Rajasthan Court April 1985 Judgments
Devichand Bastimal and Bhanwarlal Manakchand Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1985
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Raj)43; [1985]156ITR166(Raj); 1985(1)WLN616
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Both these references were heard together and it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common order, for, the arguments in both the references are identical.2. We may first notice the facts leading to Reference No. 9 of 1977 : The assessee is a registered firm. The previous year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 ended on Diwali 1971. The asseessee derived income from agricultural commodities and adat. For the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, the assessee filed returns declaring an income of Rs. 85,150 and Rs. 94,580, respectively. The assessee, inter alia, claimed messing expenses to the tune of Rs. 4,500 and Rs. 4,800 for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, respectively. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) was of the view that the expenses were in the nature of entertainment and, as such, in view of Section 37(2B) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (No. XLIII of 1961) ('the Act' herein), the aforesaid claim could not be allowed. On appeal, the A AC, vide order d...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN186
M.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition involves a question of interpretation of the provisions contained in Sections 10, 12 and 16 of the Rajasthan Lands & Buildings Tax Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') and Rules 8, and 11 of the Rajasthan Land & Building Tax Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules'). The Assistant Director, Lands and Buildings Tax, Jodhpur, respondent No. 4 assessed the property of the petitioner Mohanlal and his brother Kanhaiya Lal for the assessment years, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. In the order sheet order was passed on 3-6-1976. The order sheet bears the signatures of the petitioner Mohanlal. The order was subsequently drawn up in the prescribed form and that order was not served on the petitioner but it said to have been served on one Vishnudutt alleged to be the son of the petitioner as per the report of the Process Server which has been denied by the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that Vishnudutt is not his son. According to the petitioner a stranger o...
Tag this Judgment!Sabal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN581
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. Since these two appeals one by the State and the other by the convicted persons are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra dated December 20, 1979, they were heard together and are decided by the single judgment. By the judgment aforesaid, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Sawai Singh and convicted and sentenced the four appellants as under:S. No. Name of accused Under Sections Sentence imposed(1) Sabal Singh 302, 302/149 IPC Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months rigorous imprisonment 148 IPC Two years rigorous imprisionment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further under go six months like imprisonment(2) Sagat Singh 302/149 IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in defult of the payment of fine to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment 147 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and...
Tag this Judgment!Sabia and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)658
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 449 Cr. PC against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, dated October 17, 1984 whereby he ordered the recovery of Rs. 3000/- from the appellants Sabia and Kana each. The appellants had given surety bonds for the appearance of the accused Sabia who had been released on bail. The accused absented himself and therefore, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr. PC were drawn. Notice was issued to the appellants but they did not choose to file rely, as a result of which the learned Judge ordered the forfeiture of the entire amount of the surety bonds. The accused Sabia was apprehended by the sureties and was taken to police chowki, Paliyada where from he was produced before the court under arrest. Besides this, Sabia after trial has already been acquitted on August 6,1984 and in these circumstances the appellants having given their full support in securing the presence of the accused ought to have been dealt with leniently. Thi...
Tag this Judgment!Hukam Chand Vs. Madan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Raj69; 1985(2)WLN60
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. The only question which arises in this revision petition is as to whether the defence against eviction of the defendant has been rightly struck off by the learned Civil Judge, Jhalawar.2. The facts in controversy are that arrears of rent up to Jan. 30, 1981 along with interest thereon were determined by the trial Court on Jan. 20, 1981. The tenant was allowed three months' time to make payment of the arrears of rent so determined. The rent for the month of Feb. and March 1981 was payable on or before the 15th of March and 15th of April 1981 respectively. The tenant not only paid the arrears of rent as determined by the Court, but also rent for the months of Feb. and Mar. on April 20, 1981. The plaintiff-landlord accepted the amount. Thereafter on the next day i.e. April 21, 1981, the landlord filed an application under Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for striking...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Mercantile Co. (Private) Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Raj)128; [1986]158ITR41(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These two reference applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (for short 'the Act' herein), have been filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Appellate Tribunal'), to state the case and refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court which are said to arise out of the Appellate Tribunal's order dated February 19, 1979 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the mistake corrected by the successor-Income-tax Officer was not covered by the provisions of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the issue involved in this case was debatable ?' 2. These two reference applications relate to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The assessee-respondent is a private limited compa...
Tag this Judgment!SaiffuddIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1985
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Raj)197; [1985]156ITR127(Raj); 1985(2)WLN685
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court;' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on the true interpretation of Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the inclusion of the entire income from property in the hands of the assessee, Shri Saiffuddin ?'2. The assessee, Saiffuddin, is an individual. The assessment years in question are 1971-72 and 1972-73. The sources of income of the assessee are from the house property and share income from M/s Khan Mohd. Katha Trading Co. and M/s Mohd, Hussain Anwar AH. The assessee purchased a plot on which, subsequently, Park View Hotel was constructed, for Rs. 53,200 from the U.I.T., Udaipur, in the financial year 1963-64. He withdrew the aforesaid sums in four equal instalments of Rs. 13,300 from M/s. Khan Mohd. Katha Trading Co. on December 18, 1963, April 8, 1964, Novemb...
Tag this Judgment!Samast Panch Kaum Helan Vs. Jameel Mohammed and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN211
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated July 20, 1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Udaipur by which the application of non-petitioner No. 35, Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board') dated August 10, 1979 praying for being impleaded as party to the proceedings was allowed.2. On March 27, 1977 a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code',) was filed for rendition of accounts, declaration, perpetual injunction and possession of seven shops situated outside the Masjid Kaum Helau (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Masjid') by Samast Panch Kaum Helan, Udaipur through the petitioners against the non-petitioners No. 1 to 34 on the ground that non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 Jameel Mohd. and Shafi Mohd. were realising the rent of those seven shops without any authority and they were neither giving amount of the rent nor were entrus...
Tag this Judgment!Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. Gulab Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN365
S.S. Byas, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity 'the Act' here in after) has been preferred against an award of the Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated December 7, 1981, by which the appellants (driver and owner of the bus) were directed to pay sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation to the claimants.2. The claimants are the parents, widow and minor daughters of the deceased-victim Sultansingh. They presented an application under Section 110-A of the Act against the appellants and the insurer, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation. The averments disclosed in the application are that at about 10.30 A.M. on January 25, 1978, Sultan Singh was going on a bicycle from Paota square to Sojati Gate. He was on the extreme left edge of the road. While he was proceeding on the bicycle, mini-bus No. RSQ 8851 came from behind, Appellant Arjun singh was driving it at that time. He was driving it so rashly and negligently that it knocked down Sultansingh...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Indra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN199
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur on February 21, 1983.2. One B.K. Sharma, husband of the claimant Suit. Indra Sharma met an accident on January 28, 1980 caused by Matador No. RRQ 4287 belonging to the University of Jodhpur, driven by Madan Singh Driver and insured with the appellant, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Company,). On January 29, 1980 B.K. Sharma succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. His wife Smt. Indra Sharma filed a claim of Rs. 9,32,460/- before the Claims Tribunal against the owner of the Matador, its driver and the appellant Company with which the vehicle was insured. The Claims Tribunal gave on award of Rs. 72,000/-in favour of Smt. Indra Sharma and against the aforesaid three non-petitioners.3. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the Company has filed the appeal in this Court.4. At the commencement of the arguments Mr. R.R. Nagori, le...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »