Rajasthan Court July 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.
Ratan Rice and Flour Mills Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1983
Reported in: [1985]59STC131(Raj); 1983()WLN589
ORDERDwarka Prasad, J. 1. The only question which has been canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the provisions of Section 5CC of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is violative of the guarantee of equality of law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel argued' that at least that part of Section 5CC, by which the provisions of said section has been made applicable to the industries commissioned on or after 1st day of March, 1970 must be struck down as there is no rational principle for classifying industries on the basis of their being commissioned on or after March 1, 1970. In other words, the fixation of March 1, 1970 as the starting point of the benefit envisaged under the provisions of Section 5CC is alleged to be arbitrary and as such discriminatory and violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. Section 5CC was inserted in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act by Sect...
Maharaj Kumar Mahendra Singh Vs. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels P. Ltd. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1983
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas805(Raj); 1983()WLN400
M.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner has moved this petition for seeking direction under Section 163 read with Section 209(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), for allowing immediate inspection of the records specified in those provisions. The petitioner is an existing director and a shareholder of the Lake Palace Hotels and Motels Pvt. Ltd. and in his capacity as such has sought this direction. This court issued notices to the respondents. The respondents have appeared before this court, but have not submitted any reply to the petition and the learned counsel for the respondents have raised certain contentions before me with regard to the maintainability of the petition.2. Mr. L. R. Mehta, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. N. N. Mathur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, have submitted that for seeking any relief under Section 163 as well as under Section 209(4) of the Act, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Re...
Ram Lubhaya and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ792
ORDERS.S. Byas, J.1. By way of this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the four accused-petitioners Ram Lubhaya,Balveer singh. Surjeet singh and Nandlal have invoked the inherent powers of this Court for quashing an order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur dated 23-1-X978 by which, cognizance of offences under Sections 392, 365 and 342, I. P. C. was taken against them on the negative final report submitted by the police.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this proceeding are that Bhajansingh addressed a written report to the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, somewhere in October 1977. It was mentioned therein that nearly two months ago, he went to purchase Sugar to a Ration Shop situate in Chok 61-F. While he was returning, the four accused persons and one HarBhajan singh challenged him. They started beating him. He had Rs. 100/- and a wrist watch. The miscreants forcibly relieved him of the wrist watch and Rs. 100/-. Thereafter, t...
Dalpat Singh and anr. Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)195
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the order of the learned District Judge. Jodhpur, dated 25-9-81 dismissing his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiffs Dalpatsingh and Babulal filed a suit for declaration that the tractor RSG 2276 and trolley RRQ 2386 are of their ownership and possession. They also prayed that a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the said tractor and trolley or to dispossess them. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs also moved an application for temporary injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs had purchased the tractor and trolley from M/s Gulabchand Govindram and the registration of these vehicles was affected in the names of the plaintiffs. They were in possession of these vehicles and the defendants Om Prakash and Kunaram took the tractor and ...
Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN352
S.S. Vyas, J.1. This revision reveals the deplorable manner, in which the trial in a warrant case, was conducted by the judicial Magistrate and the jail appeal was disposed of has time in a mechanical and routine way by the learned Session Judge.2. Accused Sbanker was convicted under Sections 454 and 380/75, IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's like imprisonment under the first court and three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's like imprisonment under the second count by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Begun vide his judgment dated November 22, 1982. He filed a Jail appeal challenging his conviction, but the same was dimissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh on January 17, 1983.3. It would be proper to briefly read all the facts and circumstances giving rise to this revision petition....
Mewar Textile Mills Limited Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1983
Reported in: [1985]151ITR127(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner, the Mewur Textile Mills Ltd., Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the company '), is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Bhilwara in Rajasthan. In respect of the assessment year 1966-67, the company filed a return of its income on June 30, 1966. The company was required under Section 140A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to make payment of such amount of tax as was payable on the basis of the aforesaid return, after taking into account the amount of tax already paid by way of advance tax, within a period of 30 days of the furnishing of the return. But the company deposited the amount of tax due to be paid on the basis of self-assessment under Section 140A(1) only on October 17, 1966, and such payment was thus delayedby 78 days. . Later on, on May 24, 1968, the company filed a revised return of its income, according to which the tax liability of the com...
Maniya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)179
By The Court1. The appellant Maniya was convicted of the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated April 13, 1977.2. The charge against the appellant was that on 3.2.1976 at about, noon, he entered into the house of Honiya and fired a shot with a gun at Mst. Mugali wife of Rai Chanda on her face as a result thereof she died The appellant was also charged for the offence Under Section 25 of the Arms Act.3. In nut shell, the prosecution case is that on 3.2.1976 at about moon, the accused entered into house of Honiya, Mugali was alone in the dhalisa' outside the 'kotha'. Dwarkadas (PW.2 and Babu (PW3) were present, Dwarka Das Singhi is a contractor residing at Udaipur and Babu was his servant. In connection with the cutting of the trees from the forest Dwarkadas had come to the house of Honiya and was staying there in the'dhaliya'. Dwarkadas was preparing his meals at the time when the accused entered into ...
New Bharat Rice and General Mills Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj170
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate on July 18, 1983. we reached the conclusion that this appeal had no merits and it was accordingly, dismissed. We ordered that the reasons in support of the order will be recorded later on.2. Now, we proceed to set out the reasons in support of the conclusion, which we had reached.3. The appellant who was petitioner in the writ petition ander Article 226 of the Constitution, has filed this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. questioning the correctness of the order dt. Jan. 20, 1983 of the learned single Judge of this Court, by which he dismissed S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 176 of 1983 in limine.4. The appellant hereinafter will be referred to ms 'the petitioner' and the respondents State of Rajasthan and Union of India, will be referred to as 'the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 respectively.5. The petitioner M/s. Nay Bharat Rice & General Mills. I...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijay Laxmi Trading Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Raj)329; [1984]147ITR372(Raj)
K.S. Lodha, J. 1. The learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (DelhiBench 'B'), has referred the following question for answer to thiscourt: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any amount was includible in the total income of the assessee for any of the two years on account of interest accrued to the assessee in the account of M/s. Ram Gopal Laxmi Narain of Secunderabad with it ?'2. The facts giving rise to this reference are that M/s. Vijay Laxmi Trading Co. Ltd., Pali (hereinafter called 'the assessee'), is a public limited company carrying on the business of finance. The assessment orders in question are the years 1965-66 and 1966-67, The corresponding previous years whereof are those ending on December 31, 1964, and December 31, 1965, respectively. The assessee had advanced an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs to M/s. Ram Gopal Laxmi Narain of Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the debtor') on November 23, 1951. For the year 1951, no interest was charged on this a...
Kadva Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)142
S.S. Vyas, J.1. This is a jail appeal by accused Kadva against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara dated March 2, 1983 convicting and sentencing him as under: Sections Sentences Awarded 307 IPC 3.1/2 years' RI fine of Rs. 250/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 1/2 months' like imprisonment 3/25 of the Arms Act 1 year' RI with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month like imprisonment 27 of the Arms Act -do-2. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently, while those in default of payment of fine, consecutively.3. The prosecution case is short and simple and may briefly be stated. Accused Kadva and the injured victim PW.6 Gajheng are residents of village Charkani, District Banswara. In the early hours on 24.10.82 they along with PW.3 Chamna went for hunting in the jungle situate nearby. Each of them had a gun With him while they were climbing up on the hill, the accused fired a shot at Gajheng (PW.6) with ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »