Rajasthan Court August 1981 Judgments
Kistoor Mall and anr. Vs. C.P. Singh, Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR95(Raj)
Sidhu, J.1. Kistoormall and Gyanmal, sons of Kanmal Nahta, filed the present writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on March 17, 1967, against the ITO, Central Circle-I, Jaipur, Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan, at New Delhi, and the Union of India, respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, for bringing up and quashing the notices, Ex. H-I to H-5, dated March 21, 1963, issued to their father, Kanmal Nahta, deceased, by the ITO, Special Investigation Circle-A, Jaipur (hereafter called 'the Jaipur ITO'), under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereafter called 'the new Act') for the assessment years 1946-47 to 1950-51, and for an injunction restraining the respondents from taking any proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the said notices.2. A few facts, which are material for the decision of this petition, may be recapitulated here. Kanmal Nahta, who died on June 26, 1964, was an assessee within the jurisdiction of 3rd ITO, C-...
Tag this Judgment!Trlok Chand Vs. the Excise and Prohibition Commissioner and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)292
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. The petitioner obtained a licence for retail sale of country liquor for the year 1967-68. Licence was granted to him for the shop situated in village Pipalda and the guarantee amount fixed was Rs 9070/-. He deposited the security amount of Rs. 910/-. The State Government has issued a demand notice for the payment of Rs 2797.06 n.p. on the ground that the petitioner failed to lift the guarantee amount of liquor whereas the petitioner's case is that the State Government was short of liquor in that year and the supplies could not be made to him m time and he was not at fault.2. It is purely a matter relating to breach of contract. The disputed questions of facts whether the State Government was not in position to supply the liquor or the petitioner did not lift the liquor on account of his own fault, can be better determined by a civil court. In Har Shanker and Ors. v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors. : [1975]3SCR254 wherein number of appeals were filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Surya NaraIn Choudhary Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj1; 1981()WLN198
ORDERM.L. Shrimal, J.1. Petitioner, Surya Narain Choudhary, by this writ petition has challenged the validity of the order of the President of India (Annexure-1, dt. Aug. 8, 1981), terminating the period of the office of Governor, held by Shri Raghukul Tilak and has claimed the following reliefs :--(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to treat respondent No. 4 Shri Raghukul Tilak as Governor of Rajasthan up to May 11, 1982;(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto. quashing the appointment of Shri K.D. Sharma, Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court, under Article 160 of the Constitution of India, directing him to discharge the functions of the Governor of Rajasthan; and(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction that Article 156(1) of the Constn, is not subservient to Article 74 of the Constn. and in the alternative to declare Article 156(1) of the Constn. to be ultra vires of Article 74 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Panchayat Samiti, Through the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Vs. Smt ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)251
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 25-9-1980, whereby the writ petition filed by Smt. Bhanwari Devi was allowed.2. Facts in brief necessary for the determination of this appeal are that Smt. Bhanwari Devi (hereinafter called as the respondent) was appointed as Class IV servant in the Government Primary School, Umedabad. Thereafter she was transferred in Panchayat Samiti at Sayala as 'Sevika' somewhere in 1959-60. The respondent while working as Sewika passed the 'Kovid' examination in 1966, conducted by Rastra Bhasha Prachar Samiti, Vardha. The Rajasthan Government vide its notification dated 31-10-1960 had recognised 'Kovid' examination as equivalent to inter examination for the purposes of employment. The respondent then moved an application for being promoted as a teacher. The Rajasthan Government vide Ex./4, dated 3-1-1970 issued a notification informin...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunandan Prasad Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)254
D.P. Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. The petitioner came to this Court with an allegation that he was senior to the respondent No. 3 M.S. Verma in the cadre of Tracer in the Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur, yet the respondent No. 3 has been promoted to the post of Draftsman Grade II, ignoring the case of the petitioner and without considering the petitioner's claim for promotion.2. However, the replies filed by the Union of India and other respondents go to show that the appointment of respondent No. 3, M.s. Verma, on the post of Draftsman Grade II was made not by way of promotion but by direct recruitment. It transpires that the post of Draftsman Grade II in the Defence Laboratory could be filled in by promotion and failing that by direct recruitment. The eligibility for promotion has been laid down in the schedule to the class III Non-Gazetted (Technical, Scientific and other Non-Ministerial) Posts in the Defence Research and Development Organisation Rules, 1968. A person must have held post of Draf...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Lal and Jeth Mal Vs. Ramlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN442
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These two revision petitions by tenants against the same landlord-non-petitioner raise identical questions as they were heard together, it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment S.B. Civil Revision No. 9 of 1981 is by the tenant Ratanlal against the order dated October 24, 1980 passed by the District Judge, Merta in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 1977, by which he, dismissed the appeal against the order dated February 4, 1977 of the Munsif, Nawa, who struck out the petitioner's defence against eviction.2. A show cause notice was issued to the non-petitioner as to why the revision petition be not admitted. The record was sent for on April 2, 1981 The Court ordered that it would be proper that the revision petition may be heard along with S.B. Civil Revision Petition No 18 of 1981 Jethmal v. Ramlal. On May 4, 1981, it was ordered that this revision petition be listed for admission along with S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 18 of 1981 That revision h...
Tag this Judgment!Manaram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ696
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. Accused petitioner Manaram along with his son Bagdawatram was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Phalodi on Dec. 18, 1975 Under Section 9 of the Opium Act (hereinafter referred t0 as 'the Act') and each of them was sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, who heard the appeal of the accused-appellant and his son, while maintaining the conviction reduced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. The accused petitioner and his son both preferred a revision in this Court but the revision petition of the accused petitioner was admitted whereas the revision of his son Bagdawatram was not admitted. The son went to the Supreme Court but spec...
Tag this Judgment!Hazi Ismail and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj25; 1981()WLN406
ORDERM.L. Shrimal, J.1. Writ Petition No. 1766 of 1980 filed by Hazi Ismail and Writ Petition No. 112/1981, filed by Sararath Mal, relate to the same route. As common questions of fact and law are involved in them, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') published a draft scheme, for nationalization of Kote-Rawatbhata route or area, under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. 4 of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was published in the Gazette, dt. 3-4-1976. The petitioners submitted their objections to the Joint Legal Remembrancer No. 2. Jaipur who is empowered to hear objections in respect of draft schemes of nationalisation under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 68-D of the Act. The Joint Legal Remembrancer No. 2, approved the scheme, along with other schemes, which is of total exclusion of all private operators on the above route or porti...
Tag this Judgment!Baljeet Kaur and ors. Vs. Smt. Pal Kaur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)370
M.B. Shrama, J.1. Though the case was listed for confirmation of the stay order but with consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the revision application is itself being disposed of.2. The learned Sessions Judge should have given reasons under Section 412 CrPC for transfer of the case from a court at Hanumangarh to Ganganagar. Though he has not expressly stated the reasons but the reasons which apper to have prevailed with him are that inspite of the fact that the case was filed three years ago, there has been no progress in the case and one or the other accused absents on the date fixed. This could not be a reason for transfer because there is no certainty that if the case is transferred to a court out side Hanumangarh a place to which the accused persons belong, the accused persons will be present on all dates. Any how Sangaria is said to be only 13 miles from Hanumangarh and as such looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it will lead to the convenience of the parties...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Rishikul Vidyapeeth and Shri Rishikul Brahmacharya Ashram Vs. Uni ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Raj)182; [1982]136ITR139(Raj)
Agrawal, J. 1. Both these writ petitions are directed against the order, dated March 4, 1981, passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the cases of the petitioners were transferred from the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur, to the ITO, X Ward, Bombay.2. Shri Rishikul Vidyapeeth, Laxmangarh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1245/81, is an educational institution registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1959. Shri Rishikul Brahmadharya Ashram, Laxmangarh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1246/81, is said to be a part and parcel of Shri Rishikul Vidyapeeth. Both the petitioners aforesaid were earlier being assessed for the purpose of income-tax by the ITO, Sikar. Subsequently, in the year 1979, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, transferred the cases of the petitioners from the ITO, Sik...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »