Rajasthan Court March 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.
Bhanwarlal and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ111Raj
G.M. Lodha J.1. Durante bene placito' ruled the world with waves of 'laissez faire' up to 19th century, Political as well as Industrial revolutions brought new tides of workers emancipation from exploitation resulting in new concepts of 'status', 'security of service', 'releases from bonded labour'. Not to talk of Karl Marx or Lenin, even Abraham Lincoln and Roosvelt pleaded for 'Dignity of Labour', 'Equality', Dueprocess of law, and that resulted in New Deal Legislations, Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, the Founding fathers of the great Indian constitution brought the dream of 'Ravi' true when preamble of the 'Socialist Republic of India' embodied 'Equality' of status' and 'opportunity'. Justice, 'social, economic and political' targets 'followed' by Directives and fundamental rights of equality in Article 14 and equal opportunity in services in Article 16.2. Articulation of 14 and 16 in 1948 and 43A in 1976, whether gave death blow to 'durante bene placito' is even now a billion dollar q...
Chauth Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)490
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This revision petition by the accused is directed against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and to a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The trial Conrt as well as the first appellate Court have found it proved that the accused was carrying three containers on his bicycle which contained goat milk for the purpose of sale. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was violation of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 in as much as the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal sent to Public Analyst did not comply with the procedure contained in Rule 18. In his regard it was submitted that the prosecution has led no evidence to show that specimen impression of the seal was sent separately by the Food Inspector to t...
Nandlal Sharma S/O Pandit Ramdeo Vs. Chief Secretary, State of Rajasth ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN161
G.M. Lodha, J.1. In this contempt, a preliminary objection has been raised by Shri S. B. Mathur; appearing for the non petitioners that since the present one is a case under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as' the Contempt of Courts Act'), no cognizance can be taken by this Court unless either, proceedings are initiated by the High Court itself, on its own motion or on a motion made by the learned Advocate Ceneral or, any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General.2. Shri Mathur has referred us to Section 15(1) of the Contempt of courts Act, which reads as under:15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases; (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by:(a) the Advocate General, or(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate' General, or(c) in relation to the High ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan Co-operative Bank ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR205(Raj)
1. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, has movedthese applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act'), for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, to state the case and refer to this court for opinion the following question of law arising out of its consolidated order dated May 6, 1972, passed in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 1886, 1887, 1888 and 4499 of 1970-71 for the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 :'Whether the Tribunal had any material to come to the conclusion that the assessee was holding the securities as its stock-in-trade ?'The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax had first moved an application before the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Act requiring the Tribunal to refer the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the securities were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade and the sam...
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Raj)231
By the Court - The Addl. CIT, Rajasthan, Jaipur has moved these applications u/s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for directing the ITAT, Jaipur to state the case and refer to this court for opinion the following question of law arising out of its consolidated order dt. 6-5-1972 passed in IT Appeals Nos. 1886, 1887, 1888 and 4499 of 1970-71 for the asst. yrs. 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 :'Whether, the Tribunal had any material to come to the conclusion that the assessee was holding the securities as its stock-in-trade ?'2. The Addl. CIT had first moved an application before the Tribunal u/s. 256(1) of the Act requiring the Tribunal to refer the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the securities were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade and the same were exempt from tax ?'3. According to the Tribunal, the question proposed by the Addl. CIT really comprised of t...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohammed and Sons.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR220(Raj); 1984()WLN616
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This court by its order dated November 21, 1974, directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal' herein), to draw up the statement of the case and to refer the following question of law arising out of its order dated March 13, 1972 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal could take the view that there were disputes or non-co-operation amongst the partners of the assessee of the nature stated in its reply to the notice under Section 274(1) of the Income-tax Act and it constituted 'reasonable cause' for the failure to furnish the return of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(a) of the Act ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm. In this reference, we are concerned with the assessment year 1962-63. The assessee was required to file the return in respect of the assessment year 1962-63 by August 31, 1962. An application in Form No. 6 for extension of two months' time for filin...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Magnus Drug House
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1984
Reported in: [1987]66STC44(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 30th July, 1971, has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Member has rightly ordered for continuation of stay of recovery proceedings till disposal of the appeal by the party notwithstanding the rejection of the revision itself on the grounds of non-maintainability ?2. The aforesaid reference has been made in the following circumstances:The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-A, Ward-I, Jaipur, passed an order dated 22nd August, 1968, whereby he computed that a sum of Rs. 5,492.70 was payable as tax by the respondent and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 under Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent filed a revision petition against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer before the Board of Revenue. The said revision petition was disposed of by t...
Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-evasion Vs. Spencer and Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1984
Reported in: [1986]62STC210(Raj); 1984()WLN209
S.C. Agarwal, J. 1. By order dated 24th November, 1970, the Board of Revenue has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court, under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act):1. Whether the Board has jurisdiction to entertain revision against the notice of demand ?2. Whether the notice of demand is in order ?3. Whether the Board rightly stayed the recovery of demand notwithstanding the bar of entertaining the revision under the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ?2. According to the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue, the said questions arise out of the order dated 12th March, 1970, passed by the Board of Revenue.3. We have heard Shri K. K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri S. M. Mehta, the learned counsel for the opposite party.4. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Mehta against the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the ques...
Bishan Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)95
K.S. Lodha, J.1. Against the order dated October 1, 1973, the unsuccessful petitioner Bishandas has filed this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949. The petitioner-appellant filed the writ Petilioner for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction against ffespondent No. 4 (the Tehsildar Colonisation Tehsil Gharsana Head-quarter Anupgarh), restraining him from proceeding with the case under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (No. XV of 1956) and further for a direction not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner-appellant over the land. Certain other reliefs were also sought.2. For the disposal of this appeal, the material facts are these : Respondent No. 2 (The Managing Officer, Ministry of Rehabilitation) allotted out of the compensation pool, agricultural lands co uprising part of Khasra No. 2 measuring 44 Bighas 10 Biswas in village Jivendesar, Tehsil Anupgarh under Section 20(1)(c) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation rid R...
Bhagirathdan and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN59
S.S. Byas, J.1. Since these two writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are based on identical grounds and raise common questions of Saw, they were heard together and are decided by a single judgment. The matter relates to the promotion of the petitioners.2. As per aver nents disclosed in the petition, the petitioners hold the Bachelor's Degree in Mechenical Engineering. Petitioner Bhagirathdan was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the State Woollen Mills, Bikaner on Julv 18, 1972 and subsequently when declared surplus, he was appointed as Assistant Mechanical Engineer on December 12, 1975 in the Department of Mines and Geology. The other petitioner Himmatsingh was appointed as Assistant Mechanical Engineer on September 25, 1973 in the department of Mines and Geology. Both the petitioners are holding these posts with clean and untainted record of service at their credit. The next post of promotion in the cadre is that of Deputy Drilling Engineer. The appointment to these ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »