Rajasthan Court February 1984 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.
Rakha Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj95
ORDERK.S. Lodha, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this writ application briefly stated are that the petitioner Rakha Singh holds agricultural land in Chak 4X in tehsil Karanpur district Sriganganagar. He filed his return under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act') before the Authorised Officer on 21-3-74 declaring that there were three members in his family, namely he himself, his wife and an adopted son Vijay Singh aged 25 years. In support of his claim, he produced some evidence, oral as well as documentary. So far as the documentary evidence was concerned, it was a decision in a suit filed by Anoop Singh, the real brother of Vijay Singh against Vijay Singh on the ground that Vijay Singh had gone in adoption to Rakha Singh and could not claim any share in his original family. That suit was decreed. The Authorised Officer did not accept this evidence and held that there were only two members in the family of Rakha Singh i.e...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Foresole Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1984
Reported in: [1985]153ITR349(Raj)
Agrawal, J.1. This application has been moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the light of the language of Section 176(3A) of the I.T. Act, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 8,18,262, Rs. 33,205 and Rs. 31,260 ?'2. M/s. Foresole Ltd., the non-petitioners in this application (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), was engaged for the work of drilling in Jaisalmer area by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission and it conducted the drilling operations from February 17, 1964, till the end of April, 1967. Some disputes arose between the assessee and the Oil & Natural Gas Commission which were referr...
Dulha Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)370
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner Dulha Ram had filed this writ application asking for the following reliefs:(a) By an appropriate writ order or direction the non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 be directed to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Tehsildai and confirmation on the post of Naib Tesildar according to the law and accord the promotion on the respective post from the date from which he is found entitled to the same according to the law with all consequential benefits.(b) The petitioner be treated to have been confirmed on the post of Naib Tehsildar and promoted to the post of Tehsildar from the earliest date on which the juniors to the petitioner were confirmed and promoted and for that purpose if need be the appointment and promotions accorded to the non-petitioners Nos. 5 to 102 be quashed and set aside.(c) That while considering the candidature for the posts of Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar in the ensuing Departmental Promotion Committee the illegal appointmen...
Smt. Wafatan Vs. Jamil Ahmed
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN85
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482. Cr. PC filed by Stat. Wafatan, wife of non-petitioner, Jamil Ahmed, in proceedings for maintenance under Sec 125, Cr. PC. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the lawfully married wife of the non-petitioner and at the time when the petition was filed on November 20, 1978 she had a daughter aged 2 years and a son aged 6 months. The petitioner claimed maintenance for herself and her children on the ground that she was deserted by the non petitioner without any lawful excuse and had neglected to pay any maintenance. The petition, was contested by the non-petitioner on various grounds and the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate No, 2-Kota by his order, dated April 13, 1981 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that she had failed to prove that she had been deserted by the non-petitioner without lawful excuse. A revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions J...
Phusraj Gangabishan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1984
Reported in: [1985]151ITR628(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, JaipurBench, Jaipur, by its order dated March 29, 1972, has referred the followingquestion of law to this court for its opinion under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as arising out of its order dated September 14, 1971 :'Whether the penalty proceedings in the present case were properly initiated ?'2. The facts leading to the making of this reference may be briefly stated : M/s. Phusraj Gangabishan of Nokha, District Bikaner (hereinafter called 'the assessee'), is a wholesale dealer in foodgrains. In its return of income relating to the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee fraudulently concealed part of its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. Certain fictitious cash credit entries were shown, which were discovered during the course of assessment proceedings to represent the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The ITO, B-Ward, Bikaner, who was the assessing authority in relation to the asses...
Subhash Medical Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1984
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Raj)54; [1984]147ITR486(Raj)
Bhatnagar, J. 1. In compliance with the directions of this court in D.B. Civil Misc. Income-tax Reference No. 117 of 1972, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter to be referred to as ' the Tribunal '), filed a statement of the case and referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961:'Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances found by the Tribunal there was material to come to the conclusion that the partnership firm constituted by the deed dated July 1, 1959, was not genuine ?'2. The facts of the case, relevant for answering the question under reference, are as under :Ramesh Chandra Moondra, in his individual capacity, was running a business known as Subhash Medical Stores, Bhilwara, since November, 1955. He executed a sale deed on July 1, 1959, for a consideration of Rs. 4,500. for the goodwill, in the name of his wife, Smt. Chandra Kanta Moondra, and his brother's wife, Smt. Shanta N. Maheshwari. On the same date the two ladies en...
Banshidhar and ors. Vs. the Appellate Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Raj202; 1984()WLN603
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. The orders passed by the competent officer, appointed under Section 4, Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Separation Act') and the Appellate Officer, appointed under Section 13 of the Separation Act, directing that the composite property in dispute should be offered to respondent 2 Mst. Kakoo at the assessed price, in case she was willing to purchase the same, were challenged by the appellants by means of a writ petition in this Court. The writ petition was, however, dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court by his order dt. Aug. 29, 1972 on the ground that the same was filed after a considerable delay and the appellants could not explain the aforesaid delay,2. The circumstances in which this matter has come up before us may be briefly stated. Khasras Nos. 313, 363, 376 and 496, situated in village Nawan, Tehsil Hanumangarh in the District of Sri Ganganagar belonged to Noor Mohd. and his mother Mst. Kakoo, respondent 2. ...
Ergen Plastic Industries Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: [1984]57STC77(Raj)
Pkadyot Kumar Banerjee, C.J.1. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm, M/s. Ergen Plastic Industries, Jodhpur. Shri F. L. Maheshwari is the major partner along with others and the firm was registered with the Registrar of Firms in 1975. It appears, the partnership firm M/s. Ergen Plastic Industries, Jodhpur, carries on business of manufacturing and selling plastic goods, viz., polythene bags, films, plastic pipe, plastic cane, monofilaments, extruded sections, etc. It started the manufacture of polythene bags and films in 1967 as a proprietary concern. It was converted into a registered partnership firm in 1975 for carrying on business of manufacturing and selling plastic goods, namely, polythene bags, films, plastic pipe, plastic cane, monofilaments, extruded sections, etc., and was a licensed registered dealer under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. It appears, after the proprietorship concern being converted into a partnership firm, fresh licences were gr...
Kaliya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1236; 1984()WLN89
S.S. Byas, J.1. Accused Kaliya Alias Jagdish was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and was setenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur vide his judgment dated January 30, 1979. He has come up in appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, which is short and simple, is that deceased-victim Mahendra Singh Chaudhary was living with his wife PW 13 Smt. Meena, minor son Rajesh aged about 5 years and daughter Shashi aged about 2 years in a room in Hukam Niwas building situate in Sardarpura, Jodhpur. The deceased and the appellant were on inimical terms. At about 7.00 P. M. on February 28, 1978, the deceased, his wife and the two children left their house to go to a temple as it was the birthday of Kumari Shashi. When the party covered a distance of 10-15 feet and reached near a peepal tree, the party sa...
Kishansingh and 27 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)29
P.K. Banerjee, C.J.1. In these 28 writ petitions common questions of law and facts are involved and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. These rules have been directed against the orders of Revenue Tehsildar holding the petitioners to be trespassers on the land and refusing to mutate the nemes of the petitioners in the record.3. The petitioners were allotted the land in question under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 by the Custodain, who is incidentally respondent No. 2, Settlement-cum-Managing Officer (Collector), Sri Ganganager and get Sanads. Therea ter a letter was sent to the Tehsildar Revenue, Anoopgarh to mutate the lands of the petitioners. It is not stated in the petitions that when the applications for mutation were sent to the Tehsildar, the petitioners received notices purporting (o be made under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 and the petitioners put in appearance stating therein that the lands were not Government ...