Rajasthan Court December 1979 Judgments
Dalchand Nemchand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1979
Reported in: [1983]139ITR454(Raj); 1979()WLN755
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. These are connected writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the HUF firm, M/s. Dalchand Nemchand, in respect of the best judgment assessment made by the ITO, A Ward, Udaipur, for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70.2. All the writ petitions are directed against the common order dated February 16, 1972, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, camp Udaipur, in respect of all the four assessment years. It appears that the ITO, A-Ward, Udaipur, who is the assessing authority served notice on the assessee, in the first instance, under Section 139(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), but the assessee did not comply with the notice. Thereafter notice was issued under Section 142(1) of the Act calling upon the assessee to produce the books of account maintained by it. Thereupon the authorised representative of the assessee put in appearance on behalf of the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Natha Ram and ors. Vs. Bhika and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)468
M.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioners by this writ petition seek to challenge the validity of the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 18-1-1977, whereby it dismissed the Second Appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18-11-1972 passed by the Revenue: Appellate Authority. Jodhpur, which in turn affirmed the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector, Banner, dated 30-8-1971, dismissing the petitioners* suit under Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts leading to the present writ petition may be briefly noticed Ramlal (since deceased) and his son Natharam instituted a suit (No.59 of 1970) against Bhika and Punja under Section 88 and 188 of the Act in the Court of Assistant Collector, Barmer. It was averred by the plaintiff-petitioners that they had been in cultivatory possession of the field known as 'Doliwaal' comprised in 'Khasara' No. 426 measuring 136 'bighas' and 1 'biswa' situated in village Dokha since genera...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Ram Vs. Jagdish Prasad and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN756
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and eviction of the defendants from the premises described in the plaint.2. The plaintiff's case in brief was that he purchased the suit premises from the heirs of Shri Sawakshaw merchant. The eviction was sought on the ground of sub-letting and reasonable and bona fide personal requirement. The defendants contested the suit and took an objection inter alia that the plaintiff had not acquired the title as a landlord. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:1. Whether the defendant No. 1 is a tenant of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 4675 p.m. in the shop in suit?2. Whether the tenancy of the defendant No. 1 is a permanent tenancy and he can not be evicted from the house in suit?3. Whether the heirs of the deceased Shri Sawakshaw Rustomji sold house to the plaintiff without obtaining a succession certificate and as such the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sharma and Company and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN806
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. These are two connected appeals arising out of proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1947 (which will hereinafter be referred to as theAct).2. The facts brought on the record are inadequate, and, therefore, it may not be possible to narrate all the relevant facts giving rise to these appeals. Suffice it to say, that the respondent M/s Sharma and Company entered into a contract with the Union of India far constructing concrete pavements and brick enclosures etc. at Nil, Bikaner. An agreement was duly executed by the parties. It is the common case of the parties that the work was to be commenced on July 10, 1963, and was to be completed on May 9, 1964. There is also no dispute on the point that the work was not completed before the stipulated date The respondent made an application on May 2, 1964, for extension of time to finish the work and extension was granted upto June 9, 1964, but the work was not completed within the extended time. The parties are further agreed...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)425
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. Appellant Ganga has preferred this jail appeal against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated January 9,1979 for his conviction and sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 (II) IPC.2. Briefly the facts as alleged by the prosecution were these. 15 or 20 days before 31-3-1978 deceased Lala and his brother Bheema were returning to their house in the after noon. Their filed is also situated near their house, Chunki wife of Lala was setting beneath a tree, Appellant Ganga and two co-accused Vala and Keeka met them. Vala demanded his loan Rs. 60/- from Ganga but the latter refused to pay and this led to a quarrel. Keeka and Vala caught hold of hands of Lala and Ganga from the blunt side of an axe gave an injury to the head of Lala. After some days of the incident on 30-3-1978 Lala died as a result of this injury. Bheema made a report Ex. D.2 in the police which led to the inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr. PC. PW 7 Sabir Ali, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Kashi Ram Lila and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(Raj)19
C. M. Lodha, C.J. - These are four connected applications u/s 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'), for requiring the ITAT, Jaipur, to state a case and refer the following questions of law arising out of its order dated October 13, 1977, passed in WT Appeals Nos. 74(JP)/76-77, 75(JP)/76-77(JP)/76-77 and 77 (JP)/76-77 -'(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding that the order passed by the WHO on 1-11-1973 was an order u/s 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, 1957 and not an order giving effect to the order of the CWT passed u/s 18(2A) of the WT Act, 1957 and therefore, an appeal would lie before the AAC and the Tribunal ?'(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding that the conduct of the assessee was not contumacious or dishonest and was right in cancelling the penalties ?'2. The asst. yr. under consideration in all the cases in 1970-71. The facts in these cases a...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Ratan Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)474
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. Appellant Shivratan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated March 14, 1975 against his conviction and sentence under Section 326 and 324, IPC.2. The facts alleged by the prosecution are these. On 7 3 74 at about 10 30 pm. Chandraprakash, Ramprakash and Jethmal were returning to their houses from public-park. When they reached in front of Sardul School, appellant Shiv Ratan with his two or three companions assaulted them Shiv Ratan struck a knife blow on the right shoulder of Ram Prakash, while he was sitting on the carrier of a cycle. He got down from the cycle' Thereafter Shivratan gave another knife blow on the lower part of the abdomen of Jethmal. Ramprakash grappled with Shivratan. They fell down. The appellant then inflicted a knife blow on the pubic part of Ramprakash. Chandraprakash caught hold of the knife by his left hand, but Shivratan anatched it away with force. This caused an injury on the palm of...
Tag this Judgment!Dhayalal and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)464
M.C. Jain, J.1. The appellants Dhayala and Suitan have been convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and have been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhurjhunu by his judgment dated i8-9-74.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the injured Matu and Dhayala accused are brothers. They have got a field comprised of Khasra No. 83 situated in village Bas Tokha. In Jamabandi of Samvat 2026to 29, the same was recorded in the name of Maturam having two third share and Dhayala accused having one third share. The prosecution case is that on 11-7-71 in the morning Maturam arid his son Bajrarjga went alone with their cattle and camel to that part of the field, which was lying vacant. In the nearby lend of the field, their Bajra crop was standing. It is said that Dhayala and Sultan accused appellants and four other accused persons, namely, R...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›