Rajasthan Court January 1985 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.
Hukam Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN301
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, Hukam Chand has challenged the legality of the order (Annexure 7) dated 9th January, 1980 and the order (Annexure 8) dated 7th September, 1981 whereby the Central Government refused to refer for adjudication an industrial dispute relating to the early retirement of the petitioner.2. The petitioner was an employee of M/s. Jaipur Udyog Ltd., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). He joined the company in 1953 and was posted as Mechanical Foreman at the Phalodi Lime Stone Quarry. According to the petitioner his date of birth is 16th April, 1931 but the Company notified the date of birth of the petitioner as 16th April, 1921. The petitioner filed objections against the aforesaid entry about the date of his birth and requested for correcting the same, but the management of the company refused to correct the entry about date of birth and on the basis of the date of birth as entered in the company's records, the p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Murlidhar and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR885(Raj)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessee-firm was validly constituted and it was entitled to registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? '2. It would not be necessary to give the facts of the case in detail as Mr. Surolia, learned counsel for the Department, rightly and frankly conceded that the above question of law is concluded by a decision of this court in Gulraj Poowamchand v. CIT . In the above case, it was held that it is permissible for the karta of a Hindu undivided family, representing the Hindu undivided family, to enter into a partnership with any other member of the Hindu undivided family, or any stranger who is taken in partnership even as working partner and even if they did not contribute any separate or individual property of their o...
Kashiram Radhakishan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1985
Reported in: [1985]155ITR609(Raj); 1985(1)WLN649
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ' the Tribunal ') has referred the following question for our opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee-firm had not incurred any liability daring the accounting year under consideration to make payment for pressing the bales at anything more than Rs. 16 per bale and, accordingly, disallowing the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 14,200 for arriving at the assessee's total income '2. The assessee is a firm. For the assessment year 1974-75, its accounting year ended on March 31, 1974. It deals, inter alia, in the purchase and sale of cotton. It gets its cotton ginned and baled from the cotton ginning and pressing factories situated near about Bhadra. Daring the assessment year 1974-75, it got 1,420 bales of cotton baled by Shree Mahalaxmi Cotton Ginning & Pressing Factory, Sri Ganganagar ('the Factory' herein). It ha...
Gulabchand Vs. University of Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)8
M.C. Jain, J.1. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4159/83 University of Jodhpur v. Kamlesh Kumar Khatri, decided on December 5, 1984 this writ petition has to be dismissed as their Lordships of the Supreme Court have not agreed with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court. In the aforesaid appeal, that view has been reversed and their Lordships of the Supreme Court have agreed with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in SB. Civil Writ Petition No. 442 of 1982- Sitaram v. University of Jodhpur, decided on May 12, 1982,2. Although, the writ petition has to be dismissed but a controversy has arisen in this writ petition as to whether the petitioner can be allowed to take the benefit or advantage of an interim , order passed by this Court in pursuance of which the petitioner has given an undertaking to the effect that he will not claim any benefit and advantage under the interim order of this Court. The petitioner, under the interim...
Vimalchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1985
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Raj)52; [1985]155ITR593(Raj); 1985(1)WLN670
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal' herein), has referred the following question for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessments in question were valid and were completed within the period of limitation ?'2. M/s. Manakchand Laxmichand, Sirohi, is a registered firm. Its partners are Laxmichand and Vimalchand. The previous year relevant to the assessment year ended on October 31, 1970, in the case of the firm as well as its partners. The three assessees, namely, the registered firm and its partners, Laxmichand and Vimalchand, were to file returns by June 30, 1971. No returns were filed within that time. It appears from the order of the Tribunal dated August 27, 1976, that no notice was issued under Section 139(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (No. XLIII of 1961) (for short 'the Act'), to the assessees. Subsequently, the assessee-firm filed a ret...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Sitaram Badrilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC258(Raj); 1985(1)WLN628
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. In pursuance of the order dated 6th September, 1976, passed by this Court in D. B. Civil Sales Tax Reference No. 216 of 1975, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' herein), has referred the following question for our opinion :Whether the polishing of stones comes within the term 'manufacture' and, therefore, attracts concessional rate under Section 5C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ?2. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward A, Chittorgarh (ACTO), determined the tax liability of M/s. Sitaram Badrilal, Manpura Branch, Station Road, Chittorgarh, under Section 10(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'), for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, vide his assessment order dated 6th May, 1969. The dealer-assessee was dealing in stones during this period and his gross turnover was determined at Rs. 1,59,520.46. After deducting from it, the turnover relating to goods not liable to tax and inter-State sales, the assessing auth...
Jagannath Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN113
Suresh Chandra Agrawal, J.1. All these writ petitions raise common questions relating to the validity of the order dated 22nd August, 1984 passed by the Collector, Jhalawar and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in these writ petitions hold Khatedari rights in agricultural lands situate in village and Tehsil Khanpur, district, Jhalawar. In Section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (here in after referred to as the Act'), provision has been made with regard to the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes after obtaining permission of the State Government. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (XI-A) of Section 261 read with Section 90A and cluase (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 260 of the Act, the State Government has made the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Residential or Commercial Purposes in Rural (Areas) Rules, 1971 (here in after referred to as 'the Rules'). The Rules make pro...
Santokh Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN359
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 2 Alwar, dated 12th April, 1979.2. One case was registered on the report of one Heera, for taking away one tractor No. RJA 1910 by Darshansingh. On this report, the said tractor was seized by the police, and it was given to Darshansingh, on Supardginama. The learned Judicial Magistrate Kishangarhbaas ordered that the tractor be returned to Darshansingh on his furnishing a surety-bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-. He further ordered that the plough and the.'Chhatri' be also given to Darshansingh on Supardginama on his furnishing a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/-. The petitioner, Santokhsingh stood surety for the tractor as well as the plough etc. On his furnishing surety-bonds, the tractor and the other articles were handed over to Darshansingh. When they were required to be produced before the court, Darshansingh failed to produce them. As such a notice forfeiting...
Sarwan Singh Mann Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN145
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, Acting C.J.1. The petitioner has challenged, by means of this writ petition, the final seniority list issued by the Government of Rajasthan on December, 26, 1976 of substantive Assistant Conservators Forests, appointed to the Rajasthan Forest Service.2. Initially, the petitioner submitted that the respondents No. 3 to 8 were junior to him in the cadre of substantive Assistant Conservators of Forests, but as it transpires now, the respondents No. 3 to 7 have retired since the writ petition was filed in this court. The writ petition is, therefore, not pressed as against respondents No. 3 to 7. Thus the case of the petitioner now is that he was senior to respondent No. 8, while in the seniority list dated December 26, 1974, the petitioner's name has been shown at No. 5 and that of respondent No. 8 Shri B.S. Syal has been shown at No. 4, while it should be vice-versa.3. The facts, which have given rise to this controversy are that the petitioner was selected for appoin...
Ganpat Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)636
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This revision has been filed by seven petitioners against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 30-11-1978 by which he affirmed the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Bhinmal convicting them under Sections 147, 323 and 325 read with 149 IPC. They were sentenced to six months' RI on each of the first two counts and one year's RI and a fine of Rs. 100/- on the third count.2. One of the petitioners Chhail Singh moved an application under Section 427 Cr.PC, which was allowed by this court on 14-10-1982 and the sentences awarded to him in this case were made concurrent with the sentences awarded to him in Sessions Case No. 23/77 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, on 23-11-1977 and in view of this order, the petitioner Chhail Singh's counsel did not press his revision. His revision petition was, therefore, ordered to be dismissed on 14-10-1982.3. Now we are concerned with the remaining six accused petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »