Rajasthan Court April 1985 Judgments
Rampuria Ice Factory Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1985
Reported in: 1985(6)ECC204
G.M. Mal Lodha, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioner, whose writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed vide judgment dated July 10, 1978, by the learned single Judge of this Court, has filed this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. 2. The petitioner-appellant Rampuria Ice Factory ('the Company') is a public limited company under the Companies Act. Its registered office is situate near Power House, Bikaner. The main object of the company is to manufacture, produce and process the goods and in doing so, it has to freeze water, milk or other similar goods meaning thereby that the main business of the company is to manufacture different commodities by freezing and converting water, milk or other such substances into slabs. The Rajasthan State Electricity Duty Act, 1962, (Rajasthan Act No. 12 of 1962) (for short 'the Act') came into force from May 21, 1962. Section 3(3) of the Act empowers the State Government to reduce or remit the electr...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Sahay Vs. Madan Lal (Died) Now Represented by Lrs. Niranjan Lal ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN131
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment & decree passed by the first appellate court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for possession with costs which was decreed by the trial court.2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for possession in respect of the disputed Surang and Chabutra measuring 14' x 5' x 2' x 5' shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint, situated at Govindgrah. According to him, he is the owner and in possession of the disputed Surang and Chabutra which is a part and parcel of his house, being used as a passage to his house. The plaintiff is residing at Alwar and, therefore, in his absence the denfendant No. 1 in the month of April, 1962 took illegal possession of the Chabutra and Surang and ultimately refused to vacate it on 9-9-65 inspite of verbal protest and notice delivered to him and on the contrary set up the title of defendant No. 2 regarding the disputed Chabutra and surang, in his reply and he wrongly sho...
Tag this Judgment!Damo Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Raj230; 1985(2)WLN182
Kasuwal, J.1. The accused Damo submitted a second bail application under Section 389, Cr. P.C. in S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 512/1984. Learned Public Prosecutor placing reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Ramju v. State of Rajasthan, (1985) 1 WLN 57 raised an objection that the Court cannot pass an order for an early hearing of the above appeal. Learned single Judge referred the following question for decision by a larger bench :--'Whether the law laid down in Ramju v. State (supra) admits of no exception and fetters the discretion of a Judge in ordering a case to be listed at an early date even though the case involves a shorter sentence and can be disposed of in a considerable shorter period.?'In these circumstances, the matter has come before us for considering the correctness of the decision given in Ramju's case (supra).2. In Ramju's case (supra) third bail application was moved by the accused-petitioner which came up for consideration before the Division Benc...
Tag this Judgment!Jeewa Ram and ors. Vs. Madan Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN565
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The three petitioners have challenged the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner dated 21-12-82 by which he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 166 and 382 I.P.C. against them.2. The facts giving rise to this application briefly stated are as under: Non-petitioner No. 1, Madan Lal is a licensee of a piece of land near the temple of Shri Ratan Behariji Hanumanji in Bikaner, under the Municipal Council, Bikaner. He filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 5-1-82 that he had placed wooden stall with iron shutter on this piece of land and was running a cycle shop there, however, the Municipal Council and the UIT, Bikaner without following the rules of 'Teh-bazari' and without affording any opportunity of being heard, issued a notice to him directing him to remove the aforesaid stall. He thereupon filed a suit for injunction against the Municipal Council and the UIT and obtained a temporary injunction against them on 30-...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bhagwati Devi Vs. Jai Prakash Vishwakarma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN49
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent on the ground of default and personal & reasonable bonafide necessity, which was decreed by the trial court but, dismissed by the first appellate court. The plaintiff Smt. Bhagwati Devi w/o Madan Mohan purchased the disputed property from Chhitar and Dayal sons of Nanu. The defendant respondent was tenant of Chhittar and Dayal.2. Smt. Bhagwati then filed a civil suit for eviction on the ground of default and bonafide necessity,3. Jai Prakash, the defendant respondent, in his written statement, admitted that the plaintiff Bhagwati Devi was Landlord (landlady).4. In para 4 of the written statement, it was alleged by the defendant that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is illegal as the same alleges to have been given by Smt. Bhagwati Devi while it should have been given by both the landlords viz Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Shri Madan Mohan. This admission was further rei...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Gupta Vs. University of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN346
Dwarka Prasad Gupta J.1. As this writ petition involves a very short question, main writ petition was taken up for hearing today with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner appeared at the Second Year T.D.C. Science Examination held in the first week of June, 1983. On June 7, 1983 when the examination of Physics first paper was being conducted, a Flying Squad of the University of Rajasthan entered the Examination Hall and asked the candidate to hand over papers and other incriminating articles in their possession. The petitioner handed over to the members of the Flying Squad a piece of paper, which according to him, was inadvertently kept in the pocket of his trousers. The members of the Flying Squad took the paper and made a report that a hand written paper was recovered from the right hand pocket of the trousers of the petitioner. This statement was corroborated by the Centre Superintendent, who made an additional observation that the behaviour of the candid...
Tag this Judgment!Sher Mohammed S/O Niyaz Mohammed Vs. Roshan D/O Annees Rehman
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1985
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)58
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. An order fixing a monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/- to Smt. Roshan was passed against her husband Shri Sher Mohd. by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Salumber, on 3-6-1982. As the amount was not paid, the non-petitioner Smt. Roshan made an application under Section 125(3) Cr. PC before the learned Magistrate on 10-12-1982 and on that very day, the learned Magistrate issued a warrant for the recovery of the amount, namely, a sum of Rs. 6,600/-. The warrant was returned unserved on 3-1-1983, where upon the learned Magistrate directed proceedings under Section 217. IPC and Section 2, Police Act against the S.H.O concerned and at the same time, he further directed the attachment of the salary of the petitioner Sher Mohd. for the recovery of the aforesaid sum and directed the warrant to be sent through S.P. Udaipur. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioner Sher Mohd. filed a revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Udaipur. A letter order of the learned Magis...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1985
Reported in: [1986]157ITR444(Raj)
S.K. Mallodha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (' the Tribunal '), has referred the following two questions for the decision of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the messing expenses of Rs. 2,055 incurred by the assessee for providing meals to the directors is business expenditure laid out wholly for the business and are not in the nature of entertainment expenses within the meaning of Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act and are allowable for the assessment year 1972-73?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenses of Rs. 7,567 incurred by the company in providing tea, cold drinks, etc., to its customers, in reception of the Chief Minister and the Industries Minister and entertainment of guests are not in the nature of entertainment expenses within the m...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)119
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. By his judgment dated April 16, 1980, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Hanumangarh convicted the accused Mahendra Singh under Sections 302 and 450, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- on the first count and five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- on the second Count. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused has come-up in appeal to challenge his conviction.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, which in short and simple, is as follows: Aduram Kumbhkar aged about 40 years the deceased-victim in the case was living with his wife Mst. Parmeshwari(PWl) in the Dhani he had raised in the field situate in Mauja Surewala P.S. Tibi district Ganganagar. The accused is also a resident of the same village. In the forenoon of Oct. 20, 1974, Aduram went with Jaggasingh (PW 7) to village Surewala in order to get his motor-bearing repaired. Accused Mahendra Singh met them in the village. He asked Adu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhoormal Chittarmal (Cotton)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1985
Reported in: [1986]158ITR751(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, has submitted an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (' the Tribunal '), to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court which are said to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated June 21, 1979:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law to hold that the loss of Rs. 12,865 claimed by the assessee was not a share of loss from an unregistered firm or an association of persons and that the departmental authorities were not right in disallowing the loss ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not disallowing the aforesaid loss of Rs. 12,865 on the ground that it pertained to the preceding year and not to the assessment year 1970-71 ' 2. The assess...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »