Rajasthan Court December 1985 Judgments
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Shiv NaraIn Ram Narain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1985
Reported in: [1987]66STC373(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. At the instance of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Chittorgarh, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' herein) has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court, which are said to arise out of its order dated June 21, 1977 :(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the explanation to Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax rules, the second proviso to Section 2(s) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act is attracted in respect of the turnover of gum not resold within the State as per the declarations given in form S.T. 17 ?(ii) Whether the only remedy open to the department following the use of form S.T. 17 for a purpose other than that declared was to proceed under Section 16(1)(k) ?(iii) Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that no tax was payable by the dealer because of the provisions of Section 5A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ?2. The regular assessments of the dealer-assessee (respondents) in res...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and anr. Vs. Vijay Singh Mehta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN65
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated October 15, 1985, whereby he directed the appellant-Bank to determine the amount of provident fund and gratuity within a period of four months from the said date and pay the same to the petitioner. It was further ordered that the petitioner is entitled to the interest at rate of 13 per cent from August 7, 1980 i.e. after three months from the date of his discharge, and he is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 5000/- for being delayed the payment of provident fund and gratuity and he is further entitled to costs of Rs. 2000/-.2. The petitioner was an Officer in the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (for short 'the Bank') till he was discharged from the service by order dated May 6, 1980 after disciplinary action. That order was challenged by the petitioner by a writ petition but the writ petition was dismissed on April 15, 1984 and the special appeal against the order of ...
Tag this Judgment!T.C. JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN703
ORDER, 1974--Suspension of Sarpanch--Incident of 1978--No charge framed--Adjournments sought to produce record for last 7 years--Held, it is highly unjust to punish an elected Sarpanch by suspeding him in such old matterThe incident relates to 1978 and challan was filed in 1980 and since March 25,1981 till at least upto April 29, 1985, the Assistant Public Prosecutor sought adjournments for producing the record. It is highly unreasonable and unjust to punish a person for no fault on his part and to suspend him in respect of such an old matter when he has been elected as Sarpanch by a democratic process.Writ AllowedNarendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. The case of the petitioner is that he was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Phagi District Jaipur in the elections held in the month of December, 1981. After the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch in December, 1981, he was continuously holding the said post of Sarpanch. The case of the petitioner further is that he belongs to Bhartiya Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Social Work and Research Centre, Banswara and anr. Vs. State of Rajast ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Raj26; 1986(1)WLN297
ORDERS.N. Bhargava, J.1. Mrs. Srilata Swaminathan, petitioner 2 had sent a letter dt. 17th April, 1985 addressed to Justice Mr. G. M. Lodha. Justice Lodha treated that letter as a writ petition and ordered that it should be registered as such. He also admitted the same and ordered that the notices be issued to the State of Rajasthan, Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Special Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan (Special Schemes Organisation), Jaipur, Commissioner for Tribal Areas and Director, Social Welfare. Justice Lodha further requested Justice Mr. B. L. Mehta, Chairman, Legal Aid Board to provide financial legal aid by engaging a counsel for this matter.2. The Chairman of the Legal Aid Board did not sanction any financial legal aid to the petitioners. Mr. C. K. Garg, Senior Advocate offered his services voluntarily to help the petitioners without charging any fees and so, he was appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioners. Shri C. K. Garg filed a deta...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur Vs. Dr. Madan P. Joshi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Raj33; 1986(1)WLN53
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. This is an appeal by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi dt. 20-5-1974 whereby the learned lower Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent against the defendant appellant for a sum of Rs. 515/- with proportionate costs.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that plaintiff Dr. Madan P. Joshi filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 11,000/- as damages on the allegation that the defendant Board wrongfully disconnected his electric supply. The plaintiff has a farm at village Sewadi where he installed electric motor and pumping set. When he applied for the power connection, he gave his residential address of Bali for submission of the bills. However, the bill for the month of June, 1968 was delivered at Sewadi on 18-7-1968 and the due date for payment mentioned therein was 20-7-1968 only. In this bill a sum of Rs. 92.29 was added on account of pas...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ganga Devi and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1985
Reported in: [1987]166ITR325(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These thirteen references before us involve common questions and so, they were heard together and it will be convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment.2. For proper appreciation, we may notice the facts leading to DBWT Reference No. 27 of 1977 (Smt. Ganga Devi v. CWT) in which the Tribunal has made a consolidated reference in respect of the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74.3. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' herein), has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, read with the relevant rules, the Tribunal was right in holding that the agricultural lands belonged to the firm and that exemption under Section 5(1)(iva) ought to be given effect to while working out the net wealth of the firm in accordance with Rule 2 and that the agri...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN339
Suresh Chander Agrawal J.1. This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner Prakash Gwalera who claims to be the husband of Rachna, the daughter of Shri Phool Chand Kalal, respondent No. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that Rachna is being illegally detained under the order dated 9th October, 1985 passed by the Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kota (South), respondent No. 2, and it has been prayed that Rachna be ordered to be set free and the order dated 9th October, 1985 passed by respondent No. 2 be quashed.2. According to the averments contained in the writ petition the said Rachna is 19 years of age and that she left the house of her father on her own accord on 6th September, 1985 and that the petitioner and Rachna were married according to the Hindu rites in the Arya Samaj at Ajmer on 16th Sept., 1985. In the petition it has also been stated that on 8th September, 1985 respondent No. 3 lodged a report at police station Kotwali Kota sta...
Tag this Judgment!Puran Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1985
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)751
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. A tiny village girl of 8 years was literally in a pool of blood on account of the forcible sexual intercourse by accused Puran. Yet the prayer by the learned Counsel for the appellant is for releasing him on probation or giving benefit of the Children Act.2. Fairly enough Mr. Soral, learned Counsel for the appellant, has not entered into the controversy about the facts of rape. His anxiety is that Puran must as treated be a child and then released on probation. Mr. Soral, learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the provisions of Rajasthan Children Act, and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satto v. The State of U.P. : 1979CriLJ943 ).3. A child has been defined under the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 here in after called as the Act, 1970 to mean a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years. Section 21 provides that when a child commits an offence then either he may be sent to special school or may be allowed to go home after advice or admon...
Tag this Judgment!Gotilal Bhonrilal Vs. C.T.O.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1985
Reported in: [1987]63STC78(Raj)
Mal Lodha, J.1. These 7 applications before us have been filed by the dealer-assessee under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954), for short ('the Act' herein), for a direction to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board'), to state the case and refer the questions of law arising out of its common order dated 2nd March, 1979, passed in 7 revisions. These applications were pending on 1st May, 1985, when the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. 20 of 1984) ('the Amendment Act'), had come into force. According to Section 13(10) of the Amendment Act, these applications are deemed to be applications for revision under Section 15 of the principal Act as substituted by the Amendment Act. We have heard them as revisions and propose to dispose them as such.2. The accounting years involved in these cases are 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1969-70 and 1970-71. The assessing authority levied purchase tax on ajwayan, sua, methi and pop...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jago Bai and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)539
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the orders of the Board of Revenue dated the 25th November, 1983 and 3rd February, 1984, marked Anxs. 5 & 6. respectively. It is not necessary to give in detail the narration of the facts as the writ petition involves only a short question of limitation.2. In a suit filed by Bhirva Bai, respondent No. 4 for partition, a preliminary decree was passed on March 27, 1978, by the Assistant Collector (Revenue), Shri Karanpur. Against the judgment of Assistant Collector, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue the Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed by the judgment dated 21st November, 1978. The petitioners then filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was admitted, but at the stage of final hearing a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents and the Board treated the revision as an appeal under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955, here in after referred to as 'the Act',...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »