Rajasthan Court December 1983 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.
Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR519(Raj); 1983()WLN620
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. In these three cases, identical questions have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') for our opinion and as these questions arise out of the same facts and in similar circumstances, we consider it proper to dispose of the three reference cases together by a common order.2. The question which has been referred to this court by the Tribunal in Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1971, is to the following effect:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a demand of Rs. 1,07,837 by the assessee can be disallowed as capital expenditure '3. The common question, which has been referred to us in Income-tax References Nos. 19 of 1972 and 13 of 1973, is asunder :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 1,20,775 and Rs. 2,14,795 made by the assessee to the State of Rajasthan can be allowed in assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 respective...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Amolak Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)320
K. Bhatnagar, J.1. Non-petitioner Amolak Chand, Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan, felt aggrieved by the order dated 11-6-82 superseding him by nine persons, junior to him, who had been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer under Rule 27(1) of the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954 (here in after referred to as the 'Rules of 1954). He, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthin, Jaipur (here in after referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal accepted the appealand directed the respondent to accord urgent/temporary promotion to the appellant at its earliest on the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) Under Rule 27(1) of the Rules of 1954 with effect from the same date when any body junior to him joined on the said post in pursuance of the impugned order dated 11-6-82. The appellant was also held entitled to get all the benefits consequential to...
Surta Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)408
S.S. Vyas, J.1. These are two appeals by accused Surta (one through jail and the other repesented) against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated July 31, 1974 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/-.2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that deceased-victim Mst. Jatna aged about 45 years was living in village Nimli district Jaisalmer. The accused is the real nephew of Mst. Jatna and is a resident of village Jhankali district Barmer. The distance between the two villages of six miles or so. Mst. Jatna had a field in Mauja Nimli which the accused used to till and cultivate on her behalf. In 1973, Mst. Janta leased out this field in cultivation to one Iedan Charan. This annoyed the accused. On 28-8-73, the accused came to village Nimli from his village and went to Mst Jatna. He asked her to cancel the lease and allow him to cultivate her field Mst. Jatna declined to do so. The...
Gordhan S/O Bansilal and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)385
M.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of framing of charge. The petitioners have been charged of the offence Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for having contravened Clause 17 and 21 of the Rajasthan Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1974 (hereinafter to as 'the Order, 1974').2. The petitioners are said to have been found in possession of ten bags of Cement. A contention has been raised on behalf of the petitioners that the commodity seized in not cement and as such no offence has been committed by the petitioner. Mr. Ajitmal Singhvi invited my attention to the report of the Assistant Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur, in which it has been opined that the samples do not conform to the specifications of Portland Cement. Although it is stated that the samples are of cement like building material, but it is no where stated in the report that the samples are of cement.3. I have considered over the above submissions of ...
Murlidhar Ishwar Das Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)535
P.K. Banerjee, C.J.1. In this rule, the petitioner challenges the proceedings taken under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with notification of Central Government vide S.O. No. 1844 dated 18-6-66 and notification dated 8-12-1971 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 11-12-71, by which it is incumbent on the part of the dealers of the petrolieum product to display the particulars of stock of the commodities at the relevant time. Admittedly, the petitioner had 5000 litres of mobil oil, which was, however, not meant for stock at Jodhpur, but was on way to Alwar and because of the flood situation there, could not be transported. In that view of the matter, it appears prima facie, that the stock was not of the petitioner. But be that as it may I am not concerned with the finding on this issue at all because this point stands concluded by the judgment of this Court reported in Sohan Lal Loonkaran v. State of Rajasthan 1975 RLW 199 by Mr. Justice Lodha. H...
Dispensing Chemist Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC162(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This reference has been made by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer under Section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), at the direction of this Court and following questions of law arising out of the order of -the Board of Revenue dated 23rd January, 1970, have been referred:(1) Whether the assessing authority was justified in treating the exemption certificate not valid, even when it was not properly cancelled ?(2) Whether the period of 30 days prescribed under Rule 12 of the Act for filing renewal application is directory and whether the assessing authority was not competent to ignore the renewal on the ground of delay in the submission of the application and taking into consideration the turnover for the period from 1st April, 1957, to 5th May, 1957 ?2. The assessee is a dealer registered under the Act and carries on the business of selling allopathic medicines. The Government of Rajasthan by Notification No. F. 21(7...
Roopa Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)413
S.S. Vyas, J. 1. This is appeal by accused Roopa against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh dated August 27, 1983 convicting the appellant Under Sections 447, 32/34 and 334, Part I, IPC and sentencing him to one month's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50/-, under the first two counts and seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- under the third count.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that deceased-victim Kalu was the real brother of PW 4 Chatra. Chatra owed a sum of Rs. 40 to the accused-appellant. In the afternoon of 7-11-81, Chatra and Kalu were ploughing their field situate an Manja Borkheri P.S. Dholapani district Chittorgarh. The accused-appellant accompanied with his father, brother, mother, wife and brother's wife came there. He had an axe in his hand and the others had Lathies and stones. Accused Roopa asked Chatra to make the payment of the money he owed. Chatra told that he would soon make the payment. This did not satisf...
Bheema Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)448
S.S. Vysa, J.1. This is an appeal by accused Bheema against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh dated March 27,1978 convicting the appellant under Section 302/109, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. The accused-appellant was tried in Sessions Case No. 108/76 in sequel to earlier Sessions Case No. 42/69. In that case (42/69) five persons Rama, Dewa, Heera, Thaweria and Amra were tried for offences under Sections 302, 302/34 and 201, IPC. The accused appellant then remained absconded and as such he could not be tried alongwith them.3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that PW 5 Jeeva is the son and PW 8 Mst Dewli is the widow of deceased Nathu Dholi of village Talab Kheri district Chittoregarh. The accused appellant and others who were tried earlier are also residents of the same village. Nathu Dholi suspected his wife Mst. Dewli to be in liason with Rama (accused tried earlier). In the afternoon of 23-6-69, Nathu was coming from village Raipur to...
Narayan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj69
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. The main question which falls for determination in this writ petition is whether the State Government is competent under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (for short, the Act) to issue a directive to the Collector to stay a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti convened by him to consider a motion of no-confidence against the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti.2. The facts which are not in dispute may be shortly stated here. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Hatheni and a member of the Panchayat Samiti Sewar, District Bharatpur. The non-petitioner, Sri Chand is the Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Sewar. The petitioner, along with 14 other members of the said Panchayat Samiti, is a signatory to a motion of no-confidence against the Pradhan which was delivered to the Collector, Bharatpur on March 11, 1983. The Collector convened the Panchayat Samiti to meet on May 4, 1983, to consider the said motion. Notices for the meeting like the one ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Das Godumal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC158(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. In these three cases, a similar question of law has been referred to this Court by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer under Section 15(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The assessee, M/s. Mohan Das Godumal, was running a hotel at Bhilwara and he was selling sweets and namkins. He also sold prepared tea to his customers. No books of account were maintained by the assessee nor he filed any returns of his turnover. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Ward C, Bhilwara, issued notices to the assessee in respect of his turnover for the years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer estimated the annual turnover of the assessee in respect of the three years in question at Rs. 15,000 per year and passed best judgment assessments for the aforesaid three years. No tax was payable under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act at the relevant time on the sale of deshi sweetmeats and namkins, on account of the provis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »