Rajasthan Court October 1985 Judgments
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. G.C. Malpani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1985
Reported in: [1987]65STC92(Raj); 1986(1)WLN508
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board'), has referred the following question, for the opinion of this Court:Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and while dealing with rectification matter, the Board of Revenue was justified in remanding the cases for reassessment under the provisions of Section 9(3)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and also when the non-applicant assessee had not preferred any appeal or revision against the assessment orders dated 16th September, 1966 ?2. Facts first. The assessment of the firm M/s. Sushil Kumar Kamal Kant, Bhadra, was made by the Commercial Taxes Officer (C.T.O.), Hanumangarh, on September 16, 1966, in respect of the assessment years 1961-62,1962-63 and 1963-64 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the CST Act') and a demand for Rs. 24,739.58 was created against the firm. As the amount of the demand was not paid, the recovery proceedings were started against Gulab Chand Malpani, one o...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswant Raj Singhvi Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)395
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the provisions of column II of the Schedule of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (Junior Scientific Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1980 (here in after referred to as the Rules of 1980). He has further prayed that a direction should be issued to the respondent to prepare seniority list of Foremen, Senior Scientific Assistants and Chief Draughtsmen by placing the Foremen block senior to the Senior Scientific Assistants and Chief Draughtsmen and thereafter make the selection to the post of Junior Scientific Officers. He has further prayed that the respondents may be restrained from making appointments to the posts of Junior Scientific Officers on the basis of panel prepared by the respondents.2. The petitioner is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and was appointed as Assistant Foreman in the pay scale of Rs. 700-900 in the year 1979.3. The service condition of the petitioner is governed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Chetan Singh Vs. Ganesh Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)472
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. This is an employer's appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') and is directed against an order of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur dated January 24, 1983, by which the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 18,000/- as compensation; Rs. 5,00/- as interest thereon and Rs. 86/- as costs (in all a sum of Rs. 23,486/-) to respondent No. 1 Ganeshlal.2. Briefly re-called, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the deceased Mohanlal (aged about 23 years at the time of his death) was employed as a truck driver by the appellant Chetan Singh. The appellant had taken a contract for consolidation of earth on 'Somar Kala Aarna Project' in district Dungarpur. In the execution of the said work, Chetan Singh employed some tractors, one of which was RSK 1146. He had employed the deceased Mohan Lal as a driver on the said tractor on the monthly wages of Rs. 300/-. At about 5.00 p.m. o...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Vs. Giri Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN623
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner's case is that a mining lease was given to him on February 22, 1974 fora period of 20 years by the State Government for extracting Silica Sand mineral from the disputed land and that he was extracting the mineral from the land in dispute since the year 1974. On May 12, 1977 a lease was granted by the State Government to the non-petitioner Girraj Prasad in respect of Silica Sand mineral. The case of the petitioner is that the area of the mining lease granted to Girraj Prasad over-lapped the portion marked by the letters ABCD shown in the site plan produced by plaintiff-petitioner along with the plaint which formed part of the area in respect of which mining lease had already been granted to the petitioner in the year 1974. The petitioner raised objection before the Mining Department and the Mining Engineer by his order dated August 22, 1978 directed Girraj Prasad not to carry on mining operations in the di...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Mithlesh Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)357
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by the writ petition has challenged the order of termination from service dated 30th December, 1982 Exbt. 8 and has prayed that the order may be quashed and the petitioner should be reinstated with all back wages. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Shri Nehru Bal Mandir, Rajgarh and thereafter she was confirmed on this post vide order dated 29th December, 1971. While working on the post of Assistant Teacher she was served with a charge sheet on 21st November, 1982. The petitioner filed her reply and a regular enquiry was conducted. The enquiry report was submitted and she was served with a show cause notice that why she may not be dismissed from service and thereafter by the order dated December 30, 1982 she was dismissed from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid termination order and an ad interim stay order was also granted by the Deputy District Education Officer (Female) Churu vide or...
Tag this Judgment!Gokha Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)438
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. This appeal has been filed by accused Gokha Singh, who has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by his Judgment dated November 17, 1972 for the offences under Sections 148, 366, 458, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal succinctly stated are : that one Gurjant Singh had some love affairs with Baljit Kaur, daughter of PW 26 Gurdeo Singh of village Baam. He abducted her and later when she was recovered, her father married her to Singara Singh of village Jaloki, who is the younger brother of Dharam Singh. It is alleged that Gurjant Singh hatched a conspiracy to abduct Mst. Baljit Kaur from village Jaloki with his companions Jagmail Singh, Nazar Singh, Karnail Singh, Bayant Singh, Jagdeep Singh and Shital Singh. The sister of accused Bayant Singh and Jagdeep Singh was married earlier to the deceased Singara Singh. He, however, left their sister and married to Baljit Kaur...
Tag this Judgment!Bhim Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)611
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that a direction should be issued to the respondent to hold the parade test for sending him to undergo promotion cadre course for placing his name on the approved list of Sub-Inspector of Police. Petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in Civil Police in the Police Department. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Head Constable, then to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and then to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in officiating capacity. The petitioner while working as Sub-Inspector of Police, to Rishabh Deo appeared in the qualifying examination as provided in the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 (here in after referred to as the Rules). He successfully passed the written test as well as the interview. Petitioner while working on the post of Sub-Inspector, at Rishabhdeo went for investigation to Jaipur on 28-12-1983 in Criminal Case No. 152/83 under Section 302 IPC. When he retu...
Tag this Judgment!Metharam Lekhumal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: [1987]165ITR568(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that what had taken place in the present case was merely a change in the constitution of the firm as defined in Sub-section (2) of Section 187 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that, therefore, the assessment had to be made in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 187 of the Income-tax Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the messing expenses were entertainment expenses and were, therefore, hit by the provisions of Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Ishwari Bai, one of the partners of the firm, M/s. Metharam Lekhumal, expired on August 5, 1971. The total income of the firm as per return filed on October 9, 1972, was Rs. 59,945. A mention w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Mannalal Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: [1986]162ITR688(Raj)
Bhargava, J. 1. This is a reference application under Section 26 of the Gift-tax Act for referring the following questions of law for the opinion of this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there could be no gift in the eye of the law to Shri Nirmal Kumar, major son ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Gift-tax Officer with regard to the point of gift made to the minor sons of the assessee '2. Up to the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee, Mannalal Surana, was the proprietor of M/s. Hazarimal Milap Chand, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee '). He was assessed in the status of an individual. He observed the Diwali year as his accounting year. On Diwali, 1970, i.e., November 9, 1970, he converted his personal business run in the name and style of M/s. Hazarimal Milap Chand into a partnership concern by takin...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Cables Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC295; 1986LC533(Rajasthan); 1987(32)ELT662(Raj)
M.C. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed refund of the differential Excise duty at the rate of 1% of Rs. 25,251.54 for the period commencing from 1st April, 1971 to 10th September, 1971 irrespective of the provisions of Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The petitioner's case is that the duty at the rate of only 4% could be charged and not at the rate of 5%, which claim has been upheld but refund has not been allowed by the excise authorities. The petitioner has sought quashing of the orders Annexure 4, dated 8th August, 1973 passed by the Assistant Collector, Annexure 5, dated 25th October, 1975 of the Appellate Collector and Annexure 6, dated 6th April, 1978 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue.3. A similar question arose before this Court between the same parties in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 88/79 - Prem Cables Private Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., 1986 (26) ELT 886 which was decided on Au...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »