Rajasthan Court May 1985 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Chunnilal Tak
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Raj)62; [1986]160ITR617(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred to the following question 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 difference of Rs. 20,967 between the guaranteed amount and the actual purchase of country liquor was allowable as a trading loss in the computation of the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1968-69? '2. We may succinctly state the facts. The non-petitioner is a Hindu undivided family. The source of income of the assessee, amongst others, is from purchase and sale of country liquor. It did not maintain accounts for its business. It declared purchases of 7,556 litres of country liquor of the value of Rs. 56,791. The assessee worked out its profit by adopting a rate of Rs. 1.50 per gallon, which came to Rs. 2,550. Against the amount of the net profit, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chunni Lal Tak
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN32
Shrikishan Mal Lodha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (here in after referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that he difference of Rs. 20,967/- between the guaranteed amount and the actual purchase of country liquor was allowable as a trading loss in the computation of the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1968-69 ?We may succinctly state the facts. The non-petitioner is a Hindu Undivided Family. The source of income of the assessee amongst others, is from purchase and sale of the country liquor. It did not maintain the accounts for its business. It declared purchases of 7556 litres of country liquor of the value of Rs. 56,791/-. The assessee worked out its profit by adopting at rate of 1.50 per gallon, which came to Rs. 2550/-. Against the amount of the net profit, the assessee claimed a sum of...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nathi and anr. Vs. Magan Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN607
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Magan Lal respondent No. 1 (since dead) filed a suit under Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966 (here in after to be referred as 'the Act') regarding his right for purchase of a house sold by appellants No. 1 and 2 to respondent No. 3. Magan Lal succeeded in that suit and it was held that he had a right of pre-emption regarding the suit property. Against that judgment the vendors-respondents No. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal in this Court. During the pendency of appeal Magan Lal expired on January 19, 1983. On April 20, 1983 Mr. Arjun Lal Mehta, Counsel for the appellants filed on application under Order 22, Rule 4 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (here in after to be referred as 'the Code') with a prayer that as Maganlal had died on Jan. 19, 1983 his legal representatives, mentioned in the application, be substituted in his place. It was also mentioned in the application that it may be treated as an application to set aside the abatement of the appeal. On July 4, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Limited and anr. Vs. Late Manak Lal T ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)227
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. In this revision petition the petitioners have challenged the legality of the judgment dated January 11, 1985 passed by the learned Civil Judge cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur by which the order dated March 30, 1983 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, City, Jodhpur regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit filed by late Manak Lal, whose legal representatives respondents Nos. 1/1, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 are, was set aside.2. Manak Lal had filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, City, Jodhpur against five defendants including the two petitioners and non-petitioner No. 4. The plaint averments were that the plaintiff had obtained a draft from Bank of Baroda, Sojatigate Branch, Jodhpur for Rs. 2500/- in the name of Shah Shantilal Roopchand Cloth Merchant and Commission Agent, 18/20 Javeri Bazar, Teejamata, Bombay-2 in the name of defendant No. 4 Bank of Baroda, Sir P.M. Road, Branch Bombay. Defend...
Tag this Judgment!Amir Ahmed Vs. Yusuf
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN550
S.K. Lodha, J.1. This reference raises the question regarding construction of the expression 'parted with possession' contained in Section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control) of Rent and Eviction) Act, (No. XVII of 1950) ('the Act' here in).2. A learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following questions for consideration by a Division Bench of this Court:(1) Whether a tenant, who allows another person to use the premises or part of the premises can be said to have 'parted with possession of the premises part of the premises' so as to entail the liability of eviction Under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act?(2) Whether conversion of exclusive possession of the premises by the tenant into a joint possession of the premises by the tenant and a third person constitutes parting with possession Under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act?(3) Whether the decision in Bhagwat Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad and Anr. 1969 WLN 351 in so far it holds that a tenant, by sharing the premises with a thir...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)125
S.S. Byas, J.1. Accused Nathusingh was convicted Under Section 302, IPC for committing the murder of his wife Mst. Dariyab Kanwar and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs 1000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, vide his judgment dated Dec. 7, 1979. The accused has come-up in appeal to challenge his conviction.2. Stated in succinct, the prosecution case is that Mst. Dariyab Kanwar and her son Gangasingh (PW 1), aged about 19 years, were sleeping in the open court-yard of their house in village Thanwla P.S. Ahore district Jalore in the intervening night of June 27/28, 1979. At about 3.00 or 3.30 A.M., Gangasingh awoke on bearing some noise. He got up and saw blood oozing out from the head injury of his mother Mst. Dariyab Kanwar and his father (accused Nathusingh) standing by her with an axe in his hand. The accused struck one more blow on the head of Mst. Dariyab Kanwar. Gang...
Tag this Judgment!Harbans Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN63
Suresh Chander Sharma, J.1. Harbans Singh the petitioner in this writ petition, is employed in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). After his selection for the post of Sub Inspector Gr. II he joined for initial training on 1st April, 1965 and after completion of the training he was appointed as Sub Inspector Gr. II in the Armed Wing Branch by the order of the Chief Security Officer dated 30th April, 1966. He was promoted as Sub-Inspector Gr. I with effect from 11th March, 1974 by the order of the Chief Security Officer, Western Railway, Bombay dated 29th November, 1975. The next post higher to the post of Sub-Inspector Gr. I is that of Inspector Gr. III. The promotion to the aforesaid post is made on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability by a Selection Board. The Selection Board was constituted in 1975 to draw the panel of Sub-Inspectors Grades I and II who were suitable for promotion as Inspector Grade II to fill up 17 vacancies of Inspectors Grade III. Out of these 17 vacancies 4 wer...
Tag this Judgment!Madhopuri and ors. Vs. Banshidhar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)189
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. A. suit for possession of the property belonging to one Smt. Sunder Bai was filed by the respondents on May 2, 1980 in forma pauperis which after inquiry was registered on July 17,1981. On August 5, 1983 the respondents were permitted to proceed with the suit in forma pauperis. Various applications were filled in those proceedings by the plaintiffs respondents for appointment of receiver on the ground that the property was being damaged by the appellant-defendants. By the order under appeal, the learned Judge allowed the prayer and appointed receiver for the property.2. Suit was filed by the respondents as Trustees of 'Smt. Sunder Bai Public Charitable Trust' (here in after to be referred as 'the Trust'). It was averred in the plaint that on December 2, 1978 Smt. Sunder Bai treated a Trust through a Will. Sunder Bai died on February 24, 1979. The grievance of the Trustees was that the appellants were damaging the property and were intending to erect construction o...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN203
Surrendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 3-3-76 (Annex. 12) passed by the Industrial Tribunal refusing to approve removal of Shri Jawan Singh and dismissing the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. Jawan Singh was in service of the petitioner and was posted as A.D.A.A. Conductor (Booking Clerk) at Suratgarh Booking Station. A charge-sheet was served on Jawan Singh that he has been guilty of mis-conduct under Clause (1) of Standing Order 34 of the R.S.R.T.C. Employees and Workshop Employees Standing Orders. An enquiry was held and thereafter the penalty of removal was imposed on him. An application under Section 33(2)(b) of the industrial Disputes Act was filed before the Industrial Tribunal for approval of their action. A reply to the said application was filed on behalf of the workman and he took objection that the enquiry was not proper and the charges have not been proved and that he has not been...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majid Vs. Abdul Gaffar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN687
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. A learned Single Judge of this Court by his, order dated April 21, 1976, declared the case to be a fit one for appeal to the Division Bench under Section 18(2) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 and as such, this special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated April 21, 1976 passed by him.2. The plaintiff is Abdul Gaffar and the original defendants were Mohd. Umar (defendant No. 1), Abdul Aziz (defendant No. 2), Abdul Mazid (defendant No. 3) and Mohd. Ramzan (defendant No. 4). Defendants 3, 4 and 2 have died and they are represented by their legal representatives. They are all appellants, as per the amended cause title of the appeal. The plaintiff is respondent No. 1 and defendant No. 1 Mohd. Umar is respondent No. 2 in this special appeal.3. The dispute is in respect of the house situate in Jodhpur City and which has been described in para 1 of the plaint. The house belonged to Mohd. Umar (defendant No. 1). He mortgaged this house with possession...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »