Rajasthan Court September 1978 Judgments
Fakhri Automobiles Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(Raj)192; [1980]126ITR417(Raj)
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), presented by M/s. Fakhri Automobiles, Banswara. It arises under the following circumstances :The applicant-firm carries on business in petrol, diesel, kerosene, motor spare parts, etc., at Banswara. The accounting year of the applicant-firm for the assessment year 1971-72 ends on 30th October, 1970. On the 4th July, 1970, the applicant-firm debited in its cash book a sum of Rs. 14,025.75 against the purchase price of 18,000 litres of diesel. The quantity of diesel purchased was recorded in the stock book of diesel on 4th July, 1970, as under : '1,500, 1,000, 2,100, 1,500, 2,100, 1,800, 1,500, 2,100, 2,100, 1,500, 18,000 litres. ' 2. In the cash book, entry was made in respect of purchase of diesel in one lump sum. In respect of these purchases, the firm did not obtain purchase voucher, but Shri Kalimuddin, partner of the applicant-firm, filed an affidavit to t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra and anr. Vs. Om Prakash and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN466
M.L. Joshi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The sole point which calls for our consideration is whether a sale of agricultural holding made by a member of the scheduled caste in contravention of provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 1955, is void or voidable? Section 42, as it existed in the year 1960, is reproduced below:42. Sale or gift. - Except with the general or special permission of the State Government no Khatedar tenant shall have right to transfer by sale or gift his interest in the whole or a part of his holding to any person who at the date of such transfer is already in possession of land which together with the land so transferred will exceed 90 acres of unirrigated or thirty acres of irrigated land.Explanation : If such land is partly irrigated and partly unirrigaied, one acre of iriigated land shall, for calculating the area of land for the purposes of this section be deemed to be equivalent to three acres of unirrigated land.Provided t...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector (Principal Appraiser) Cu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1978
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT440(Raj); 1978(11)WLN481
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These are eight writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and can be conveniently disposed of by a s ingle judgment as they have been heard together and the questions involved in all of them are the same.2. It will suffice to state the facts in Writ Petition No. 1961 of 1970. The petitioner in connection with its business of manufacture of Aluminium Conductor Steel Reinforced and all Aluminium Conductors, imported Electrolytic Grade Aluminium Wire Rods which were not extruded from outside India. One such consignment was imported under Bill of Entry No. 2431, dated July 7, 1965. The consignment consisted of 9.165 M. T. of Electrolytic Grade Aluminium Wire of 90% to 99.5% purity and 3' diameter. These goods were cleared from the Customs at Bombay and at the time of clearance, the Assistant Collector (Principal Appraiser) Customs, Bombay levied duties as under,-Customs Duty 16 1/2%Countervailing Duty Rs. 396 per M.T.3. The petitioner paid the above...
Tag this Judgment!Chagan Lal Vs. Khima
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)291
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution. The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed by both the courts.2. The plaintiff instituted the suit with the allegations that the defendant moved an application on 12-4-62 under Section 98 CrPC. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mount Abu in pursuance of which search was taken but ultimately the proceedings terminated in his favour and the property was ordered to be returned to him. It was alleged that the defendant was actuated by malice and that the application was based on false facts and there was no reasonable and probable cause for making the application. The plaintiff appellant claimed damages of Rs. 1200/-.3. The defendant denied the plaintiff's allegation and stated that the plaintiff runs an ordinary Tea Hotel. The defendant is the real brother of the plaintiff and he is inmical to him The plaintiff is having a company of thieves, dacoits and robbers and purchases stolen p...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ491
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. These are three revision applications by one Ramchandra who has been convicted in all the three cases under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for adulterating milk, and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in each case. Mr. Mehrish, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioner in all the three cases may be made concurrent so that the accused may in substance undergo imprisonment for six months, instead of li years. No other point is being pressed.2. According to him, the accused is a petty milkman and he is supporting five persons in his family out of which two are his parents and 3 are his minor children. It is urged that the adulteration consists of addition of water in milk and extraction of fat contents, therefore, it cannot be said to be injurious to health.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor, I am of the opin...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN555
G.M. Lodha, J.1. These three are revision applications by one Ramchandra who has been convicted in all the three cases under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for adulterating milk, and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in each case. Mr. Mehrish, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioner in all the three cases may be made concurrent so that the accused may in substance undergo imprisonment for six months, instead of 1 1/2 years. No other point is being pressed.2. According to him, the accused is a petty milkman and he is supporting five persons in his family out of which two are his parents and 3 are his minor children. It is urged that the adulteration consists of addition of water in milk and extraction of fat contents, therefore, it cannot be said to be injurious to health.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the public Prosecutor, I am of the opinion...
Tag this Judgment!Leeladhar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)289
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 6th October, 1969, passed by the Collector, Ganganagar and the orders dated December 20, 1971 and January 12, 1973, passed by the State Government. The facts briefly stated, are as under.2. On February 15, 1968, the Collector Ganganagar, issued a notice whereby it was notified that those cultivators of land in Bhakra Project who have less than 12 bighas of canal irrigated land could apply for allotment of additional land in the same village so as to enable them to have 15 bighas of such land. The applications for allotment of land were required to be submitted to the Revenue Tehsildar concerned in the prescribed form by the 15th March, 1968. In pursuance of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner, who was in possession of less than 15 bighas of land, submitted an application for allotment of additional land On the said application of the petitioner, the Tehsildar, Suratgarh, on 14th May, 196...
Tag this Judgment!Gaya Prasad and 5 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)304
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This judgment will deal with the five appeals, listed above, by the appellants, namely, Gaya Prasad, Ram Gopal, Salka, Ganeshi & Raja alias Rajendra, which have arisen out of the same trial and judgment and can, therefore, be conveniently be dealt with together.2. By his judgment dated August 3, 1977, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, has convicted & sentenced the appellants as under,-(1) Gaya Prasad to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/, or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 395 I.P.C.(2) Ram Gopal to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 397 I.P.C.;(3) Salka to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years & a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or. in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 395 I.P.C.;(4) Ganeshi to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or, in default, fur...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›