Rajasthan Court September 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.
Krishna Kumar Bansal and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)303
ORDER. No. 944/77 No. 1(509)/77-MIV New Delhi, the 25-10-77Shri Krishan Kumar Bansal s/o Sri R.P. Bansal, and Shri R K. Mittal s/o Shri B. P. Mittal, Makrana, Distt. Nagaur (Rajasthan)Subject :-- Revision application dated nil received on 23-9-77 under Rule 54 of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 Sir,I am directed to refer to your revision application dated nil received on 23-9-77 against the order of the State Government of Rajasthan, dated 9-9-76 This being so, you should have filed your revision application by 9-12-76 i e. within 3 months of the State Govt. order. The reasons for the delay as given by you have been carefully gone into but not found enough to justify the delay in filing the Revision Application.2. The Central Government, therefore, in exercise of their revisional powers under Section 30 of the MM (R & D) Act & Rule 55 of the MCR, 1960 hereby dismiss your revision application as time barred. Yours faithfully, Sd/-I J. S. KHURANA DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIAThe...
Shimbhuram Vs. Lakharam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj184
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. A short but important question of law relating to the scope and applicability of the provisions of Order XVI, Rule 1-A, Civil P. C., is involved in this revision, which has been directed against the order dated May 9, 1979 passed by Munsif, Nagaur, declining to examine the defendant-petitioner's witness whose name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses but who was brought by him for examination in court.2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2500/- in the court of Munsif, Nagaur. The suit was resisted by the defendant-petitioner. During the pendency of the trial, the defendant did not submit any list of witnesses under Order XVI, Rule 1, Civil P. C. Prior to the amendment of the Civil P. C. 1908 (No. V of 1908) by the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act (No. CIV of 1976), Order XVI, Rule 1, as amended in Rajasthan, and relevant for the present purpose, read as under, --'1 (i) On such date as the Court may appoint and not later th...
Hiralal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR89(Raj)
Lodha, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B, at the request of the assessee, Messrs. Hiralal Maliram, a joint Hindu family firm (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the assessee '). 2. The relevant assessment year is 1956-57. The assessee derived income from mica mines. The karta of the HUF, Shri Hiralal, died on September 4, 1968, and his son, Maniram, has been substituted in his place. 3. On account of non-compliance of notices under Sections 22(2), 22(4) and 23(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1922 '), the assessee was assessed ex parte under Section 23(4) on January 28, 1958, and his total income was assessed at Rs. 2,50,000. He filed an application under Section 27 for reopening the assessment but the same was dismissed by the ITO on August 1, 1958. The assessee preferred appeals against the orders of the I...
Sultan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)377
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Sultan Singh for the issue of an appropriate writ or direction, quashing the order dated 27th January, 1973, passed by the Government of Rajasthan, whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from the service.2. The facts, briefly stated are as under : The petitioner joined the service of the former State of Jodhpur as a constable on 30th May, 1942, He was promoted as a Head Constable in 1946 and on 15th December, 1947, he was promoted to the post of Prosecuting Inspector in the former Jodhpur State, After the formation of the United State of Rajasthan by the merged of the princely States including the State of Jodhpur, the petitioner became an employee of the Government of Rajasthan. In August, 1952, the petitioner was intagrated as Prosecuting Inspector in the State of Rajasthan By order dated 2nd June, 1956, the petitioner was promoted to the post of officiating Dy. Superintendent of Police but the subse...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sohan Lal Brij Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR901(Raj)
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench B, at the instance of the CIT, Rajasthan, whereby the following question of law has been referred to us :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the penalty imposed upon the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. The assessment year under reference is 1963-64. Firm Messrs Sohan Lal Brij Lal (hereinafter to be referred to as ' the assessee ') was the wholesale dealer in artificial silk and nylon and carried on its business at Sri Ganganagar. For the relevant assessment year, the ITO made two additions : (i) of Rs. 24,454, which he considered to be the value of the stock pledged with the bank but suppressed by the assessee from its books of account; and (ii) of Rs. 21,466, which the ITO considered as income from transactions o...
JainaraIn Jeevraj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 2)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(Raj)342; [1980]121ITR359(Raj); 1979(12)WLN625
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. Two connected applications were made by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), against the order dated September 30, 1975, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the learned Tribunal had refused an application made by the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Act requiring the Tribunal to state a case and refer the questions of law arising out of its appellate order dated August 23, 1973 (marked Ex. 6 on the record) as also another application under Section 256(1) of the Act dated June 11, 1974 for making a reference arising out of the Tribunal's order dated March 25, 1974, refusing rectification of its appellate order. The questions which the assessee wants to get referred to this court by this application are as under :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the mistake sought to be rectified is ...
JainaraIn Jeevraj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan Ii, Jaipur ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1979
Reported in: (1980)13CTR(Raj)342; [1980]121ITR358(Raj)
C. M. LODHA C.J. - Two connected applications were made by the assessee under s. 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), against the order dated September 30, 1975, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the learned Tribunal had refused an application made by the assessee under s. 256(1) of the Act requiring the Tribunal to state a case and refer the questions of law arising out of its appellate order dated August 23, 1973 (marked Ex. 6 on the record) as also another application under s. 256(1) of the Act dated June 11, 1974, for making a reference arising out of the Tribunals order dated March 25, 1974, refusing rectification of its appellate order. The questions which the assessee wants to get referred to this court by this application are as under :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the mistake sought to be rectified is apparent on the...
The State Vs. Suraj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN580
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City has made a reference to this Court under Section 395(2), CrPC recommending that the order of commitment be quashed. This reference arises in the following circumstances.2. A report Under Section 173, CrPC was filed against many persons in the Court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun in FIR No. 76/78, P.S. Mandawar. During the investigation of the case, one of the co-accused Prahlad Singh son of Shamshersingh was tendered pardon Under Section 306(l), Cr.P.C. by the learned C.J. M. Sawai Madhopur. In the charge sheet filed against the accused persons, the said Prahlad was shown as a witness for the prosecution at No. 6-A. The learned Magistrate committed the accused persons to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, without complying with the provisions of Section 306(4)(A), Cr.P.C. An application was 61ed before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on behalf of the accused persons that the commitment...
Om Prakash Dhanak Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)270
K. D. Sharma, J.1. D.P. Criminal Appeal No.390/75 filed by Om Prakash Dhanak and D.B Criminal Jail Appeal No.*779 of 1975 filed by this very appellant arise out of one and the same judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar, dated 8th April, 1975 by which the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and Liluram co-accused was acquitted of the offence of murder.2. The prosecution case against Om Prakash appellant was as follows:-At about 7 30 P.M. on 28th March, 1973 Hansraj deceased was sitting inside his house situated in ward No.*15 of the city of Shri Ganganagar. His father Kaluram and his brother-in-law the gainer Shri Managalchand also were present inside the house at that time. The appellant visited the house of the deceased and called him to come out Hansraj accordingly came out of his house and went away along with the appellant After half an hour or so Kaluram' father of the deceased, heard noise of a quarrel ...
Mangilal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj78
Bhatnagar, J.1. This Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on Nov. 9, 1973 in a writ petition filed by Mangilal -- Appellant against the respondents.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this special appeal are that the petitioner was appointed as a cleaner in the Directorate of Plant Protection (Quarantine and Storage) of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India. In the year 1953 he was appointed as Driver. In the year 1962, while he was posted at Suratgarh the vehicle which he was driving met with an accident. On 16th Jan., 1967 order (Ex. 1) was issued by the Deputy Locust Entomologist, Jodhpur ' asking him to appear before the licensing authority, Delhi for a test. He was declared unfit on account of his weak eye-sight. By the order dated June 13, 1967 (Ex. 2) he was directed to get his eye-sight tested by the Principal, Medical & He...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »