Rajasthan Court May 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.
Sobhag Mal JaIn S/O Shri Chhigan Lal Vs. Mool Chand Vaish S/O Shri Bhi ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)212
Surekdra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 6-11-1982 decreeing the Civil Suit No. 109/81 for specific performance.2. The plaintiff-respondent Mool Chand filed a suit on 7-3-1981 for specific performance of a contract dated 31st August, 1980 for sale of a plot of land C-41, Tilak Nagar, Moti Doongari Scheme, Jaipur. According to the original plaint, it was settled between the parties that the appellant will sale the plot to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 90,000/-. A sum of Rs, 20,000/-was paid to the appellant at the time of agreement to sale deed dated 31-8-1980 and the balance sum of Rs. 70,000/- was payable before the Registrar at the time of registration of the document. The appellant obtained a no objection certificate from the competent authority under Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976. But since the plot was not in actual physical possession of the appellant, i...
NaraIn Vs. Pratima Shantinathji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)355
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Jhalawar.2. The suit of the plaintiffs was based on default. According to the plaintiffs the defendant did not pay rent amounting to Rs. 27.50 and, therefore, ejectment was claimed. Notice was served on February 18, 1970. The defendant contested the suit.3. The trial Court after recording the evidence dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that tenancy was yearly and not monthly and the notice was invalid being not given in the name of the temple Shri Shantinathji.4. The first appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff's reversing the finding of the trial court.5. An application was made under Order 22, Rules 10 and 11 CPC by Mrs. Kamla Jain alleging that on August 16, 1975 the disputed shop has been purchased by the applicants Rakhabh Chand, Shanti Kumar and Ors. This application was filed before this Court on August 3, 1983 and my brother Justice Bhargava order...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Keshrimal Parasmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1985
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Raj)61; [1986]157ITR484(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur (' theCIT ') has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (for short ' the Act '), for a direction to the Income-tax AppellateTribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal ');to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion ofthis court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order under Section 263 of the Act when the order of the ITO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on account of his failure to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) notwithstanding a clear confession of concealment of true particulars of income on the part of the assessee by the act of surrendering the cash credit appearing in the name of M/s. Bherunath Mohanlal & Co. as a havala entry '2. The assessee-respondent is a registered firm comprising of five partners. Duri...
Shiv Ram Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN691
Suresh Chandra Agrawal, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the order (Ex. 5) dated 29th December, 1981 and the order (Ex. 7) dated 19th February, 1982 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur (here in after referred to as 'the Commissioner)'.2. The petitioner holds a mining lease for sandstone in village Binega, Tehsil Karauli. The said mining lease was granted to the petitioner on 16th December, 1974. By notice (Ex. 1) dated 14th September, 1981 the Commissioner required the petitioner to submit monthly returns for the period from December, 1974 to July, 1981 in accordance with the provisions of para 38(2) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 and para 10(1) of the Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 and also to deposit the Employer's share as well as Employee's share of the contributions under the aforesaid schemes. By another notice (Ex.2) dated 11th September, 1981 the petitioner was required to appear be...
Dr. Anil Kumar Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN697
M.C. Jain, J.1. These two writ petition involve a common question as to the constitutionality of the explanation appended to Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 11 of the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers & Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act').2. I may state a few relevant facts of both cases. In S.B.Civil Writ petition No. 482/85 the petitioner was appointed Lecturer in Chemistry as a result of direct recruitment after direct selection. He was called for interview on August 24, 1968, and his name was recommended by the Selection Committee which was accepted by the Syndicate vide resolution No. 6 dated September 14, 1968. In the order of merit he was at No. 1. Annexure 2 is the report of the Selection Committee which shows that 11 names were recommended in the order of merit. Non-petitioners Nos. 3 to 8 were below the rank of the petitioner. Non-petitioner No. 3 Dr. A.M. Bhandari was at No. 7, non-petitioner No. 4 Dr. B.S. Sankhla was at No. 2, non-petiti...
Gaje Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)148
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This revision has been filed on behalf of the accused persons against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, dated 7-7-83 by which the objections of the accused-petitioners based on Section 197 Cr.PC and Section 155 of the Customs Act, was rejected.2. I had heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and that the learned P.P. and the case was fixed for dictation of order today. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has moved an application that he wants to withdraw this revision petition with liberty to raise these points before the trial court as, according to him, it involves certain questions of fact, which can be placed before the trial court. Looking to all the circumstances of the case, am of the opinion that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this vision and they shall be free to raise these objections before the trial court if necessary after placing the necessary material before it.3. In these circumstances, the revision is re...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Green Roadways
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1985
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Raj)318; [1985]154ITR639(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that sums of Rs. 62,222, Rs. 28,673 and Rs. 17,162 for the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79, respectively, incurred by the assessee on providing tea, coffee, soft drinks, etc., to the customers was not in the nature of entertainment expenditure within the meaning of Section 37(2A) of the I.T. Act ?'2. The assessee, Green Roadways, Udaipur, claimed sums of Rs. 62,222, Rs. 28,673 and Rs. 17,162, during the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79, respectively, as expenditure incurred by the assessee in providing tea, coffee, cold drinks, etc., to the customers. The aforesaid expenditure was claimed by the assessee to be a permissible deduction on the ground that it was obligatory in the trade of transport to prov...
Jai Chand Kanji and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1985
Reported in: [1986]157ITR451(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ' the Act'), filed by the assesse for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (' the Tribunal' herein), to state the case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court:' 1. Whether there was any material with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to uphold an addition of Rs. 5,000 as income from ' other sources ' being unrecorded cash sales ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was legal and admissible evidence to support the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal contained in its order dated December, 1976, upholding the addition of Rs. 5,000 as income from undisclosed sources ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified to sustain an addition of Rs. 27,000 as income from undisclosed sources ? 4. Whether the order of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Eklingji Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1985
Reported in: [1985]155ITR383(Raj); 1985(1)WLN576
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (No. 43 of 1961) ('the Act' herein), by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur ('the CIT'), for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), to state the case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this court: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that notwithstanding the findings arrived at by the Income-tax Officer in the course of original assessment that the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)/13(2)(a) of the Act were applicable, the ITO's failure to deny exemption in terms of Sections 11 and 12 with respect to the assessee-trust's income was not an obvious, glaring and apparent legal mistake rectifiable under Section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring tha...
Sohanlal Basant Kumar Vs. Umraomal Chopra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN791
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court for decision by a larger Bench, as according to him it involves an important question of law relating to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The only question argued before us in this appeal related to the maintainability of the suit by a partnership firm and it was submitted by the learned Counsel for plaintiff appellant that the suit was maintainable as the petitioner firm was a registered partnership firm within the meaning of Section 69(2) of the Act; while according to the learned Counsel for the defendant respondent, the suit by the plaintiff firm was not maintainable. The facts which have a bearing on the aforesaid question raised in this appeal lie in a very narrow compass. Umaraomal defendant is alleged to have taken a loan of 11,000/-from the plaintiff firm on June 27, 1966 with the stip...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »