Rajasthan Court August 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.
Anoop Kumar and 25 ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)362
G.M. Lodha, J.1. These 26 writ petitions have been filed by students who are not allowed to study in diploma course at Polytechnic Institute Government of Rajasthan, Jodhpur. The petitioner made the following prayer in their writ petitions.It is therefore prayed that by an appropriate writ order or direction the operation of the order Annexure 4 dated 14-8-78 15-8-78 14-8-78 15-8-78 may be stayed and the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to continue his study in the Diploma court to which he was granted admission and for this purpose the order concerned may be quashed. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner. Costs of the writ petition may be allowed to the petitioner.2. Since all the 26 writ petitions raise common questions of law, the same are being decided by one common order.3. In the year 1978, admissions to the Polytechnic Institute were regulate...
Kanhaiyalal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1980
Reported in: [1982]136ITR243(Raj)
Sharma, Actg. C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has drawn up a statement of case and referred it to thiscourt under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', upon an application by the assesses, M/s. Kanhaiyalal, Cycle Dealer, Bhilwara.2. The statement of the case is as follows :The assessee was dealing in cycle parts and accessories and in hiring of cycles. The ITO assessed the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1962-63 under Section 143(1) of the Act on March 30, 1967, at Rs. 4,106 which amount was declared by the assessee in its return. Subsequently, the ITO took proceedings against the assessee under Section 147 of the Act in respect of the aforesaid assessment year on the ground that certain investments made by the assessee in a house property were not properly explained by him. Pursuant to this action the ITO made another assessment of the income of the assessee under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 ...
Commercial Taxes Officer (Revisions) Vs. Virendra Kumar Raj Kumar and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1980
Reported in: [1981]48STC465(Raj)
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. M/s. Virendra Kumar Raj Kumar (Ramganj Mandi) (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) was assessed for the year 1973-74 and tax was levied on red chillies. A penalty of Rs. 1,800 under Section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for evading the payment of tax was also imposed vide order dated 5th February, 1974. Feeling aggrieved with the order of the assessing authority the assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the assessing authority vide its order dated 14th April, 1975. The assessee went up in revision challenging the order of the assessing authority as well as that of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The two members hearing the appeal differed with each other regarding the levy of tax on red chillies and therefore the case was referred to the third member for decision. The third member to whom the case was referred agreed w...
Jodhan Real Estate Development Company Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1980
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)535
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. These sixty five writ petitions the particulars of which are given in the Schedule 15 & annexed to this order, raises question of law relating to constitutional validity of the provisions of Rajasthan Land and Buildings Taxes Act, 1964 (Act XVIII of 1964) as amended from time to time (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The land and building owners filed separate writ petitions in this Court challenging the validity of the Act.2. The first bunch of 46 writ petitions was decided by a Single Bench at Jaipur on May 11,1979. (S.B.C.W. No. 877/1973, S.M.S. Investment Corpora Hon Pvt. Ltn. v. State of Rajasthan The learned Single Judge allowed all the writ petitions in part and his findings were as under:(a) The original Section 3 of the Rajasthan Land & Building Tax Act, 1964 as it was enacted by the Legislature in 1964 is valid and cover-ded by entry No. 49 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution.(b) Second proviso of Section 3 as introduced by the Rajasthan Amendme...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Laxman Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ370; 1980()WLN433
M.C. Jain, J.1. These two appeals raise an important and interesting question as to whether an Excise Inspector is an Excise Officer within the meaning of the expression 'Excise Officer' as defined under Clause (7) of Section 3 of the Rajas-than Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and whether he can present a complaint or a report under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 67 of the Act on which cognizance can be taken by a Magistrate.2. The matter has come up before us in view of the conflicting decisions of this Court in S. B. Criminal Revision No. 398 of 1975-Laxman Singh v. The State of Rajasthan decided on 31-1-1979, S.N. Deedwania, J., took the view that Excise Inspector is an Excise Officer and is competent to present a complaint or a report under Section 67(1)(a) of the Act and cognizance can be taken thereon, whereas Miss Kanta Bhatnagar, J., in S.B. Criminal Revn. No. 237 of 1976, Bhagwana v. State of Rajasthan (decided on 28-3-1979) took a contrary vi...
Jeewanram Vs. Lichmadevi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj16
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. Against the appellate judgment and decree dated November 26, 1971 of the Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar. the plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's suit for possession of land against the defendant No. 2 on preferential right to acquire it on payment of purchase money of Rs. 10,000/- was decreed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar on March 31, 1971 and it was dismissed against the seller (defendant No. 1). 2. As this appeal raises an important question of law regarding interpretation and scope of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act (No. XXX of 1956) (for short 'the Act' hereafter), only those facts which are necessary for its determination are stated below: The plaintiff-appellant and defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2) are real brothers. The plaintiff has stated that they are co-owners and co-sharers of the agricultural lands situate in village 1 A. M. P. descr...
Shyamlal Vs. Upbhokta Sahakari Samiti and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj41
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This second appeal by plaintiff No. 1 (Shyamlal) is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated September 21, 1977 of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur by which, he accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated September 29, 1976 of the Munsiff City, Jodhpur in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment.2. Respondent No. 2 Smt. Usha was plaintiff No. 2 in the trial court. The appellant and respondent No. 2 (plaintiff-landlord) owned a building situate at plot No. 258, B-Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. The defendant-respondent No. 1 (tenant) took each of shops Nos. 1 and 2 of the aforesaid building on rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. It was stated that the defendant has not paid the rent after June 1, 1974 and that the rent and damages for use and occupation from June 1, 1974 to May 13, 1975 i.e. for 11 months and 13 days amounting to Rupees 686/- were due from it, which it failed to pay despite demands. A notice is said to have been...
Nathmal Dalichand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN590
G.M. Lodha, J.1. These 14 writ petitions arise out of the assessment proceedings under the Rajasthan Urban Land Tax Act, 1964 which is now known as the Rajasthan Land and Buildings Tax Act, 1964 as amended by the Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as the Act of 1964).2. Tne undisputed facts of these cases are as follows. All the 14 petitioners are the residents of village Rani Khurd of District Pali of Rajasthan. They have either been assessed or are sought to be assessed under the provisions of the above Act. The lands and buildings on which the tax has either been levied or is sought to be levied are admittedly in the area of Rani Khurd.3. It is also not in dispute that this court by judgment in Ummed Singh v. State of Rasjathan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 415 of 1977, decided on October 25, 1977) has held that the population of this village Rani Khurd as per the census report of 1971 was less than 8,000 because it was only 5653. It was also held that a municipality can be constituted u...
Devi NaraIn and anr. Vs. Harish Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj67
ORDERMahendra Bhushan, J.1. The learned District Judge, Jaipur City, under the impugned order Das held the application of the petitioners under Section 5 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 to be infructuous in view of the fact that the arbitrator had submitted his award in the Court. This order is challenged by the petitioner.2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are these. An application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by the non-petitioner against the petitioners in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City on 27-4-1978, and one Mr. Guman Chand Lunia, a practising lawyer at Jaipur, was appointed an arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties vide order of the Court dated 11-11-1978. The said Shri Lunia entered into arbitration. An application under Section 5 of the Act was filed on 27-8-79 on behalf of the petitioners for revoking the authority of the arbitrator. In that application, an...
Atma Ram Bilochi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj197
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J. 1. This judgment will deal with S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 955 of 1980 and the companion petitions listed above. The respective IN petitioners are all holders of different mining leases under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, which will hereinafter be called the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Two common questions of law arise in these petitions and the same may be stated as under:--i. Whether the Government of Rajasthan is authorised by law to levy and collect dead rent? ii. If so, whether the increase in the yearly dead rent, made by the Government while sanctioning renewal of the leases in question exceeds the maximum limit prescribed by law, and is therefore, invalid? 2. It is not necessary to recapitulate here the pleadings of the parties in all the petitions. Such recapitulation may be made only in respect of the pleadings in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 955 of 1980 as typical of all the petitions. Atma Ram Bilochi is the pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »