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.
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Bisoda Salt Works
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-03-1985
Reported in: [1986]62STC222(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board'), has referred the following question of law for the opinion to this Court in pursuance of the order dated 5th July, 1979, passed in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, 'C Ward, Makrana v. Bisoda Salt Works, Nawa (District Nagaur) (D. B. Civil Sales Tax Case No. 73 of 1978 decided on 5th July, 1979):Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Central sales tax is leviable on gunny bags in which salt is sold by the assessee ?2. The assessee, M/s. Bisoda Salt Works, Nawa (District Nagaur), is non-petitioner No. 1. It is a partnership firm. It carries business of salt. The salt was sold by the dealer-assessee after packing it in gunny bags in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. The assessing authority assessed the sale of gunny bags for the period 1966-67 at Rs. 52,000 and levied Central sales tax at 2 per cent on the sales, amounting to Rs. 1,270.75 up to 30th June, 1966, and at 3 per cent there...
Mansoor Ali Vs. Legal Representatives of Late Allah Bux
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-03-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)417
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff's Mansoor Ali and others filed a suit against the defendant Allah Bux for possession of the property described in para No. 2 of the plaint and for damages alleging that this property was a part of a larger property described in para 1 of the plaint which at one time, belonged to one Smt. Rahniat Bai and she created a Wakf of the property described in para 1 of the plaint in favour of Daudi Boharas, Nathdwara for their masjid and madrasa, etc., by a registered document dated 1-8-1953 and has given them possession over it. Their case further was that thereafter on 7-8-1953, Smt. Rahmat Bai took two shops and tahkhana below them on rent from the Wakf at Rs. 5/- p.m. by a rent note of that date. Term No. 11 of the said rent note provided for that the lease would be for a term of 30 years and if she expired before the expiration of this term, her heirs and successors would not be entitled to...
Pukh Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-03-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)321
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. The appellant Pukh Raj, was convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC, for having murdered his own son, Neerkareshwar @ Buliya, aged about 20-22 years, on 24-7-1974 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo further sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, by his judgment, dated April 16, 1975.2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that the deceased Buliya, was considered as a habitual thief. He was also considered to have committed theft at the house of his own maternal grand aunt Smt. Chandramani, PW 14, therefore, slept at the house of the neighbour of her mother Kanibai, just to see as to whether the deceased commits theft there or not. In the morning of 24-7-74, she along with Sohan Lal, the son-in-law of the accused, went to the house of Kanibai and found the accused in-side the house. On the door being knocked, it was opened and it was fo...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Rajmata Smt. Geeta Kumari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: [1987]163ITR570(Raj)
Mehta, J.1. This D.B. wealth-tax reference application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the assessment year 1970-71 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in WTA No. 313/JP/1979, dated August 8, 1981, has been preferred before this court. Earlier, the Tribunal was moved to make a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, but the Tribunal declined to make a reference, vide its order dated January 29, 1980 (sic).2. The return of net wealth was due to be filed on or before June 30, 1970, but it was filed on November 15, 1971. Proceedings were initiated by the Wealth-tax Officer under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Wealth-tax Officer was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee and levied penalty of Rs. 19,144 under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act An appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the Wealth-tax Of...
Rohtas Industries Limited Vs. Judge, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN774
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated January 23, 1981 in Civil Writ Petition No. 1864/1984.2. Bichhu Ram & Shersingh (here in after referred to as ('the respondents') filed a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') against M/s Rohtas Industies Ltd. (here in after referred to as the appellant before the Labour Court, Jaipur. The case of the respondents before the Labour Court was that they had joined service with the appellant in the year 1970 and 1974. In accordance with the settlement arrived at between the appellant and M/s Rohtas Industries Labour Union on December, 5 1976, bonus ex-gratia was allowed to be paid to the workmen @ 17 per cent of the total wage earned during the years 1977 and 1978. As the above bonus ex-gratia was not paid to the respondents as such Bichu Ram nude a claim of Rs. 867/- and Sher Singh made a claim of Rs. 393.72....
Nachhattar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN625
Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. After the conclusion of the arguments, we had pronounced the following order on October 22, 1984:Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor, we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence punishable Under Section 302, IPC against the appellant Nachhattarsingh. Hence the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to Nachhattar Singh by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingnagar dated July 2, 1981, are set aside. Nachhattar Singh appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302, IPC. He may be released fortwith, if not required in any other case. We shall give reasons for our order later on.2. Accused No. 5 Mst. Chhindrakawar and accused No. 4 Mst. Balwantkaur are sister and mother of accused-appellant Nachhattarsingh and daughter and wife of Gurdeosingh. Deceased Smt. Sukhvendrakaur was the wife of Nachhattarsingh, and daughter of Najarsingh. Smt. Su...
Gopi Chand Vs. Komal Khand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)738
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken by Shri P.D. Mathur, the learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents that since the sole plaintiff Gopi Chand expired in March, 1977, the suit for pre-emption cannot survive and the legal representatives cannot continue it.2. It is not disputed that the sole plaintiff Gopi Chand has expired in 1977 when this appeal was pending. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time, when the cause of action for this suit arose, there were no statutory law for pre-emption in the form of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act. It is also common ground that even though there was no statutory law of pre-emption yet in the former Jaipur State, the custom of pre-emption used to prevail, based on the Mohammedan Law. It is also common ground that this custom of pre-emption based on the Mohammadan Law was later on modified by a notification of 1927.3. It is also common ground that both the lower courts have dismissed the suit for pre-emption o...
All India Itdc Employees Union Vs. the India Tourism Dev. Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)570
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 20-11-84 (Ex.4) whereby the provisions of the Employees, Insurance Act, 1948 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') has been made applicable to the petitioner.2. Petitioner is unit of the All India ITDC Employee's Union affiliated to AITUC which is a registered body under the Trade Union Act and it has units at the various places of India running hostels, transport units and entertainments etc. Petitioner is the representative body of the employees of ITDC which foster for the interests, co-operation and betterment of its members so as to protect their service conditions.3. The employees of this Union are working in one of the hostel of the Corporation known as Laxmi Vilas Palace Hotel, Udaipur. Out of the total strength of 51 employees working in this hotel, 31 employees hail from places out side and therefore free medical aid to all the employees and their dependents was given to the...
J.K. Tyre Employees Union and anr. Vs. J.K. Industries Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)329
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 2 was employed as workman by the respondent No. 1. He was charge sheeted on 28th January, 1982. Similar charge sheets were also served on four other persons by the respondent No. 1. A joint domestic enquiry was held against the petitioner and all the four incumbents. After the conclusion of the enquiry the petitioner No. 2 was punished with dismissal from service. The order of dismissal was also passed in the case of R.K. Pandey and Kanhaiyalal but two other persons namely Arjun Lal Khatik and K.L. Masani were not dismissed from service. An industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner No. 1 resulting in reference by the Government of Rajasthan. The Labour Court after hearing both the parties found that the domestic enquiry was in accordance with law and held the petitioner guilty of charges. Thereafter the Labour Court heard the parties on the question of quantum of punishment. The Labour Court after hearing ...
Varia Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)543
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated the 12th July, 1985 of the Sessions Judge, Jalore, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 395 IPC to 6 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to one month's simple imprisonment, under Section 458 IPC to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to one month's simple imprisonment and under Section 324 IPC to one year's rigorous imprisonment. All the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The case relates to the incident which took place on the intervening right of November 27 and 28, 1983 at the Sanchore Automobile Petrol Pump belonging to Shri Mishrimal of Sanchore and also at the octroi outpost of Sanchore. It is alleged that on the night of incident, at about 1.30 a.m., seven persons came to the Petrol Pump with axe, knife and lathies. Four of them entered the cabin by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›