Rajasthan Court September 1983 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. National Tractors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN688
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench, (here in after referred to as the Tribunal) has referred the following question arising from the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 2583 of 1966-67:Whether en the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 91,185/- is deductible as a revenue expenditure?The assessee-respondent is M/s National Tractors, Jodhpur. The assessment year in question is 1962-63. One R. Gangadharappa obtained a lease measuring 450,85 acres together with mines from the Government of Mysore on April 5, 1952. It was for the purpose of obtaining and removing iron-ore and other permissible minerals from the mine situate at Jambunathanaballi in Hoppet Taluka for a period of 30 years commencing from April 5, 1952. The said R. Gangadhrappa obtained necessary mining lease and also permission to work the (sic) in the said area and to extract the minerals specified in the mining lease granted to ...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal Gaur Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN605
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 6.1.1954. Though he was recorded as Sub-Inspector of Police, he worked as Prosecuting Sub-Inspector for most of the time between 1954 to 1974.2. In 1975, the Rajasthan Prosecution State and Subordinate Service (Initial Constitution and Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1975 were promulgated for encadring the Prosecuting Inspectors and Prosecuting Sub-Inspectors in the service. This became necessary on account of the New Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner was screened and was treated as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II substantively from 1.4.1974 under the new Rules. Thereafter the Rajasthan Prosecution Service Rules, 1978 were promulgated providing for promotion to Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr. I from Grade II. The qualifications are prescribed in Column-2. This qualification requires degree of Law from the University established by Law in India.3. Since the petitioner is not a Law Graduate he is aggriev...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Singh and anr. Vs. Disa Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)378
K.S. Lodha, J1. This is a plaintiffs' revision against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sriganganagar, dated 8 10-82, by which he rejected the plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint.2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 22-2-79 against the defendent Disa Singh alleging that the defendant, who was the khatedar of Kilas No. 13 to 17 msasuring 5 Bighas and 18 measuring 1/2 Bigha total 5 /2 Bighas in Square NO. 34 in Chak No. 17 LNP had agreed by a document dated 22-2-/9 to sell this land @ Rs. 7,000/- per bigha and had received a sum of Rs. 72,00a, - on that date. It was also asserted that the possession of the said land had already been handed over to the plaintiffs on the same day i.e. 22-2-79. The other terms of the agreement are not material for our present purposes. The case of the petitioners-plaintiffs further was that they had already constructed some kothas of Kilas No. 13 and 18 and are residing there. The defend...
Tag this Judgment!Pomaram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN534
S.S. Vyas, J.1. These twin applications, one under Section 482, and the other under Section 438, Cr. PC are directed against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated June 27, 1983 passed in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1981 on his file. It was prayed that the aforesaid order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge be quashed and in alternative anticipatory bail be granted to them.2. Since the facts and circumstances arising for consideration in these two petitions are closely knitted inter se, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.3. In order to properly appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to recapitulate the facts and circumstances giving rise to these applications. The accused persons are facing trial under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149, IPC in the court below. The charge against them is that they committed as many as six murders. They were in custody and moved this Court for bail under Section 439, Cr. P.C. T...
Tag this Judgment!Sakir Mohammed @ Sakir HussaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)292
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 27, 1977 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, in Sessions Case No. 107 of 1976. In the Sessions Case aforesaid, appellant Sakir Mohammed alias Sakir Hussain and one Fakir Mohammed were prosecuted. The appellant was charged with the offence Under Section 302, IPC and accused Fakir Mohammed was charged with the offence Under Section 302 read with Section 114, IPC. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Fakir Mohammed of the charge levelled against him. So far as the appellant is concerned, the Sessions Judge convicted him of the offence Under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.2. The case of the prosecution is that on September 6, 1976 Rafiq Mohammed deceased was sitting on a cart near the 'Paal' of a 'Bandh. An al...
Tag this Judgment!Mukand Das Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)263
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This execution appeal has been filed by the decree holder, Mukand Das, against the order dated 25th November, 1972 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in civil execution case No. 2/1972. By the order aforesaid the Addl. District Judge partly allowed the objections that were filed by the respondent judgment debtors and held that the amount payable to the decree holder by the judgment-debtors was Rs. 1343.20.2. The appellant was an employee of the Government of Rajasthan. By order dated 23-1-1956 passed by the Director Medical and Health Services Jaipur, respondent No. 2 the services of the appellant were terminated. The appellant filed a suit wherein he challenged the aforesaid order terminating his services and in the first appeal arising out of the said suit a compromise decree was passed by this Court on 5-4-1963. By the aforesaid compromise decree it was held that the appallant shall be deemed to be in service and the order of the Director dated...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Girdharilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Raj)348; [1984]147ITR379(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (for short 'the Tribunal ') to this court for answer :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the service of the notice on Shri Rawat Singh complied with the requirements of Section 263 that the assessee should be provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the proposed order under Section 263 ?'2. The assessee-respondent is an individual. The assessment year is 1961-62. The assessee-respondent filed a return for the assessment year 1961-62 on June 4, 1965. The assessee had income from a lime kiln business at Banner. He had income from contract for removal of coal ash from Northern Railway, income from trucks and jeeps, income from confectionery business and also income from property and share income from a firm. The return showed an income of Rs. 3,000. No basis for the return was given by the assessee. The ITO completed the assessme...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal and ors. Vs. Otmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN408
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The alleged debtors Babulal and others have filed this appeal against the order of the learned District Judge, Jalore, dated 26-2-83, directing the return of the application of the creditor for adjudicating the appellants insolvents, for proper presentation.2. This case had a chequered history and had been pending before the learned District Judge, Jalore, for a considerable long time and had also travelled up to this Court on question of jurisdiction itself when it was remanded to that court. After the remand, the order under appeal has been passed.3. I have heard the earned Counsel for the parties, it is agreed by them that the apnea may finally be disposed of at this stage and for that purpose, the record would not be necessary. I have, accordingly, proceeded to hear them.4. Two contentions have been raised before me by the earned Counsel for the appellants. The first contention is that there is no provision under the Provincial Insolvency Act there in after called ...
Tag this Judgment!ishar Ram Vs. Padamnath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN596
D.L. Mehta, J.1. On 11th April, 1983, Court directed that the case may be listed on 6th May, 1983 for final disposal at the orders stage.2. On 11th May, 1983, Mr. Kalla, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, moved an application that the petitioner should be directed to implead the parties, as the necessary parties have not been impleaded.3. Looking to the nature of the application, it was considered proper that assistance of some other advocate should be taken by the Court, so that interest of non-petitioner No. (sic) may not suffer for want of prosecution in the right direction, and Mr. M.R. Singhvi was requested by the court to assist the court.4. Petitioner moved an election petition before the Tribunal, which was partly accepted and election of non-petitioner No. 1 was set aside. However, the petitioner was not declared elected.5. Being aggrieved with the second part of the order, the petitioner has moved to this Court and has prayed that he should be declared elected.6. Brief fac...
Tag this Judgment!Kota Box Manufacturing Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: [1984]55STC207(Raj)
1. This is an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellants.2. The short point pressed before us in this appeal relates to the correctness of the view taken by the learned single judge that since the assessees in the instant case can raise the objections in respect of the reassessment of sales tax before the taxation authority and then if necessary file an appeal, this Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.3. The question which was raised before the learned single Judge related to the meaning of the packing material for which notice under Section 12 was issued to the petitioner-appellant.4. The learned single Judge was of the view that the petitioner has got ample opportunity to appear before the assessing authority and to raise all the contentions before him and then there is a complete machinery of appeal and revision under the Act. In...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »