 for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. Before the aforesaid date, the plaint ff submitted an application on September 12, 1975 explai...
Kripal Singh Vs. Bhanwarlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)410
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant-tenant against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Bhilwara, dated March 27, 1976.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that two shops described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint were let out to the appellant by the plaintiff respondents on a monthly rent of Rs. 14/- on January 1, 1966. After terminating the tenancy, the respondents filed the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for recovery of arrears of rent and damages amounting to Rs. 273/- and also sought eviction of the appellant on the ground of default of payment of rent under Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It was pleaded in the plaint that prior to the present suit, a suit for eviction under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act was filed but that suit was dismissed on appellant's depositing the arrears of tent etc. on the first date of hearing under Section ...
Rajasthan Udyog Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Raj31; 1976(9)WLN835
Shrimal, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the old D/- 23-7-1974 of the learned single Judge of this court, whereby he dismissed the writ petn. No. 389 of 1974 wherein the validity of the order dated March 13, 1973 issued by the State Government under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. XXIV of 1953) was challenged and it was also prayed that the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub-divisional Officer). Bharatpur be prohibited from taking further action in the matter. 2. By a notification dated March 13, 1973 the respondent No. 1, the State of Rajasthan under Section 4 (1) of the Act No. XXIV of 1953 proclaimed that the lands specified in the schedule attached to the said notification were needed or likely to be needed for public purpose, that is, for General Engineering Works, Bharatpur. The notification further stated that under Section 4 (1) of the Act No. XXIV of 1953 the Government was pleased to authorise the Tehsilda...
Gurdeva Singh Vs. Govt. of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)409
A.P. Sen, J.1. Heard on the question of admission. In support of the petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner, bas raised two prints, namely, (i) the Authorised Settlement Commissioner bad not before him complete record of the case before passing the impugned order setting aside the substitution of the name of the petitioner as an L.R. to the extent of his 2978/4703 share and, therefore, the order is vitiated, and (ii) the revision filed by the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 Sardar Singh sod Met. Bishnu Kaur were not competent as their remedy against the order of the Managing Officer lay by any of an appeal under Section 22. There failure to file such an appeal has rendered the order of the Managing Officer final. There is no substance in any of these contentions.2. the Only point for consideration before the Authorised Settlement Commissioner was the question of substitution of the names, of L.Rs. of Isbwar Singh. The learned Authorised Settlement Commissioner has mentioned that though ...
Sugrive Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN602
V.P. Tyagi, Actg. C.J.1. Appellant Sugrive was convicted by the learned Additional, Sessions Judge, Baran, Under Section 302 I.P.C. & sentenced to imprisonment for life, vide his judgment dated March 19, 1974. Having felt aggrieved by this order of conviction Sugrive has come in appeal before us.2. Appellant Sugrive was employed to guard the agricultural field of one Mahatmaji in village Ancholi, Police Station Chhabra: On January 22, 1973 Sugrive went for a round and found somebody plucking gram plants from the field, tie threw a challenge to the miscreant, whereupon it is alleged that there were some hot words exchanged between Kanhaiya deceased and Sugrive appellant. Sugrive raised a cry for help, whereupon his companion PW 1 Chootiya, who was taking his meals at the point 'S' in the site-plan Ex. D/3, started towards the place from where the cry was coming. But before he could reach the spot Sugrive ran away It is said that Sugrive was armed with a spear. When Chhotiya did not find...
University of Jodhpur and ors. Vs. Ramchandra Sharma and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj67; 1976(9)WLN793
1. Both these special appeals are filed by the University of Jodhpur and they are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated May 27, 1976. Since common questions of law are involved and the cases are based almost on identical facts, we propose to dispose them of by one judgment.2. Respondents Bajrang Singh and Ramchandra Sharma appeared at the First year and Third year L.L. B. Examination of the University of Jodhpur held in the months of June. 1975. Bajrang Singh failed in paper I namely, law of Contract, by two marks, while Ramchandra was declared unsuccessful, as he could not secure the requisite number of aggregate marks prescribed by the Ordinance though he passed in all the papers Individually. Both these students applied to the University for the re-evaluation of their two papers each', but their request was turned down by the University Authorities and they were not even supplied by the University the prescribed forms for seeking re-evaluation of their answ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »