Rajasthan Court January 1982 Judgments
Thakur Mandhatta Singh Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Raj)243; [1982]137ITR52(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for being answered by this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the law, under which penalty is to be computed in the present case for the default, under Section 18(1)(a) is the one which prevailed on the date when the assessment order was completed, i.e., on October 10, 1972, and not as per law prevailing on July 1, 1968, when the default of not furnishing the return had commenced ?'3. We need not dwell in detail and note down the facts of this case as the question referred to this court, according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee as well as the revenue, stands answered by a decision of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Suresh Seth : [1981]129ITR328(SC) . 4. In similar circumstances, the hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under (p. 335): 'When...
Tag this Judgment!Mewar Textiles Mills Ltd. Vs. Sita Ram Basanti Bai Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN7
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajas-than High Court Ordinance is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 14th April, 1971, affirming the judgment and decree of teamed District Judge, Bhilwara, dated 5th October, 1966.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the defendant-appellant Messrs. Mewar Textile Mills Ltd., Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Textile Mills') was allotted wagons of coal for its use by the Deputy Coal Controller, Government of India. The Textile Mills used to sent permits of coal to the plaintiff-respondent and the plaintiff then used to obtain priority sanctioned in the name of the Textile Mills. After obtaining such sanction the plaintiff then used to approach the collieries, pay the money for the coal, and get the coal loaded in Railway wagons. The railway receipts were got prepared by the collieries as consignors in the name of the Textile Mills as consignee. The case of the plaintiff was th...
Tag this Judgment!V.J. Prakash Vs. Niranjan Nath Paneri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN412
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Are we to act as 'dumb driven cattle' of English Judges, unaware of Indian Social customs, ethics, morals, dictating from graves about the legal implications of hurling abuse and insult 'Idio ' by a boss to his subordinate clerk If use of insult and abuse like 'Bhaddukavas', 'Sala', Haramzada' (bastard), 'Soor' (pig) 'Bapar Beta', 'Out caste', 'Chandal' have been held to be not actionable for damages, by English Judges in India or English Judges or English Law oriented Indian Judge, there is no wordly reason that after proclamation of 'Equality' in Preamble & Article 14, 15 & 14 of the Constitution, I should blindly follow the English precedents and permit service Bosses to humiliate their subordinates by calling names with impunity from damages. Should I hesitate to respectfully disagree if not reject the obsolete outdated English law dictum that on such defamatory abuses and insults no actionable claim can be enterained in Torts and insults special injury and damages...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)1
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal by defendant No. 2 Madanlal (purchaser) is directed against the judgment and decree dated December 3, 1971 of the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, by which he affirmed the judgment and decree dated February 15, 1971 of the Munsif, Kanore.2. The plaintiff Madhav Lal, who died during the pendency of the appeal and whose legal representatives are respondents No. 1 to 8, instituted suit for declaration and injunction. The case of the plaintiff Madhavlal was that there is a shop described in para 2 of the plaint situate at Bhinder. This shop is the ancestral properly of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that he was adopted by defendant No. 1 Modilal. Defendant No. 1 Modilal has also died. The shop was sold by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 Madam Lal on May 4, 1966 for a consideration of Rs. 5000/-. The plaintiff asserted that the sale was without any legal necessity and without consideration. The shop was said to be in possession of defendant No. 3. K...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Wool Processors Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: [1982]50STC315(Raj)
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the revenue. Mr. M. M. Vyas, appearing for the petitioner., contended that two questions arise in this writ petition, namely :(1) As to whether wool top, wool burrs, wool shoddy, wool noils, wool picking, wool carding, wool kutur, wool lepha and other wastes are all one commodity and are not separate from 'raw wool' which is exempted from payment of Central sales tax and as such wool top and aforesaid commodities are not taxable to Central sales tax ?(2) That the exemption in respect of wool top issued by the State Government from payment of Rajasthan sales tax is a general exemption and as such no Central sales tax is leviable on the turnover of the petitioner relating to inter-State sale of wool top and the provisions of Sub-section (2) (a) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act has been relied upon in support of this contention ?2. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue submits that these o...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal Vs. Kailash Chand Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN215
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 5 Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 15-10-1981, upholding the order of the learned Munsif, Jaipur East, Jaipur dated 22-9-1981 dismissing the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C.2. One Govind Lal obtained an exparte decree for eviction against Kailash Chand defendant non petitioner. Kailash Chand defendant non-petitioner filed an appeal against the decree for eviction and obtained a stay order from the appellate court on 7-9-78, which was communicated to the trial court on 16-9-78. Inspite of the above stay order, it appears that Govind Lal obtained possession over the suit shop in execution of the decree on 16-1-1979. Kailash Chand filed an application for restitution of possession but the same was disallowed by the executing court. Kailash Chand there after, filed a revision in this Court and the revision was contested by Govind Lal. This Court, however, on 8-5-1981...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Manju Vs. Prem Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN47
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No XXV of 1955) (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) has been filed by the wife who was non-petitioner against the decree dated August II, 1981 of the Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur by which he declared the marriage between the husband-petitioner (respondent) and the wife non-petitioner (appellant) as voidable and annulled it by a decree of nullity under Section 12(1)(d) of the Act. The petitioner-respondent and the non-petitioner appellant will be referred to hereinafter as the husband and the wife respectively.2. The facts leading to this appeal may succinctly be stated as under: The husband filed a petition under Section 12(1)(d) of the Act 12(1)(d) of the Act in the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur on November 26, 1979. The marriage between the husband and the wife was solemnized according to Hindu rites on June 29, 1979 at Nagaur. Both the husband and wife lived together at Jodhpur. The wife gave birth ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishore Vs. Roopesh Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN530
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This is a revision by the plaintiff against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 1 Alwar dated 13.10.1981.2. Brief facts leading to this revision are that the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent of the ground of default in the payment of rent and material alteration. It was alleged in the plaint that the real was not paid since 1.6.1974 and as such the defendant was a defaulter in the payment of rent. On 7.4.1977 the defendant moved an application Under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as the Premises Act) to determine the amount of rent. The Court determined the rent on 14.4.1977 and directed the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs. 7380/- including interest within a period of one month. On 12.5.1977, the defendant No. 1 prayed for extention of time for depositing the said amount of rent and he was allowed to deposit the same by 12th July, 1977. It is not in disput...
Tag this Judgment!Govindi Bai Vs. Purshottam Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)4
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal by Smt. Govindi Bai has been filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act (No. XXXIX of 1925) (here in after referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated January 31, 1972 of the District Judge, Pratapgarh, by which, he allowed the petition of respondent No. 1 Purshottam Lal for the grant of probate in respect of the will dated August 17, 1934 which was registered on August 20, 1934.2. Madanlal (deceased) executed a will in favour of Purshottamlal (petitioner) on August 19, 1934. The will was got registered on August 20, 1934. Madanlal died on August 17, 1944. It was averred by the petitioner-respondent No. 1 that the probate of the will dated August 17, 1934 may be granted to him as he wants to obtain the possession of the house left by the deceased testator Madanlal. The house is situate in Mohalla Gopalganj, Partapgarh. Smt. Govindi Bai (appellant) and Smt. Sunder Devi contested the petition. It was alleged by them that no will was execut...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)509; 1982WLN162
ORDERIn compliance with the Finance (4) Department endrosement D. IV/2972/59/FIS/(108) FD/G)58, Shri Ramswaroop Ex-Store Keeper of Civil Supplies Deptt. Sawaimadhopur, is hereby reinstated from the date of order i.e., 26.11.59.In pursuance of the same order he is further given a notice of one month from the date of his reinstatement i.e. 26.11.59 that his services will not be required by this office after the expiry of the notice period 25.12.59.Sd/Collector,Sawaimadhopur.8. Aggrieved by the above, the plaintiff filed the suit and interalia alleged that he was not allowed reasonable opportunity in the Departmental Enquiry conducted against him and the procedure followed was against the principles of natural justice and law. The lower courts have come to the conclusion that full and adequate opportunity was given to the employee.9. The controversy before the lower courts as well as this court is whether the removal of the petitioner by one month's notice under rule 23 Article of the R.S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »