Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1984)40CTR(Raj)72; [1985]155ITR533(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. The assessee-firm had undertaken a contract for construction of canals, etc., in connection with the Vallabh Nagar Project from the Irrigation Department of the Government of Rajasthan. In execution of the aforesaid work, the State Government supplied cement and other materials to the assessee for being directly utilised in the completion of the work. After the completion of the contract, the State Government made payment of the gross amount due to the assessee in respect of the completed contract, after deducting the value of the materials supplied to the assessee for the execution of the contract. The ITO rejected the books of account maintained by the assessee on the ground that they suffered from certain defects and applied a net profit of 121/2%. 2. On appeal by the assessee, the AAC while maintaining the estimate of net profits at the rate of 121/2% in respect of the contracts directly executed by the assessee, applied 71/2% profit rate in respect of the cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1984CriLJ1423
S.S. Byas, J.1. By his judgment, dt. 8.3.78, the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar convicted the accused Gura Singh under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The accused has come up in appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that deceased-victim Gandasingh had two sons Paharasingh and P.W. 1 Mohansingh. The appellant is the son of Paharasingh. Paharasingh passed away nearly 20 years ago. Gandasingh had forty bighas of agricultural land for cultivation. After the death of Paharasingh he gave thirteen bighas of land to the appellant, thirteen bighas of land to Mohansingh (PW 1) and retained the remaining thirteen bighas or so for himself. Gandasingh lived with Mohansingh (PW 1). As such Mohansingh was cultivating 26 bighas of land. The accused was not serious about the work and gathered a company of bad elements around him. Gandasingh used to ask the accused off and on to be serious at the work and give up th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)391
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the judgment of learned single 'Judge, G.M. Lodha, J., dated September 29, 1982 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 960/78.2. It may be pertinent to mention that Jagjeevan Chand Bhandari had filed a writ petition in this Court which, was heard and decided by G.M. Lodha, J. while sitting at Jaipur. In the said wirt petition following seven parties were impleaded as respondents:(1) The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur(2) The Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur(3) Shri Govindram Purohit, Bench Reader, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.(4) Om Prakash Boda, Bench Reader, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur(5) Ghanshyamdas V.R., Bench Reader, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpar(6) Parasuram Dangi, Bench Reader, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur(7) Ballabh Dass Purohit, Stamp Reporter, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.Ghanshyamdas V.R. filed D.B. Special Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)569
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Respondent B.K. Roy was tried for the offence under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Provention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Special Judge, Sriganganagar, and was acquitted by the judgment dated December 16, 1972. The State of Rajasthan feeling dis-satisfied by the order of acquittal has filed the present appeal in this Court.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the trial of the respandent his acquittal and the present appeal by the State of Rajasthan are as under:--Respondent was Medicel Officer at the Primary Health Centre, Chnani Badi in the year 1970. Re had conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of a child Chhani Badi in connection with Case No. 44 under Sections 312 and 318 IPC registered at Police Station Bhirani by Ismailkhan (PW 9) the S.H.O of that Police Station. The allegations were that the respondent wanted to examine all the women of the villag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1984)41CTR(Raj)21; [1984]149ITR487(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. As identical questions of law have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', we heard the consolidated reference cases together and set out our answers to the questions referred to this court, in our orders dated December 19, 1983. We had then stated that we shall give our reasons for the answers to the three questions referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal later on. We now proceed to give the reasons for the answers as contained in our orders dated December 19, 1983, and which are reproduced below :'Our answer to the first question referred to this court is that the assesses is entitled to the benefit of concision or rebate under para, 6A of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, in the course of reassessments under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the whole of the dividend income, including the actual dividend income received by him, irrespective of the fact that the q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1985]155ITR333(Raj); 1983()WLN732
Bhatnagar, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the request of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Rajasthan, has referred the following two questions to this court under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not liable for penalties under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that, even after the amendment of Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act by Act No. 46 of 1964, the question, whether the Wealth-tax Officer should obtain the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax for levying a penalty under that section, was not free from doubt and in proceeding to give the benefit of that doubt to the assessee so as to cancel the penalty ?' 2. The assessee had failed to file the return...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)446
S.S. Vyas, J.1. By this petition, Under Section 482 of the Cr. PC, the accused petitioners have challenged the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner dated May 18, 1980 by which cognizance against them & some other persons was taken for offences punishable Under Section 18/32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder, It was prayed that as the cognizance was wrongly taken, the aforesaid order be set aside and the proceedings laken there-under be quashed.2. The Drugs Inspector, Bikaner submitted a complaint against the eight accused-petitioners and six others in the court below on May 18, 1982. It was alleged therein that the Inspector visited one shop of M/s Bordia Medical Stores, Nokha on August 21, 1931. There he found Analgin-500 IP tablet prepared under label of Batch No. 118 with the manufacturing date of September, 1979. He suspscted the aforesaid medicine to be of substandard quality. He purchased t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)372
1. This jail appeal by accused Modia is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated May 8, 1978 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The charge framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the accused was that he committed murder of Mota in village Korte on July 20, 1977 by inflicting injuries to him with Geti and an axe. The accused pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. Since the accused had no financial means to engage a defence counsel, the Court appointed amicus curiae for his defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 304 Cr. PC3. The prosecution examined three eye witnesses and the Doctor, in addition to many other witnesses. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge held the charge proved against the accused-appellant. He was cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN741
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This revision by Gujar Mal is directed against an order of learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, dated 3rd June, 1983 whereby he allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 18th May, 1983 passed by learned Assistant Collector, Alwar, in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.2. The dispute relates to Khasra No. 210 measuring 4 Bighas, 13 Biswas situated in village Chandpuri Tehsil Thanagazi. The dispute was initially raised by Mst. Shyokori (now deceased) against Gujarmal by initiating proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. On a complaint lodged by Smt. Shyokori the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh, passed a preliminary order on 4th February, 1975, and thereafter attached the land and a receiver was appointed over the land in dispute. It appears that the proceedings continued for sufficiently long time and in the mean time Smt. Shyokori told the land in question to Ramji Lal by a registered sale-deed dated August 7, 1982. It appears that some time thereaft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN745
S.S. Vyas, J.1. By his judgment dated February 22, 1978, the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur convicted and sentenced the three accused appellants as under:____________________________________________________________________Name of accused Section under which Sentence awardedconvicted____________________________________________________________________1. Kela 302, I.P.C. Imprisonment forLife2. Mst. Baski 302/34, I.P.C. Imprisonment forLife3. Bhera (i) 302/34, I.P.C. Imprisonment forLife(ii) 324, I.P.C. Three years' rigo-rous imprisonment(His sentenceswere directedto run concurrently______________________________________________________________________The accused have come up in appeal to challenge their conviction and sentence. Since all the three appeals are directed against one and the same judgment, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment.2. Briefly recalled, the facts and circumstances leading to the prosecution and conviction of the accused appellants were ...
Tag this Judgment!