Rajasthan Court January 1978 Judgments
Kanakraj Vs. Gopikisan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)22
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This revision application has been filed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur dated December 8, 1973 upholding the order passed by the Munsif City, Jodhpur dated August 23, 1973 in respect of the decision of issues No. 11 and 14.2. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 600/- in respect of the relief of possession of the disputed property and paid a court-fee of Rs. 45/- thereon. The objection of the defendant was that the market value of the disputed land was about Rs. 9,000/- and of the constructions made by the defendant thereon was also Rs. 9,000/- and as such the valuation of the suit for purposes of payment of court-fees should have been Rs. 18,000/- in respect of the relief of possession and, thus, the court-fees paid was in-sufficient. The trial court treated issues No. 11 and 14 as preliminary issues. The defendant desired to lead evidence in respect of the valuation of the land in dispute and the constructions made thereon, ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Felts Manufacturing Co. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1978
Reported in: [1980]45STC274(Raj)
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Rajasthan Felts Manufacturing Company, is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing woollen felts, etc. It is a registered dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act.2. For the assessment year 1968-69, the petitioner-firm filed returns claiming exemption from sales' tax on the sale of woollen felts. The Sales Tax Officer, by his assessment order (exhibit 1) dated 3rd November, 1969, allowed the exemption and raised no demands. The exemption was sought on the ground that woollen felt manufactured and sold by it was woollen fabric and was subject to additional excise duty on and from 25th August, 1965, and, as such, levy of sales tax was not attracted to it. The Sales Tax Officer held that the woollen felt produced by the petitioner was woollen fabric and was a declared item under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. It is urged that other manufacturers like that of the petitioner were also exempt f...
Tag this Judgment!Jafruallah Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and 123 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)16
A.P. Sen, Actg. C.J.1. This batch of 124 writ petitions raise common question &, therefore, are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners who provide transport facilities by runnin (sic) carriages, challenged the constitutional validity of the third proviso (sic) Rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules'), and Notification No S.O. 21 dated 2-9-71, issued by the State Government thereunder, which provides for the manner in which the tax chargeable under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), shall be paid, by affixing stamps on the tickets for fire to be issued to the passengers, is violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and as infringing Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution. The matters were accordingly placed before a Full Bench of 5 Judges as required by Article 228A of the Constitute on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Felts Manufacturing Company Vs. the State of Rajasthan and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN76
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. The petitioner M/s Rajasthan Felts Manufacturing Company is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing woollen felts etc It is a registered dealer under the Rajasthan Sales-tax Act and the Central Sales-Tax Act.2. For the assessment year 1968-69, the petitioner firm filed return claiming exemption from salts tax on the sale of woollen felts. The Sales-Tax Officer, by his assessment order Ex 1 dated November 3, 1969, allowed the exemption and raised no demands. The exemption was sought on the ground that woollen felts manufactured and sold by it was woollen fabric and was subject to additional excise duty on and from August 25, 1965 and as such levy of sales tax was not attracted to it. The Sales tax Officer held that the woollen felts produced by the petitioner was woollen fabric and was a declared item under Section 14 of the Central Sales-tax Act. It is urged that other manufacturers like that of the petitioner were also exempt from payment of sale...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Dass Vs. Kishan Karan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN83
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This revision application arises out of a suit for possession and mesne profits filed on November 16, 1967, Six issues were framed in the suit of which issue No 3 was to the effect as to whether the defendant had purchased the disputed property by an oral sale dated January 24, 1644 and was in possession thereof in pursuance of the aforesaid sale. The trial court decided issue No. 5 as a preliminary issue on June 1, 1970 and thereafter the plaintiff's evidence was examined which was closed on 26.11.73 and subsequently the defendant's evidence was closed on 11.2.74. On the last mentioned date, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff urged that as the burden of issue No. 3 was on the defendant, the plaintiff should be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal. The defendant objected to the same on the ground that issue No. 3 was framed by way of rebuttal to issue No. 3, which was to the effect as to whether the defendant was in possession of the suit premises on the basis of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Tena Alias Tinia and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)3
R.L. Gupta, J.1. Appellant Tena alies Tinia and Kalia son of Hurji have preferred this appeal from Jail against their convictions and sentences passed been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC for the murder of one Kalia son of Lallu.2. The prosecution case, in brief is that on 17.4.71 deceased Kallia son of Lallu along with Tinia Kalia and some other had gone to the 'jungle, to collect the leaves of 'mahua' trees Kalia deceased did not return and afterwards his dead body was found floating in the well known as Gada-Khakhra, which was so noticed by PW 7 Shankar. He, therefore, reported the matter to the police vide his report Ex. P/2. The police started investigation under Section 174, Cr.P.C. 1898. On the report of Shankar Ex.P/2 the police recovered the dead body of deceased Kalia and the autopsy was performed by PW 6 Dr. Harish Chandar Agarwal. In the opinion of the Doctor the cause of the death was shock as a it suit of complete laceration of the spinal cord of the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Satnam Malik
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR309(Raj); 1978WLN(UC)24
A.P. Sen, Actg. C.J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the CIT, Jodhpur at Jaipur, for requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state a case and refer to the court, a certain question of law said to arise from its order in I.T.A. No. 86/JP/1974-75, decided on December 10, 1975, pertaining to the assessment year 1967-68.2. The facts giving rise to this reference application briefly stated are as follows: The assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1967-68, declaring the income of Rs. 3,986. Subsequently, the return was revised, and in the revised return the income was declared at Rs. 11,703. The total income as determined by the ITO was Rs. 67,960. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal determined the income at Rs. 42,591. The amount assessed included amongst others income from plying of truck No. RJY 1600 and profits on sale thereof under Section 41(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which the assessee had failed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Banshilal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)12
M.L. Joshi, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as LDC on 16th of February, 1945, in the erstwhile State of Mewar. On the integration of the State into the United State of Rajasthan his services were transferred to the State of Rajasthan. It is net in dispute that the petitioner completed 25 years Qualifying service on 9-2-70. The petitioner was compulsorily retired on 11-12-72 vide Ex. 1 On receiving the not fee of the order of compulsory retirement the petitioner served a notice of demand of justice but did not receive any reply to the notice. He, therefore has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prating for a writ or direction for quashing the order of compulsory retirement (Ex. 1).2. The case of the petitioner succinctly put is that the petitioner's efficiency-bar grade was closed but later on by order Ex. 2 the petitioner was permitted to cross the efficiency bar from 1-4-68 by order dated 9-10-1971. According to the petitioner this fact is an ample proof...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Saijan Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)6
R.L. Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal through jail by one Mst. Sajjan, a girl aged 21 years, against the judgment of the Sessions-Judge, Udaipur, dated 31st March, 1972 by which he has convicted her under Sections 364 and 302 IPC, for committing the murder of Pannalal son of her uncle Ganesh, a young child of 1 years, by throwing it into the well of Sri Mahadev temple, situated an village Bichiwara, on 27-11-1970, at about 4.30 P.M. resulting in its death. She has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. and to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 364 I.P.C.2. The appellant abjured her guilt, denied the commission of alleged offences, and pleaded innocence. While she admitted that she was carrying the child near the well of the temple, the appellant alleged that she got an epileptic lit and was therefore not in a position to state what happened to the child thereafter, i.e., she pleaded an accidental death of the child.3. There is no direct evidence to conn...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)31
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Gumashta in the service of the Municipal Board, Rajaldesar (hereinafter called 'the Board') on July 18, 1946. While he was working in that capacity, he was found guilty of negligence and embezzlement of public fund and was dismissed from the service of the Board by the order dated August 18, 1951 passed by the Director of Local Bodies, Rajasthan. Jaipur. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government but the Government rejected his appeal and confirmed the order of dismissal of the petitioner, which fact was communicated to the petitioner by the Director of Local Bodies vide his letter dated November 4, 1952. The petitioner again applied to the Board for fresh employment on the post of a Clerk on December 9, 1959. At that time, Laduram cousin brother of the petitioner happened to be the Chairman of the Board & by a resolution of the Board passed at its meeting held on December 11, 1959 and over which Laduram presided, the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »