Rajasthan Court October 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.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Kistoori Devi and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1985
Reported in: I(1987)ACC344; AIR1986Raj192; 1986(2)WLN145
Kasliwal, J. 1. One Chiranjilal died in a motor accident and his legal representatives Smt. Kistoori Devi and others filed a claim under Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by judgment dated 13-10-80 awarded an amount of Rs. 30,750/- in all by way of compensation to the claimants. The aforesaid amount of compensation also included an amount of Rs. 1,500/- allowed to Smt. Kistoori Devi widow of Chiranjilal deceased by way ofmental shock and loss of consortium, andRs. 800/- each to Banwarilal, Brajesh Kumar,Kamlesh Kumar, Vipin Behari and ChandraShekhar, all sons of deceased Chiranjilal byway of loss of love and affection and mentalagony, The Rajasthan State Road TransportCorporation, hereinafter referred to as the'Corporation', filed an appeal challenging theAward dated 13-10-80 given by the Tribunal.The learned single Judge considered that animportant question of law had been raisedduring the arg...
Durga Shanker and ors. Vs. Smt. Kanchan Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN492
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is a revision petition directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Kota, dated 1-3-1979 confirming the order of the Munsif (North), Kota, dated 15-9-1978 dismissing the applications of the plaintiff-applicants, dated 22-1-1977 and 20-5-1978. The plaintiffs Raghunath Prasad, Durga Shanker and Rajendra Prasad were in need of some money and therefore, they took a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on loan from Smt. Kanchan Bai, defendant non applicant and for the satisfaction, executed a sale deed of a shop in her favour. In return, the defendant Smt. Kanchan Bai executed an agreement date 22-2-1974 in their favour that if they return a sum of Rs. 5000/- within three years, she will execute a sale deed in their favour and if they failed to return a sum of Rs. 5000/- she will not be bound down by the agresment and the sale in her favour will become absolute. The possession of the property was also handed over to Smt. Kanchan Bai and she started collecting re...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Shanta Ben Manilal Patel
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: [1986]162ITR410(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the share of goodwill of the deceased may be arrived at on the basis of two years' purchase of super profits in the place of three years' as fair and reasonable without assigning any reason '2. In order to appreciate the question of law referred above, we would state the facts in brief. Shri Manilal Shivlal along with bis brother was a partner in the firm, Chandulal Jagjivandas & Co., Bhawani Mandi, Kota (hereinafter referred to as the 'firm'). This firm was the sole distributor of a well-reputed brand of bidis manufactured by M/s. Mohanlal Har Govind Das of Jabalpur for substantial part of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, though there was no specific agency to that effect in favour of the firm. Originally, the share of Manilal Shivlal in the firm was 75% but from 1...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Lila Brothers
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: [1987]64STC372(Raj); 1985(2)WLN344
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1.This Court by its order dated September 20, 1977, passed in D.B. Civil Sales Tax Reference No. 236 of 1976 (Commercial Taxes Officer, Sriganganagar v. Lila Brothers), directed the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' herein) to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this Court: 1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that discs, harrows, cultivators, disc-harrows and offset harrows are agricultural implements and are covered under entry 8(b) of the Schedule of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and exempt from tax 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that the nut-bolts, hose pipes, hose clips, lift chains and tiller shovels are tractor parts and not motor parts and liable to be taxed at the rate of 2 per cent only 2. It appears from the order dated September 20, 1977, that previously reference was called on a q...
Rai Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN707
Jas Raj Chopra, JJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated November 12, 1980 whereby the learned lower court has held accused Raichand and Girdhari guilty of the offence under Sub-section 147, 302/149 IPC whereas it has held accused Bhiya Ram, Arjunram and Asuram guilty of the offence under Sub-sections 148 and 302/ 149 IPC Accused Girdhari and Raichand have been sentenced to 4 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- each for the offence under Section 147 IPC whereas accused Shivaram, Arjunram and Asuram have been sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- each for the offence under Section 148 IPC. All the accused persons have been sentenced to life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 100/- each for the offenee under Section 302/149 IPC and in default to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The story of the prosecution as disclosed in the FIR Ex. P. 1 is that on June 25, 1979, the...
Ami Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)580
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 28-6-1980 Ex. 4 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue (Ceiling), Government of Rajasthan under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Petitioner is resident of village Gilwala, Tehsil Tibi, District Sri Ganganagar. On enforcement of the Act, the Authorised Officer after holding a detailed enquiry under the provisions of the Act and Rules held that the petitioner was holding 224 bighas, 8 biswas of land. He further held that the petitioner had 8 members in his family and after giving adjustment to the land to which he was entitled to hold, he had 122 bighas, 8 biswas of land as surplus and as such the same may be resumed.3. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Addl. Collector, Ganganagar and he accepted the appeal in part and rejected the rest of the appeal vide his judgment dated 14-9-1976. The Ad...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Bikaner Gypsum Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC264(Raj); 1985(2)WLN351
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' herein), has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court, which is said to arise out of its order dated 7th August, 1979, passed in Special Appeal No. 1/9/76 Bikaner :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the work of excavating gypsum from the earth involves a manufacturing process?2. The non-petitioner, M/s. Bikaner Gypsum Limited, Bikaner (assessee), was engaged in the work of excavating gypsum. For this purpose, it bought spare parts, machinery and other equipments, tyres and tubes against declaration in form S.T. 17 saying that the aforesaid goods were required for manufacturing and mining. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jodhpur, by his order, dated 22nd March, 1968, held that the non-petitioner (assessee) is not a manufacturer and under Section 6C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1964 (Act No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act' hereinafter), purcha...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Kanhayalal Mohanlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1985
Reported in: [1985]64STC449(Raj); 1985(2)WLN722
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This Court, by its order dated November 15, 1979, passed in D.B. Sales Tax Case No. 25 of 1979, directed the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short 'the Board'), to state the case and refer the following question of law for its opinion :Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that even though the default on the part of the dealer under Rule 25C was established, yet it only constituted a technical breach and may be overlooked ?2. The question is said to arise out of the order dated March 14, 1978, passed in Special Appeal No. 121/74/ST/Pali, which the Board refused to do by its order dated November 15, 1978. The reference was pending on May 1, 1985, the date on which the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. 20 of 1984) (for short 'the Amendment Act'), came into force. According to Section 13(11) of the Amendment Act, this reference has been treated and heard as a revision under Section 15...
Gulam Mohammed Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)381
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order Ann. 2 dated 14-12-1982 whereby petitioner's services were sought to be dispensed with in terms of standing order 13. Petitioner was serving in the Corporation as a Conductor and his appointment was temporary in nature. Mr. Shreemali appearing for the petitioner submits that this case is squarely covered by the decision given in Bhanwarlal v. RSRTC AIR 1984 Raj. 619. Mr. Munshi appearing for the respondent submits that the standing order 13 has not been struck out as a whole but first part of it has only been struck out. Since the petitioner is not a permanent employee, he cannot get any benefit of striking down the first part of the standing order 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that apart from this, petitioner has not been retrenched in terms of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to Section 25G last come should be sent first but that has not been done. But no such l...
Vijai Singh Mehta Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)409
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that by an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may be directed to pay the entire gratuity and provident fund amount as well as sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation for depriving the petitioner for use of the amount. The petitioner further sought a direction that the petitioner may be paid interest at rare of 18 per cent on the amount from the date this amount became due to the petitioner.2. The petitioner was an employee of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (here in after referred as 'the Bank') till he was discharged from the service after disciplinary proceedings by order dated 6th May, 1980. The petitioner challenged this order of discharge from service by filing writ petition but that writ petition was dismissed on 15th April, 1984.3. Soon after discharge from service the petitioner made an application to the Managing Director on 24th December, 1980 praying that provident fund and grat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »