Rajasthan Court July 1979 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.
Amar Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN371
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notice Ex 3 dated November 8, 1977, issued by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, A Ward, Sri Ganganagar, Circle Sri Ganganagar, under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Saks-tax Rules, 1955, made by the State of Rajasthan in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 26 of the Rajasthan Sales-tax Act (No. 29 of 1954).2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition may be stated within a narrow compass. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Rajasthan Sales-tax Act. He purchased poppy heads (there is a dispute between the parties as to whether the article in question is poppy-head or lanced poppy-head) during the accounting year 1976-77 from certain dealer & paid the Raj salts-tax at the time of purchase on the purchase price. However, the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Sri Ganganagar, issued the impugned notice to him to show cause why tax should not...
Maharao Abhai Singh Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN399
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. The petitioner, who is erstwhile Ruler of the former State of Sirohi, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the order by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan dated March 29, 1978 (Annexure 1) be set aside and it may be declared that the Jagir of Manadar is not returnable under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act (Act No 6 of 1952)(which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act').2. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Jagir in question is his 'private Jagir' which does not fall within the definition of 'jagir land' as defined in Section 210 read with First Schedule of the Act. It appears that a notification dated May 25, 1962, under Section 21 of the Act, was issued by the Government of Rajasthan in respect of the Jagir in question in the Raj. Gazette whereby the Jagir of Manadar was resumed with effect from July 1, 1962. The Jagir Commissioner provisionally d...
Kalu Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN403
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. This is a writ-petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has challenged the recovery of an amount of Rs. 11879/- from him under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 (Act No. V of 1952) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and has prayed that the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Udaipur, dated February 3, 1972, as also the appellate order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, dated December 23, 1972, upholding the order of the Additional Collector and the order passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan Ex. 5 dismissing the petitioner's revision-application be set aside.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this writ-petition are these : A contract for the excise shop of Hathi Pol City No. 1 was sanctioned for Samvat year 2006 for Rs. 23000/- in favour of the petitioner, against whom a sum of Rs. 11879-, was found to be outstanding. The district Excise Officer. Udaipur, theref...
Pukh Raj and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj83; 1979()WLN354
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. The only point for determination in these connected special appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is whether the notification dated Dec. 27, 1977, issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977, (which will hereinafter referred to as the Rules) is void and the leases of the stone quarries granted in pursuance of the said notification are liable to be set aside? The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and struck down the notification as well as the leases granted in pursuance thereof and hence these appeals.2. In order to appreciate the points canvassed before us we may refer to the relevant provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 16 of 1957, (which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act). Section 15 confers powers on State Government to make rules in respect of minor minerals and lays down that the State Govern...
Cheni Ram and anr. Vs. Shanti Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj192
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. In both the revision petitions, only question to be considered is whether the Addl. District Judge has committed any illegality or irregularity in holding that the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction can only be decided after taking evidence.2. The plaintiff's case is that the cause of action arose at Kishangarh and the defendant's objection is that the entire cause of action arose at Amritsar and no cause of action arose at Kishangarh. Obviously it is a disputed question of fact and can only be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence of the parties.3. I have gone through the order of the Addl. District Judge. It arises out of a mixed question of fact and law, and it suffers from no infirmity.4. Order 14 (2), Civil P. C. is as under:'2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues:-- (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subjectto the provisions of Sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where is...
Damodar Lal Kabra Vs. Income-tax Officer, B-ward and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR288(Raj)
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. By the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed that notices marked Exs. 1, 2 and 10, dated December 30, 1968, December 20, 1968 and March 27, 1965, respectively, issued to the petitioner by the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Jodhpur, maybe quashed. It has also been prayed that the said ITO be restrained from, taking proceedings against the petitioner under Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1948-49.2. The petitioner is a resident of Jodhpur in the State of Rajasthan. His case is that he received notice Ex. 1 on December 31, 1968, wherein it was mentioned that though notice under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 1948-49 had been issued to the petitioner and served upon him by registered post on March 31, 1965, yet, the petitioner had not filed the return so far. The petitioner was, therefore, directed to file the return. He was also asked to produce necess...
Radient Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: 1980(6)ELT21(Raj)
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Radfent Industries of India at Arya Nagar, Ajmer carries, on business of manufacturing of Bare Copper Wire io a small scale factory which was set up from 11-4-1964 at Ajmer. The petitioner manufacture Bare Copper Wire up to 14 S.W.G. (Standard Wire Guage). On 5-10-1965 the Central Excise Inspector visited the factory and found that it was operating without a license. The petitioner took the stand that he did tot know whether Central Excise license was required for operating the industry for manufacturing the Bare Copper Wire. The Inspector Central Excise, Ajmer by his two letters dated 1-11-1966 asked the petitioner's Firm to apply for the license and explain the reasons for delay in applying for the license. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 1-10-1966 it submitted a reply and furnished the required information by its letter dated 3-10-1966. The petitioner also appiled on 2-11-1966 for issuing of the license. The Superintendent Central...
Nandram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN373
1. The following question has been referred to us for decision by a learned single Judge of this Court:Whether it is open to an accused person to apply for bail under Section 438 CrPC in a case where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and has passed order for the issue of warrant for the arrest of the accused personBefore dealing with this question we would like to determine the true scope of Section 438 CrPC. Section 438 CrPC reads as follows:Section 438 Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Sessions for a direction under this section, and that Court may, if it thinks fit direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under Sub-section (1) it may include such condition in such directions in ...
Rama Shanker Vs. Smt. Rama Beti Alias Sharda Alias Kamala
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)219
M.C. Jain, J.1. This Is an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act against the order of the District Judge, Jodhpur, dated 30-3 74 whereby the petition of the appellant under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the Custody of four minor children was dismissed and the minor children were allowed to remain in the custody of their mother non-petitioner-respondent.2. The petitioner sought the custody of the minor children on the ground that the non-petitioner is not leading a chaste life and there would be evil influence on impressionable minds of the children. It was also stated that the petitioner would be in a better position to look after the welfare of the children so the children may be given to the custody of the petitioner.3. The petition was resisted by the non-petitioner in which the (allegation regarding leading adulterous life with Krishna Kant was denied and it was also denied that it would be in the interest of the children that they may live with the...
Rangi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj61
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the State Government dated Dec. 13, 1971, whereby a penalty was imposed on the petitioner for not depositing the dead rent within time. The petitioner carries on the business of quarrying mines. Lease was granted for a period of 3 years with effect from Nov. 26, 1959 to November 25, 1962 for carrying on the business of quarrying mines in villages Dundapura, Gadhi Ka Gaon, Harnagar, Bichpuri, Saseri and Karauli Kasba. This lease was renewed for another term of 3 years with annual dead rent of Rs. 65,300/-. The lease was again renewed for another 3 years on annual dead rent of Rs. 97,800/-. For the third time the lease was renewed for the period of 5 years with effect from November 26, 1968 to Nov. 25, 1973 on annual dead rent of Rs. 1,30,400/-. A security deposit amounting to Rupees 72,600/- was deposited by the petitioner at the time of third renewal.2. A formal deed of agreement was executed between the petitioner an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »