Rajasthan Court October 1978 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.
Suraj Mal Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (ii)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1978
Reported in: [1980]123ITR529(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the I,T. Act, 1961, presented in this court by the assessee, Surajmal Sharma, for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') to state the case and refer three questions arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated July 30, 1974, for the decision of this court.2. The facts of the case, which have given rise to this application, may be briefly stated. The ITO, Sawai Madhopur, by his order dated August 31, 1971, assessed the income of the assessee, Shri Surajmal Sharma, for the assessment year 1969-70, at Rs. 40,000 on estimate basis. On an appeal by the assessee, the A AC, Kota, by his order dated July 31, 1973, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 25,000 giving him a relief of Rs. 15,000, In doing so, the AAC took into consideration the fact that a sum of Rs. 6,000, out of the investment of the assessee during the assessment year, was rais...
Dharampal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)364
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Partabgarh dated February 12, 1973 by which he set aside the order of the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Nimbahera dated September 13, 1972 discharging the accused-petitioner under Section 330, Indian Penal Code.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on December 13, 1972 Mangilal filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 342, 323, 330 and 506 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code alleging therein that on December 20, 1972 he was called by Patwari, Nanana. When he reached the Patwarkhana, patwari Mohanlal and Tehsildar Dharampal Singh were present there who demanded Rs. 105/-, said to be due from him for the manure and on his expressing inability to make the payment at that time he was made to kneel down and he was slapped by the Tehsildar and the Patwari detained him. On this complaint being lodged a case under Section 330, Indian Penal...
Moti Ram Vs. Mali Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN658
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order of the Munsif, Ghuru dated March 30, 1978 passed in Ejection Petition No. 7 of 1978 by which he accorded permission for amendment of the election petition to the non petitioner.2. A few facts deserve recall here. The non petitioner filed an election petition under Rule 78 of the Rajasthan, Pancriayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules 1960 hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', on March 15, 1978 praying therein that the election of the petitioner be declared illegal and the non-petitioner be declared as duly elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Khinwasar, Tehsil Chuiu. The non petitioner moved an application under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC on March 27, 1978 stating that he my be allowed to amend the citation petition by niakihg necessary amendments it was also rationed upto that stage notice to the petitioner has not been issued. The learned Munsil by his order dated ...
Rameshwar Prasad Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ484; 1978(11)WLN568
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. The appellant, Rameshwar Prasad Trivedi, has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Jaipur, under Section 161 of the I. P. C. and Under Section 6(1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to rigorous Imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- or, In default, further simple imprisonment for one month separately under each count. The two sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution, which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the appellant, as aforementioned, is that on Nov. 5, 1973, while the appellant was posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Court, Gangapur City, he accepted payment of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification for his promise to show favour to a party in two revenue suits pending in his court that day.3. It is alleged that Ram Singh, P. W. 2, a resident of village Keshgarh, tehsil Nandoti, district Sawai Madhopur, was involved as a party to two cross cases u...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Motilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN453
M.L. Joshi, Actg. C.J.1. This is an application under Section 15(3-A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, hereinafter called the Act, praying for directing the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, hereinafter called the Board, to make a reference on the following questions of law:Whether 'Durri' is textile within the meaning of item No. 3 of notification No. F. 5(48) ET/ST dated 1-7-58.(2) Whether by issue of notification No. F. 5(48) ET/ST dated 1-7-1958 the insertion of the words including tape, 'niwar' enlarges the scope of exemption given in notification dated 14 12-57.2. The fact giving rise to this reference, briefly stated are as under : The non petitioner No. 1 was assessed under the Sales Tax Act for the period 11 11-58 to 31-10-59, 1-11-59 to 20-10-1960 and 21-10-1960 to 7-11-61 by the Sales Tax Officer Jodhpur City, who was the assessing Authority The non petitioner amongst others deal in 'Durries'. The petitioner levied sales tax on the turnover in respect of Durries for the afor...
Rikhab Chand JaIn Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)310
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Rikhab Chand Jain who is a trader in agricultural produce, has challenged the validity of certain provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the validity of Rule 61 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. The Act was enacted by the Rajasthan State Legislature with a view to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce in the State of Rajasthan. The Act provides for the declaration of an area to be a market area by the State Government, after issue of a notification inviting objections and after consideration of the said objections and for the declaration of a market proper as well the principal market yard as the sub market yard. After the declaration of the m...
Mahendra Singh Gehlot Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)357
K.D. Sharma, J.1. A notice was issued to the non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 to show cause why this petition be not admitted. Mr. S.L Mardia, Additional Government Advocate appeared on behalf of non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and filed a written reply to the writ petition. The non-petitioner No 5 refused to accept the notice. Hence, the notice was deemed to have been served on him. No body appeared on behalf of non-petitioner No 5.2. Heard Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.L. Mardia, Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 4.3. The petitioner passed Higher Secondary Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, in the year 1978. He applied to the Principal, Polytechnic College, Jodhpur for admission to Three Years' Diploma Course & was called for interview at the Polytechnic College, Jodhpur, on August 14, 1978, at 8a.m. along with the original testimonials and the prescribed fees. It is alleged in t...
Shobha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)362
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated January 31, 1974 by which he while maintaining the conviction of the accused-appellant by the learned Mwisiff Magistrate, Merta reduced the substantive sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment to one and a half years' rigorous imprisonment, and maintain the sentence of fine of Rs. 300/-.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner advanced his arguments to assail the findings of the two courts below on the ground that there is specific evidence of Dr. Sohanlal (CW. 1) that the fracture of Shanker could not have been caussd by the same object by which the external injury has been caused. According to the learned Counsel it is evident and held by the learned Judge deciding the appeal that the sword alleged to be recovered from the accused Shabharam, would be held to be responsible for the injury of Shanker-injured. According to the learned Counsel it is the specific c...
Joga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)348
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra dated April 6, 1978.2. The accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced Under Sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Munsiff and judicial Magistrate, Balotra on July 29, 1977. He was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-; in default to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment on two counts with an order that both the substantive sentences will run concurrently. Against the judgment of the learned Magistrate the accused-petitiones preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court, Balotra and the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated April 6, 1978 dismissed the same. Before the learned Sessions Judge the point for consideration raised was that the accused at the time of the alleged commission of the crime was below 21 years of age, hence he may be given benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. The argument ...
Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)403
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated May 21, 1974 by which he upheld the judgment passed by the learned Murisiff and Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road dated November 8, 1973 convicting the accusfd-appellant Under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and sentencing him to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default to undergo one and a half month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that despite the fact that Ghhaganlal, one of the Motbirs has specifically deposed that the tiffin carrier in which the alleged illicit liquor is said to be found, at the time of search, belonged to him, the learned Magistrate held the accused-petitioner in conscious possession of the liquor. It has also been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific evidence on the point as to which seal was af...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »