Rajasthan Court August 1979 Judgments
Ugam Raj Bhandari Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN737
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. Shri Ugam Raj Bhandari, the appellant in this Special Appeal was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. In January 1969, he was posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. While working as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, the appellant was trying Civil Suit No. 108/l961-4/1968 Mansukhlal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. By letter dated September 1, 1969, the Registrar of the High Court informed the appellant that it was proposed to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the C.C.A. Rules) and in that connection copies of the memorandum and the statements of allegations and charge sheet dated September 1, 1969 consisting of two charges, drawn by Shri Justice Jagat Narayan, who was the Administrative Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at that he was also sent to the appellant. In reply to the aforesaid communicati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR110(Raj)
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act of 1922') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ' B ', at the instance of the CIT, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The question referred to us for answer is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were rightly held to be not attracted to the case ?'2. There is no dispute regarding the main facts of the case which we propose to state as under:The assessee is a public limited company running a textile mill at Pali. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1955-56. The assessee, it appears, has considerable income from dividends. The dividend income for the relevant year was shown by the assessee as Rs. 2,74,281. The ITO found that out of Rs. 2,74,281 a sum of Rs 18,742 related to the assessment year 1954-55. The assessee returned a dividend income of ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivratan G. Mohatta Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC354(Raj)
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by M/s. Shivratan G. Mohatta, Station Road, Jodhpur, a registered partnership firm, who carries on their business in cement, iron and steel, sanitary fittings, etc., and is an assessee under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The petitioner-firm had been assessed up to the financial year 1963-64, i. e., up to the end of 31st March, 1964, by the Commercial Taxes Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'CTO'). On an anonymous complaint, the CTO, A-Circle, Jodhpur City, issued a notice dated 2nd January, 1964 (marked exhibit 1), under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and under Rule 55 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') for the alleged escaped turnover for the years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. On 29th August, 1964, another similar notice (marked exhibit 2) was issued for the escaped turnover for the years 19...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Bharat Wine Contractor Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)282
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Messrs. Jai Bharat Wine Contractor, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner firm') is a partnership firm, carrying on business in retail sale of country liquor at Jodhpur For the year 1968 69, a licence was issued to the petitioner firm under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, for felling country liquor at 12 shops in the city of Jodhpur. At the relevant time, the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 provided for the sale of country liquor according to the 'guarantee system'' & the 'exclusive privilege system' Under the 'gurantee system', for which provision was made in chapter VII A of the Rules, the licencee for retail shops of country liquor had to give guarantee to the Government to draw liquor from the Government warehouses for the purpose of sale of a specified value during the particular financial year for which licence had been obtained and that specified value was called the amourt of guarantee Under the 'exclusive privilege system' for which provi...
Tag this Judgment!Kana Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ344
ORDERMahendra Bhushan, J.1. This is yet another bail application moved on behalf of the accused petitioner Under Section 439, Cr. P. C. The learned Advocate does not seek bail on merits and if is only submitted that because at some anterior date prior to the commitment of the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, custody of the accused was illegal, therefore the accused is entitled to bail. It is, therefore, not necessary to give the facts if the case for the disposal of this bail application. But, some dates are material and now they need be mentioned.2. The accused-petitioner was arrested in a case Under Section 302 I. P. C. etc. on 24-8-1978 and was remanded to police custody. Therefore, on 1-9-1978 the accused was remanded to judicial custody up to 15-9-1978 and was ordered to be produced before the Court' on that date. He was produced in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Kekri on 15-9-1978, but the presiding officer of the court! was transferre...
Tag this Judgment!Jethmal and anr. Vs. Ramvilas and Babulal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN670
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, Bilara dated 23-9-1978.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition are that in a suit filed by the non-petitioners a money decree was passed in their favour against the petitioners. The decree-holders filed Execution Petition. In those proceedings, an application under Section 4 of the Rajas-than Scheduled Debtor's (Liquidation of Indebtness) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') was filed by the petitioners, claiming themselves to be scheduled debtors & certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Bilara, certifying the petitioners to be scheduled debtors was filed. Refuting that contention, decree-holders filed that the reply that the petitioners were not agricultural, labourers but were carrying on shop of gold and silver business. Bath the parties led evidence. The learned Munsif on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Manphool and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)364
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. Accused-appellants (i) Manphool alias Phuliya (ii) Chotiya and (iii) Hem Chand (acquitted by the trial Court) were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, for committing the murder of Ram Chandra, paramour of Mst. Chameli, brother's wife of the two accused appellants.2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, placing reliance on (i) the dying declaration Ex: P/4, made by the deceased in the presence of the Tehsildar P.W. 4 Bhanwar Singh, (ii) Ex D/3, recorded by Sub Inspector Ramdhan, corroborated by the conduct of the accused in setting up a false plea of 'Chor Chior' just after the occurrence (iii) on giving a first information report at the Police Station Ex. D/2 and (iv) on the medical evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each. The third accused Hemchand was acquitted of the charges framed against him.3. Aggrieved by the verdict of ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Vs. Champalal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)264
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur 31-1-1976.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Kamla aged about 10 years along with her mother Mst. Sugani came to the house of the complainant Laxman at Jodhpur on their way to Bhopalgarh where they were going to attend some marriage ceremony On 24-6-197l when Mst. Sugani had gone for marketing, Laxman and Kamla remained at the house. The respondents along with few others are said to have gone to the house of Laxman and forcibly dragged Mst. Kamla and kidnapped her. On the information of Mst. Sugani, the case was registered for the offence of kidnapping but after investigation final report was filed in the court which was accepted by the Magistrate. In the mean-while on 7 7-1971, Laxman filed a complaint under Sections 366, 342, 109 and 379 Indian Penal Code against the respondents. The learned Magistrate took c...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhpat Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ776
ORDERMahendra Bhushan, J.1. An important question of law is involved in this case, as to whether an offence committed within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, can be tried by Sessions Judge, Kota. To dispose of this revision, narration of the facts is necessary, which are as follows.2. One Prem Prakash Goyal is a resident of Thoon, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur. On 2-1-78, he boarded 101 Up train at about 6.45 P. M. from Bharatpur. He was to go to Nadbai, which also hes in Bharatpur, for his onward journey to Thoon. There was lot of rush in the train and Prem Prakash Goyal and his sister occupied seats in 1st class compartment. No sooner the train left Bharatpur Station, 3 boys entered the compartment and took their seats. The train stopped at Helak Station, which hes between Nadbai and Bharatpur and is also within Bharatpur District within the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, but the moment the train left Helak Station, it is alleged that one of those three b...
Tag this Judgment!Sayeed Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN466
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 320A, which was added in Part VIII, Section XVIII of the Rajasthan Prisons Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules' hereafter) made under Section 59 of the Prisons Act (No. IX of 1894), ('the Act') hereinafter.2. The petitioner was appointed as a warder in Central Jail, Jodhpur, on January 1, 1970 and he was confirmed on this post in 1973 The petitioner has stated that he is the Secretary of the Jail Branch of the Rajasthan Subordinate Services Association of Jodhpur District, A notification No. GSR 149, dated December 15, 1978 (Ann. 1, was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra, dated December 28, 1978 by which, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by proviso to Article 309 of he Constitution, the Governor of Rajasthan amended the Rules by adding the following new Rule 320A after existing Rule 320.320A. Restrictions respecting right to for...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »