Rajasthan Court January 1981 Judgments
Nawla Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)17
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Appellant Nawla had been tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and by the judgment dated 12-7-76 was convicted for that offence and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the trial of the appellant are that on 26-6-73 at about 4.15 P.M. Bhim Singh (PW 9) lodged on oral information at Police Station, Sojat-City to the effect that he was informed by Dhagal Singh (PW 8) that Nawla had murdered Lalsingh, younger brother of the informant in the jungle of village Molawas. Umedsingh (PW 12) Station House Officer, Sojat-City got the information reduced into writing by the Assistant Sub-Inspector which is Ex. P. 1 and a case Under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against the appellant. The Station House Officer left for the site immediately and reached the grazing land (gocher-land) at village Molawas. He in the presence of Ramsingh, Nabu Khan and Sursingh ins...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chandra Golecha (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1981
Reported in: [1981]132ITR806(Raj)
Shrimal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, at the instance of the assessee has referred the following two questions, for the opinion of this court, arising out of its consolidated order, dated October 7, 1972, in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 248, 1546 and 989 of 1969-70 and cross-objection No. 42 of 1969-70 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts transferred from the general reserves of the two companies for writing off a part of their respective goodwills, continued to be accumulated profits in the hands of those companies ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts of Rs. 1,75,810 and Rs. 19,675, being loans advanced to the assessee by M/s. Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., were liable to be assessed in the hands of the assessee as dividends under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chand Golecha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1981
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(Raj)104; [1981]132ITR30(Raj)
SHRIMAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following two question of law for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 50,293 and Rs. 97,077, being the deemed divided income under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, were assessable in the hands of the assessee-Hindu undivided family in respect of assessment years 1964-65 and 1966-67, respectively ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that in order to determine the deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the act, taxable in the hands of the assessee Hindu undivided family, it is the accounting year of the Hindu undivided family which is to be considered and not the accounting year of the company ?'These questions before the Tribunal arose out of the consolidated order, dated August 31, 1973, pass...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad S/O Shri Jai Gopal Tikkiwal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)158
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This transfer application has been moved by accused, Prahlad, under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the transfer of criminal case No. 252/1980 pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk.2. The grounds on which the petitioner has sought the transfer of the case, may be summed up as under.(1) That, the petitioner is a dealer of Rajdoot Motor Cycle, and runs his business in the name and style of 'Arvind Motor Company' Tonk. Prior to the incident, which forms the subject-matter of the case against the petitioner the Chief Judicial Magistrate had come to the petitioners shop and asked him as to whether he would be able to supply him a motor-cycle, which he needed for the learned Sessions Judge, and that the petitioner agreed to supply the same at the cost price. The petitioner's case is further that the Sessions Judge as well as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vishambhar Dayal Gupta, came to his shop and offered Rs 2,000/- as the f...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Swetamber Khattar Bhave Vs. Jugrajmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN4
Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 18 Of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment dated October 24, 1980 of a learned single Judge of this court, by which, he dismissed the appeal under Section 29 of the Indian Succession Act (No. XXXLX of 1925) (herein after referred to as the Act') whereby upholding the order dated September 1, 1980 oft the District Judge, Jodhpur, by which he held that the caveats filed by the appellants shall stand discharged and dismissed.2. The facts leading to this appeal may, briefly be stated: The respondent Jugrajmal alias Rajmal filed a petition under Section 276 of the Act for grant of probate in his favour on the basis of a will dated July 7, 1980 executed by deceased Ridmal. By this will, the said Ridmal bequeathed all the properties mentioned in the petition to the respondent. The learned District Judge, Jodhpur issued citations under Section 283 of the Act calling upon all person claiming to have any interest in the e...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Gulam Ahmed
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)518
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. These two civil misc. appeals involving similar questions of law and facts are disposed by this judgment. Appeal No. 202 of 1976 State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Gulam Ahmed son of Haji Peerji is against the judgment and decree, dated July 30, 1976 of learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi and the other appeal No. 203 of 1976 State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Akbar son of Gulam Ahmed is against judgment the and decree, dated July 29, 1976 of the same court.2. Briefly stated the facts relating to the State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Gulam Ahmed are these. Gulam Ahmed filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Abu Road for permanent injunction against the State of Rajasthan and the District Forest Officer, Sirohi for restraining them to recover the amount alleged to be due against him for wrongful felling of the trees. The allegations contained in the plaint were these. Plaintiff Gulam Ahmed took contract for the manufacture of coal from the State of Rajasthan for the year 196...
Tag this Judgment!Gurucharansingh and ors. Vs. Mst. Gurdayal Kaur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj91
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners Gurucharan Singh and 6 others seek to quash the order (Ex. 4) dated Nov. 9, 1978 of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short 'the Board' hereinafter), by which, it held that a revenue court has jurisdiction to try the suit filed by Smt. Shyam Kaur deceased, Smt. Gurdayal Kaur (respondent No. 1) and Smt. Jaswant Kaur (respondent No. 2) for declaration and possession, which was instituted against Gurucharan Singh and 10 others in the Court of Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh on Nov. 3, 1966.2. A few facts leading to this petition may be noticed:Smt. Shyam Kaur widow of Hazur Singh (deceased), Smt. Gurdayal Kaur (plaintiff-respondent No. 1) and Smt. Jaswant Kaur (plaintiff-respondent No. 2) instituted a suit for cancellation of the decree dated March 7, 1963 passed in suit No. 7 of 1961 (Gurucharan Singh v. Hazur Singh) by the Assistont Collector, Hanumangarh on the ground that it...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Ram NaraIn Damodar Dass Malpani and ors. Vs. Trilokidas and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN103
K.S. Sidhu J.1. This is a special appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of C. B. Bhargawa J. whereby he reversed the judgment and decree of the District Judge Jaipur, in favour of the plaintiffs and, instead, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs to the defendants throughout.2. The suit which was dismissed as aforesaid was brought by firm Ram Narain Damodar and its proprietors, Dwarka Das and Gordhan Das, against the defendant, Damodar Das for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts on the avernments that in July 1941, the parties entered into an oral partnership thereby agreeing to share profits and bear losses of the business of import from George Lambercier of Geneva, Switezerland, of rough sythetic stones, in the ratio of six annas and ten annas, respectively. It was agreed that the defendant who was already in correspondence with George Lambercier for such import would inform the plaintiffs about the arrival of the consingment in India and thereupon the par...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad and anr. Vs. Smt. Maya Wati Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)11
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This Special Appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge of this Court dated 25-8-1980 whereby he dismissed the appeallants' writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution o, India.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this Special Appeal are as under: A plot of land measuring 2916 sq. ft in Khasra No. 421 at Mt. Abu was auctioned in 1960. The highest bidder was Smt. Maya Devi. The sale was approved by the Administrator. On 2-11-1960 at the request of Smt. Maya Devi the sale deed was executed jointly in her name and that of Smt. Budhi Devi, respondent No. 2 Smt. Budhi Devi started construction on the said plot after seeking permission from the Administrator Municipality. Against that permission, the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector, Sirohi. They also filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed in limine on 9-7-1969 with the observati...
Tag this Judgment!Poona Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)194
M.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner initially was appointed as Lower Division Clerk by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies At the relevant time he was posted in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Nagaur. He was suspended by the order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative; Societies, Nagaur, with effect from 2-4-1968. His suspension continued upto 31-8-1972. A Memorandum dated 20-4-1968 was served upon him by the Assistant Registrar informing him that it is proposed to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). He was served with the charge-sheet to which reply was also submitted by the petitioner, but thereafter a fresh charge-sheet was served by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The petitioner gave reply to the charges levelled against him to the Registrar. The Registrar, vide order dated 21-3-1970 appointed the Deputy Regist...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »