Rajasthan Court October 1979 Judgments
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC128(Raj)
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called into question the appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur, dated 15th June, 1979 (annexure 6), by which the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle II, Jaipur, dated 27th November, 1978, directing the petitioner to furnish security in the amount of Rs. 25 lacs under Section 6(7)(i) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, and has its industrial complex at Kota, known as Sriram Chemical Industry and Sriram Rayons. It has also vanaspati depots and departmental stores of textiles at Jaipur and various other places in Rajasthan.3. The petitioner's case is that it has always been submitting the returns regularly and has never committed defaults in paying the sales tax in ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaipur Electro P. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1979
Reported in: [1990]183ITR476(Raj)
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (to be referred to hereinafter as 'the Act'), filed by the Revenue.2. The facts giving rise to this application are that the assessee is a small scale cottage industry manufacturing indigenous diesel generating sets supplied mainly to the Government and defence priority section as well as to public sector undertakings and private industries. It filed a return for the year 1975-76 declaring an income of Rs. 3,60,040 on June 28, 1975. It was obligatory on the part of the assessee to pay the self-assessment tax within 30 days of the furnishing of the return, i.e., on or before July 27, 1975. The assessee failed to make the payment by the due date, but the entire amount of tax was deposited by the assessee prior to November 7, 1975.3. The learned Income-tax Officer after issue of notice, imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,000 under Section 140A(3) of the Act. The appeal filed by the assessee was partly acce...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Two ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC56(Raj)
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed that the rate of 10 per cent sales tax on country liquor, fixed by the notification dated 8th March, 1969 (exhibit 4), issued by the Government of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), may be declared as null and void. It has also been prayed that Rs. 7,124.45 recovered from the petitioner by the State of Rajasthan as sales tax on the basis of the aforesaid notification be ordered to be refunded.2. The petitioner was granted licence for the exclusive privilege to sell, by retail, country liquor under Rule 67-1, Chapter VII-B, of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956, for the year 1969-70, at Village Rohit in District Pali on condition of payment of a lump sum of Rs. 46,000, to be paid in twelve equal monthly instalments. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the instalme...
Tag this Judgment!Sohanlal Vs. Smt. Chav and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)369
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff landlord, Shri Sohanlal, against the judgment and decree dated. 19th February, 1979 passed by the District Judge, Pali, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the Judgment and decree dated 6th October, 1976 passed by Civil Judge, Pali, in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1975 was dismissed.2. The Civil Suit aforesaid was filed by the appellant against the respondents for their eviction from the shop, which had been let out by the appellant to one Bheru Singh The respondents are the heirs and legal representatives of said Shri Bheru Singh. The said suit was filed on the ground of default in the payment of rent. Daring the pendency of the said suit, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), was amended by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, which was promulgated by the Governor of Rajasthan on 29th September, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Sugan Chand Vs. Dina Nath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj121; 1979()WLN703
Lodha, C. J.1. This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil procedure, from the order dated April 20, 1979, by the Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C. in a suit for mortgage money by sale of the mortgaged property.2. The plaintiff-appellant brought the suit against the defendant-respondents for Rs. 81,000 on the basis of a mortgage-deed dated October 23, 1975, whereby, in lieu of a loan of Rs. 75,000, the defendants had mortgaged Plot No. 6 measuring. 6300 sq. ft. situated in Industrial area near Ganganagar Sugar Mill, Sri Ganganagar, along with the building standing thereon and machinery fitted therein. There was a stipulation in the mortgage-deed that the mortgagors would redeem the mortgage within two years, failing which the mortgagees would be entitled to recover the mortgage money by sale of the mortgaged property. Since the mortgagors had failed to repay the...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanji Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN661
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This appeal filed by Dhanji through Superintendent of Central Jail Udaipur is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated 24.2.1975 by which the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of pay meet of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months.2. The prosecution case against the appellant was as follows : The appellant was married to Mst. Hakri deceased. Both husband and wife used to live together in village Barapal along with Nana and Mst. Purki who were parents of the appellant. The appellants sister, namely, Mst. Homli also lived with him in the same house. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 19.3.1974 the appellant accompanied by his wife Mst. Hakri went to see an Advasi fair held at village Kaya. After seeing the fair both husband and wife were seen by Habji P.W. 3 moving towards their village through a jungle. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Shakuntla and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN719
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 16-6-1979 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur, whereby the husband's petition for divorce, was dismissed.2. The appellant-petitioner Om Prakash averred in his petition that he was married with the respondent No. 1 Shakuntala on 22-11-1972. She lived with him on 23-11-72. The marriage of her brother Jay Shankar, non-petitioner No. 2, was solemnised on 30-11-1972 She continued to visit the petitioner's house in the day up to 4-12-1972. Thereafter they were living separately. The petitioner sought the decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion, illicit relations with her brother Jay Shankar Vyas, non-petitioner No. 2, & mental cruelty on account of such illicit intimacy. It was also averred by the petitioner that the marriage was never consummated. The petitioner came to know of the illicit relations of the non-petitioner No. 1 with the non petitioner No. 2 after a few weeks of his marriage, whereu...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu NaraIn and anr. Vs. Shanti Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)332
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the acquittal of Shantilal respondent accused by the Municipal Magistrate, Udaipur vide his judgment dated 7.11.1969.2. The facts briefly stated are that on 310.1966 at about 2 30 p.m. Food Inspector Shambhu Narain took sample of black pepper from the respondent and duly sealed it. The sample was divided into three parts and put into three sealed bottles. One sealed bottle was given to the appellant One sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Rajasthan Jaipur who upon analsyis found the sample of the black pepper adulterated. The appellant was prosecuted in the court of Municipal Magistrate, Udaipur. The learned Magistrate acquitted the appellant solely on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that the provisions of Rule 7 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred as the Rules) had been complied with.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer, Survey and Investigation Vs. the Divisional ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC18(Raj); 1979()WLN658
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. The short question, which arises for consideration in this reference under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is whether the Northern Railway is liable to pay sales tax on the sale of coal-ash made by it. The question of law referred to us reads as under:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Jodhpur, was a 'dealer' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, for the assessment year 1956-57 and was consequently liable to pay sales tax under that Act2. For the period from 1st April, 1956, to 31st March, 1957, the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Jodhpur, was assessed to sales tax on the sale of coal-ash made by him. The Sales Tax Officer held that the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Jodhpur, came within the definition of 'dealer' as defined in the Act. The assessee filed appeal to the Deputy Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Hansraj and Champalal Vs. Ram Kripal and the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)384
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This application Under Section 482, Cr. PC. has been filed against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 5.2.75, under which he took cognizance of an offence Under Section 417, I P C. It is prayed that the impugned order be quashed.2. The accused petitioners are the banafide residents of Siligudi town in district Darjeeling (West Bengal), and have been earning on business of sale and purchase of oil and other commodities for a considerable period in the name and style of Jagannath Hansraj and their telegraphic address is 'Jajodia'. The complainant Ram Kripal is a manufacturer of Mustard oil and other oils and carries on his business of manufacturing oil in the name and style of M/s. Jai Hanuman Oil Mills at Purani Station Road, Alwar. The telegraphic address of the said firm is 'Sanjeevani'. A contract for the sale of 576 tins of Mustard Oil (Sarson) at Rs. 980/- per ql. was entered into between Ramkripal comlainant and the accused petitioners through brokers. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »