Rajasthan Court April 1980 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.M. Simlot
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1980
Reported in: [1983]141ITR17(Raj)
Mahendra Bhushan, J.1. This is an application moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and to refer the following point of law allegedly arising out of the order of the Tribunal to this court, for our opinion :2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 85,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, out of which this application arises, are these :One Dr. L.M. Simlot (since dead), now represented by his two sons and widow (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), was an individual medical practitioner and in the relevant assessment year 1966-67 was in the employment of the Government of Rajasthan at Moti Katla Dispe...
Smt. Raksha Bahen and ors. Vs. Delux Roadways and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN248
Miss Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated' 25-2-1972 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara In the proceedings on, the application filed by Smt. Raksha Bahen, and Shantilal under 'section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles-Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act') for damages to she tune of Rs. 60,000/ on account of the death of one Piyush Kumar Jain (husband of Smt. Raksha, Baben and son of bantilal), who met a fatal accident on 20-4-1968 at 2.45 p.m. on Ajmer-Bhilwara road near the Kothat river As the two appeals arise out of the, same judgment and award, we propose to decide them by one common judgment.2. Briefly stated the, facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that on 20-4-1968 decessed Piyush Kumar alongwith his wife, petitioner Smt. Raksha Bahen, &his; father Shantilal was travelling from Ajmer to Bhilwara in Bus No. RJE 755 belonging to 'M/s Delux Roadways (P) Ltd., Bhilwara a...
Rajeshwar Nath Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN529
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Rajeshwar Nath, a low paid employee of the Railway was appointed in the Western Railway, Electrical Department, since January 1, 1960. Though there is some controversy about the exact period of his service, because, whereas the employee says that he has been continuously working since then, the case of the Railway is that he was a casual labour w.e.f. August 20, 1962, and then since August 17, 1968, he has been working against temporary sanction, having obtained temporary status on February 17, 1969. The basic fact is not in dispute that he is working at least since August 20, 1962 as per the admission of the Railway and till June 3, 1977 when his services were terminated.2. The termination of the petitioner came in a very unusual way by Annexure-1 which is a notice of retrenchment as per its main caption, 'Chhatni-Ka Notice' Annexure 1 is as under: (In Hindi) Though, it uses 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is obvious that retrenchment is done under 25-F of the...
State Vs. Jodh Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN245
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order of the Additional Munsif, Udaipur City (North) dated October 26, 1979,2. The facts giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. The respondent was compulsorily retired with effect from December 18, 1974, He instituted a suit on February 7, 1978 claiming, inter alia, the relief for that the order of compulsory retirement dated December 18, 1974 may be quashed an illegal During the pendency of the suit, an application was moved on behalf of the defendant-petitioner under O. VII, Rule II (d), C.P.C. A reply was filed contesting the application on 25 5-79, The learned Additional Munsif, Udaipar City (north) dismissed the application by his order dated October 26, 1979. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-petitioner (State of Rajasthan) has come up in revision to this Court,3. I have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate at some length.4. The only contention raised by the learned Additional Governm...
Surya Prakash Gothwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN542
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner, Surya Prakash Gothwal, was the peon in the office of the Officer on Special Duty, office of the Conversion of Agricultural Land, Tilaknagar, Jaipur, in Rajasthan. On September 19, 1975, a letter was served on the petitioner intimating him of taking of the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules of 1958'). A charge-sheet and the statement of allegations were also served on the petitioner. Shri Babu Lal Mittal, S.D.O., was appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct inquiry against the petitioner. After the inquiry, a show-cause notice was served on the petitioner and ultimately the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground that mis-conduct has been proved against him on all the three charges for which inquiry was conducted.2. Mr. Bandhu who appeared for the petitioner in this case has mainly made three fold submissions. Firstly, it is ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jaipur Metal and Electricals Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1980
Reported in: [1981]48STC66(Raj)
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question of law has been referred by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, at Ajmer, for being answered by this Court.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, sale of copper wire, copper conductors, cadmium copper category wires/conductors, all aluminium conductors, aluminium steel, tinned copper wires/conductors, bright annealed copper wire conductors, electrolytic copper rods/strips and electric meters are assessable to sales tax at the concessional rate 2. The facts in a nutshell are that M/s. Jaipur Metal & Electricals Ltd., Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the assessee), applied under Section 12A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for determination of the rate of tax on copper wire, copper conductors, cadmium copper category wires/condutors, all aluminium conductors, aluminium steel reinforced conductors, tinned copper wires/conductors, bright annealed copper wire/ ...
Jodhan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)144
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra dated 28th April, 1975 by with the learned trial judge convicted the appellants for the offences under Section 325/149 and 147 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them each to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/ in default to undergo three months (sic)rlgorous (sic)imprlsonment on the first count and one years rigorous imprisonment on the second count with a further order that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 2-6-64 in the morning the five appellants gave a beating to Amrekhan infront of the house of Sona Sutbar at village Kesula Somu (PW 2) on seeing Amrekhan being beaten went to the Dhani of Mojikhan (PW 1) brother of Amrekhan and informed him about his brother being beaten. Mojikhan went to the house of Mehru (PW 3) and took him with him to the place of ...
Udaipur Cotton Mills Vs. Suti Mill Mazdoor Union and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1980
Reported in: (1981)IILLJ19Raj; 1980()WLN369
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. This is a special appeal under Section 18(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, from the judgment of a learned single Judge, who summarily dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant M/s. Udaipur Cotton Mills (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mills').2. Respondents No. 2 Narainlal was employed as a fitter in the Engineering Department of the Mills. A charge-sheet was issued to Narainlal and after holding a depatrmental enquiry, the management dismissed Narainlal. Thereupon Narainlal approached the conciliation officer, Udaipur. However, no settlement could be arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings, and a failure report was sent by the conciliation officer. On March 13, 1973, the Government of Rajasthan referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court which served a notice on the management of the mills. On 22-6-1973 a statement of claim was filed by the union on behalf of Narainlal. Certain preliminary objections were raised ...
Ghewar Chand and ors. Vs. Gaj Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Raj202; 1980()WLN373
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. This is a revision by the plaintiff-petitioners under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated April 6, 1979 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the preliminary objection of the petitioners against the defendants' application under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been overruled and the defendants' application was directed to be heard.2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession of the suit property and in para 24 of the plaint, the plaintiffs valued the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction of the court at Rs. 51,000 and paid the court-fee to the tune oi Rs. 1,308 under Section 24 of the Act.The defendant No. 1 submitted an application on February 24, 1979 under Sections 10, 11(2) and 18 of the Act and Order 7, Rule 11 (b), C.P.C. It was stated in the application that the plaintiffs have deliberately underv...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Smt. Gayatri Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Raj193
Shrimal, J. 1. These five appeals arise out of the same judgment and common questions of law are involved in them, as such they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. After the arguments were closed by both the parties and the judgment was being dictated, Mr. J.P. Joshi intervened and prayed for hearing. He states that he has a right to be heard, because the decision of these cases is likely to affect the interests of his client Maharaja Gaj Singh whose writ petition was also decided by the impugned judgment. He was, therefore, heard at length.3. The Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners' Estates Act, 1963 (Act No. 11 of 1964) (to be referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') received the assent of the president on the 6th day of April, 1964 and was published in the Rajasthan Gazette, Part IV-A, Extraordinary dated April 13, 1964. It was passed in furtherance of the directive principles of State policy as embodied in Article 39 of the Constitution of India and in part...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »