Rajasthan Court November 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.
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Mohanlal Bishambhar Dayal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC288(Raj); 1978(11)WLN608
M.L. Joshi, Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference application under Section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act), praying for issuance of a direction to the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, to state the case and refer the question of law arising out of its order dated 7th March, 1977, passed in Special Appeal No. 71 of 1974.2. The facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated, are that the petitioner, Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle II, Jaipur (hereinafter called the C. T. O.), assessed the non-petitioner firm for the assessment year 1964-65 by his assessment order dated 10th January, 1967, and imposed tax on the implied sale of containers of edible oil which was sold by the non-petitioner dealer to the various purchasers, who had purchased the edible oil from the non-petitioner firm, i.e., non-petitioner No. 1. The non-petitioner, being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 10th January, 1967, preferred an appeal before th...
Ranu Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(Raj)140; [1979]117ITR468(Raj)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. We propose to dispose of all the three above petitions by one single order as the parties in all the three cases are same and relate to matters under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 and the points arising in all the above cases are almost identical. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the Income-tax Case No. 199/1975 are that the petitioner moved an application under Section 185 of the I.T. Act for registration of a partnership firm consisting of Shri R.K. Bhargava, Shri Raja Ram and Shri Rahul. The partnership was alleged to have been constituted through a partnership deed dated 3rd November, 1967. Shri Rahul at this time was admittedly a minor. The ITO by his order dated 2nd March, 1972, refused registration, holding that the said partnership was not a genuine one. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the AAC, who, by his order dated 15th June, 1972, set aside the order of t...
Bharat Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur Vs. the State of Raja ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Raj209; 1978(11)WLN517
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J. 1. The petitioner Bharat Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Jaipur, has filed this stay petition under Section 151 C. P. C. for restraining the respondent No. 1, the State of Rajasthan, 2, Urban Improvement Trust, 3. The Land Acquisition Officer and 4. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur from interfering in the possession of the petitioner Society over Khasra Nos. 87 and 88 situated in Jaipur. 2. The respondents U. I. T. Jaipur and Rajasthan Housing Board, hereinafter referred as 'the Housing Board', have vehemently opposed this stay application on the following grounds: (i) That the disputed land is already in possession of the Housing Board and, therefore, the application of stay is misconceived. (ii) that the disputed land has been acquired for the work and project of public utility, namely, the construction of a colony under the provisions of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act for providing cheap accommodation to the low income group who have got no residential accommo...
Bombay Cotton (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Cto
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)333
M.L. Joshi, Actg. C.J.1. Under these three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, each of the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition, certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for restraining the respondents from assessing or reassessing the tax on the petitioner Companies, turn over in pursuance of the impugned notices.2. The relevant facts, out of which these three writ petitions arise, are like this : The petitioners, three Companies, are private Companies of Sri Gamganrgar with head offices at Bombay According to the writ allegations, their main business is to buy cotton in Rajasthah and in Punjab and to export the same outside the territory of India through their head offices. They purchased cotton from the local dealers, which was partly sold within Rajasthan, partly sold in the course of inter-State trade, partly outside Rajasthan and a part of it was exported out of India after ginning cotton and...
Sawal Chand and ors. Vs. Smt. Pyari Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)415
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's revision, filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Jalore, dated July 12, 1978, by which he granted permission to the plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence in respect of a rent note dated Asoj Sudi 11, Samvat 2031.2. The plaintiffs submitted an application under Section 66 of the Evidence Act (for short 'the Act') stating that the original rent note dated Asoj Sudi 11 Samvat 2031 (26-10-74) is in possession of the defendants, and in the written statement, they have denied that it is in their possesion. As the original rent note was said to be in the possession of the defendants, it was prated that the plaintiffs may be permitted to lead secondary evidence in respect of it. This application was moved on December 13, 1977. The defer cant 8 contested it by filing a re ply to it on January 20, 1978.3. Subsequently, oh March 17,1978, the plaintiffs submitted another application purporting to be under Section 65 and 66 of the Act prayi...
Bhikamchand Vs. Jugal Kishore and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN682
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a revisional application filed by the defendant tenant against the appellate order of the learned Additional Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated January 13, 1978 by which he set aside the order of the learned Munsif City, Jodhpur dated January 29, 1977.2. Briefly put the facts leading to this revision are these : the plaintiffs-non petitioners (landlords) instituted a suit for arrears of rent & ejectment against the defendant petitioner in the court of Munsif City, Jodhpur on March 18, 1976 In the suit the plaintiffs claimed rent from March 1, 1975 to January 31, 1976 @ Rs. 80/- per month and damages for use and occupation from February 1, 1976 to March 18, 1976 amounting to Rs. 290 out of when they relinquished Rs. 130/-. It was specifically mentioned in para 7 of the plaint that the previous Civil Original Suit No 119 of 1972 which was decided by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur on March 18, 1972, was for the recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of R...
Noore Khan Vs. Badri Narayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)378
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a revision by debtor-petitioner Noorekhan against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated May 23, 1974 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 1 of 1972.2. The facts leading to this revision may briefly be stated. The non-petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 4,300/- against the petitioner (defendant-debtor) in the Court of Civil judge, Jodhpur on July 29, 1973. This amount consisted of Rs. 2500/- as principal and Rs. 1800/- as interest. The suit was registered as civil original suit No. 422 of 1963 On July 9, 1964, the petitioner filed a written statement. Issues were framed on February 5, 1964. On April 7, 1964, the learned Judge passed the following order:The plaintiff concedes to the suspension of proceedings. So stayed up to 30th September 1964. Put upon October 1. 1964.On October 1, 1964, the case was ordered to be put up for the evidence of the plaintiff on November 12, 1964. It appears that on March 11, 1965, learned Coun...
Ramdan and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)339
M.C. Jain, J.1. The appellants Ramdan and Sumar have been convicted Under Section 307/34, I.P.C., and have been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. They have also been convicted Under Section 353, IPC, and have been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by his judgment dated 24th January, 1974. Their sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30th of April, 1970, head constable Jangbahadur along with his party proceeded for patrolling. At about 6, p.m, they observed the foot prints of four camels having entered into Indian Border from towards Pakistan Border on pillar No. 783. The foot prints were followed by the party. Constable Thakurram was sent to the out-post Sundra to give information regarding the track There upon, Thakurram reached Sundra out-post at about 6....
Abdul Majid Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)523
K.S. Sindhu, J.1. The appellant, Abdul Majid, along with co-accused Kaila Prasad, since acquitted, was tried by the learned Special Judge, on the following charges:1. That you and Kaila Prasad S.I. on or about the 19th day of September 70 at Bandikui agreed to do an illegal act, i.e. to obtain a sum of Rs. 200/- as an illegal gratification from Sukhlal as a motive or reward for showing favour in investigation of case No. 118 dated 14 9.70 under Section 147, 148, 149 IPC of P.S. Bandikui and that the said act of accepting Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification was done in pursuance of an agreement and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.2. That you being a public servant employed as Head Constable in the police department at Bandikui directly accepted from Sukhlal son of Mangla Ram Meena resident of village Pragpura, Rs. 200/- for yourself and Kaila Prashad S.I., P.S. Bandikui as a gratification other than legal remuneration or as a motive or ...
Krishna Kumar Sharma and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)466
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This order will deal with an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short, (the Code), which was filed in the following circumstances.2. Krishna Kumar Sharma and Basant Kumar Sharma, petitioners herein, are Managing Director and Executive Director, respectively, of M/s Srarit Water Treatment Company Limited, Bombay. P.N. Vijai, respondent 2 herein, is Administrative Officer of General Engineering Works, Bharatpur Rajasthan. On April 18, 1977, P.N. Vijai made a complaint in writing to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bharatpur, alleging that the petitioners had committed offences against Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and praying they be punished accordingly. The learned Magistrate forwarded this complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station, Bharatpur, with an order directing the said officer to register the case, as, in the opinion of the learned Magistrate, it disclosed a cognizable offence. The le...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »