Rajasthan Court December 1984 Judgments
Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1984
Reported in: [1985]60STC369(Raj)
ORDERV.S. Dave, J. 1. These six writ petitions are disposed of by this single order as a common question of law is involved in them, namely, whether the sales tax can be imposed on sale or purchase of declared goods at more than one stage and whether that stage is the first point of sale or last point thereof and such a sale is in respect of steel tubes ?2. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 280 of 1984, the petitioner Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. is a public limited company which manufactures steel tubes/pipes in Haryana but has its sale depot in various States including the State of Rajasthan at Dher-ka-balaji, Jaipur, and is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1954') as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956') and is being assessed by the Commercial Taxation Officer, E-Circle, Jaipur. The assessing authority for the assessment years 1978 and 1979 issued prescribed...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan and anr. Vs. Smt. Kalan Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Raj52
S.S. Byas, J.1. This civil second appeal of the obstructors is directed against an order of the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer dt. Jan 5, 1983, by which their appeal was dismissed and the order of Munsif, Ajmer City, Ajmer dt. Feb 25, 1978 passed in a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil P.C. was upheld.2. Very few facts need narration for the disposal of this appeal. Smt. Kalan Bai (respondent 1) instituted a suit for rent and eviction against the other respondent Khem Chand. The suit was decreed ex parte in her favour. She applied for the execution of decree and prayed for the issue of a warrant of delivery of possession of the property in dispute to her. The Court of Munsif issued the warrant for the delivery of possession and the bailiff went on the spot for this purpose on Feb. 10, 1974. The appellants were found in possession of the property and they refused to deliver the possession to the decree-holder. They, thus, caused the obstruction in the' execution of decree an...
Tag this Judgment!Gyan Chand JaIn Vs. District Magistrate, Alwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj213
ORDERV.S. Dave, J. 1. The petitioner who is a landlord has challenged the order of the District Magistrate, Alwar dt. May 12, 1976 by which he has ordered the delivery of possession of a Godwon, boundaries of which have been given in para 2 of the writ petition to respondent 3 a tenant. 2. Respondent 3. Shri Raj Kumar Kherawat, took on lease the Godown from the petitioner on Nov. 29, 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. Though initially it was taken only for a period of 11 months under a rent note Ex. 1 but it continued to be with him even thereafter. On May 12, 1976 the petitioner had received a notice from respondent I purported to be under Section 23 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Act, 1971 and Rule 154 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 requisitioning the aforesaid premises. When the petitioner received the notice from respondent 1 on May 12, 1976, on the same day he served a notice on respondent 3 through Shri Prakash Chand Jain Advocate desir...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1918; 1985(1)WLN399
V.S. Dave, J.1. This case has come up on a complaint dt. Aug. 27, 1984 received by post from one Mohanlal son of Onkar, by caste Mali, resident of Ramsar, District Ajmer addressed to my learned brother Hon'ble G. M. Lodha, J. wherein the allegation of mass rape in police custody against Sundari Devi wife of the complainant was reported. Several documents, were tagged with this complaint. On receipt of this complaint my learned brother issued notices to the Director-General of Police, Rajasthan and Superintendent of Police, Ajmer and S. R. 0. Ram Ratan Police Line, Ajmer to appear before this Court and explain the situation. This application was registered as writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. After the notices were served the State filed a reply and the S.R.O. put in appearance through Shri K. N. Sharma Advocate. Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar was asked to assist the complainant and this Court ex gratia on legal aid side. The entire record of the police station was sent for ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limi ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN709
M.C. Jain, J.1. In these appeals office has raised an objection that the appellants have not paid the requisite court fee as per Section 46 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, (here in after referred to as 'the Act').2. These appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 against the awards passed by the Civil Judge, Dungarpur on references having been made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. In the awards given by the learned Civil Judge, the amount has been considerably enhanced. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded comparatively a very small sum.3. Dissatisfied with the awards given by the learned Civil Judge, these appeals have been preferred.4. The appellants have paid fixed court fee of Rs. 10/-, whereas the office objection is that ad valorem court fee should have been paid on the memos of appeal. So in these appeals a question arises, what amount of court fee is ...
Tag this Judgment!London Wine Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)227
P.K. Banerjee, C.J.1. In my opinion in view of the Supreme Court Judgment in Medowell & Co. v. Commercial Taxes Officer : [1977]1SCR914 it cannot be said that the Octroi Duty is liable in addition of the excise duty to the sale price of the company. The Municipality held that the Octroi Duty Will be liable on the prices of the goods manufactured plus excise duty added to it for the purpose of the Octroi.2. In the Supreme Court decision as here in before stated the Supreme Court inter alia held that the Phrase 'any sum charged by the dealer' according to the definition of turnover in Section 2(s) has to be understood in its ordinary popular sense. Excise duty or contravening duty paid directly to the excise Authority by the purchaser cannot be included in the bills of sale for consideration of sale. The Octroi duty is paid by the purchaser before the removal of the goods from the bonded ware house and the excise duty to be paid over the price of the goods cannot be included in the price...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)598
G.K. Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties, and also perused the judgment of the Special Judge, who has tried this case and discussed in his judgment, the entire evidence and the various aspects of this case.2. This is a case under the Essential Commodities Act, (hereinafter for short, 'the Act'), and the appellants were exporting wheat contravening the provisions of the Act.3. Mr. Kejriwal argued that the accused-appellants cultivated their field along with their brother-in-law. and that, they were carrying the wheat and article which were in the share of their brother-in-law, and going to his house to hand over his share. Ft was also argued that the accused-appellants were caught in the boundary of the State of Rajasthan near the boundary of Haryana, and that, at that time of the seizure, they stated that they were taking the said wheat to Village Rodwal where their brother-in-law used to reside. It was also argued that their brother-in-law was also produced as defe...
Tag this Judgment!Hansibai and ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1984
Reported in: I(1986)ACC201; AIR1985Raj165; [1987]62CompCas160(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Against the judgment dated August 6. 1977 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (District Judge, Udaipur) (for short 'the Tribunal'), the claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased Chunilal (Driver) have filed this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor VehiclesAct (No. IV of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as' the Act'1.2. By the judgment aforesaid, the Tribunal rejected the application for compensation filed by the appellants ('the applicants' herein) being barred as no cause of action was shown in the application against the respondents, who were non-applicants.3. The applicants filed the application for compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000/-before the Tribunal on June 23. 1975 alleging that on January 6. 1975. Bus No. RJY 2151 was going from Kelva to Diver via Aamet and it was being driven by the deceased Chunnilal. At about 12.00 in the night, the Bus fell into a pit and met with an accident. The applicants who are the heirs of Chunn...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Gulnar Marfatia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1984
Reported in: [1986]159ITR311(Raj)
G.M. Lodha, J. 1. This wealth-tax reference application has been made under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act. It arises out of the order of the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in Wealth-tax Appeal No. 128/JB/1980. The Revenue preferred reference application under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, which was rejected by the Tribunal on May 25, 1981.2. The brief facts of the case as alleged by the Revenue are that the assessee is a partner in the firm, M/s. New Majestic Talkies, Ajmer. During the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1976-77, the question of valuation of the property belonging to the firm was referred to the Valuation Officer. The Wealth-tax Officer on the basis of the proceedings valued the property as on June 30, 1973. The assessee's interest in the firm along with his other assets were found to exceed the chargeable limit.3. The assessee filed a return on May 16, 1978. The assessee's interest in the firm was computed by the Wealth-tax Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Manzoor Ahmed Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1984
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN22
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This is a bail application Under Section 438 Cr.PC. on behalf or Manzoor Ahmed against whom the Police is Investigating a case Under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. The petitioner has moved this Court Under Section 438 without first moving the Court of Sessions. This Court has consistently held that the Sessions Court should first be moved before an application is moved before the High Court Under Section 438 Cr.PC. Reference in this connection may be made to Bhoora Ram v. The State of Rajasthan 1976 Raj. Cri. Cases 222 and Hazi Alisher v. State of Rajasthan 1976 Cri. LJ 1658. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before me authorities of other courts, namely, Onkar Nath v. State 1976 Cri.LJ 1142, Mohan Lal v. Prem Chand AIR 1980 MP 36 and Jagannath v. State of Maharashtra 1981 Cri.LJ 1838. I have carefully considered these authorities but I am of the opinion that the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid cases should be adhered to. In On...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »