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.
Kamal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Raj28; 1985(2)WLN58
G.M. Lodha, J.1. No one appears for the appellant. Mr. Bapna appears for the respondent Union of India.2. This is a case of a petty low paid employee. Unfortunately since neither the appellant, nor the counsel for the appellant is present, this Court cannot go into merits of the case on account of Order 41, Rule 17, C.P.C., which reads as under : --'17. Dismissal of appeal for appellant's default.-- (1) Where on the day fixed, or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. Explanation. -- Nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as empowering the Court to dismiss the appeal on the merits. Hearing appeal ex parte.-- (2) Where the appellant appears and the respondent does not appear, the appeal shall be heard ex parte.' If there was any doubt, the Explanation introduced by Amendment Act of 1976 by Section has made it clear that the Court cannot ...
Rasoolji Buxji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Raj)215; [1986]158ITR768(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. These eight applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), have been filed by the assessee on the ground that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), has declined to refer to this court some of the questions of law proposed by the assessee as arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated December 31, 1977.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee, M/s. Rasoolji Buxji Kathewala, Udaipur, is a firm consisting of 13 partners, which derives income from manufacture and sale of 'katha'. The assessee-firm allegedly borrowed money during the assessment years 1955-56 to 1961-62 and 1964-65 on the basis of 'hundis'. The assessment for the aforesaid years was completed by the Income-tax Officer without making any addition of the amounts of the alleged 'hundi' loans. It appears that on March 30, 1965, the Income-tax Officer, with the prior approval of the appropri...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Suraj Bhan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN165
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of District Judge, Ajmer confirming the judgment of Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 120 of 1968/59 of 1967.2. The plaintiff who is a low paid employee filed a suit for declaration and arrears of Rs. 5,427.73. He is Assistant Teacher at Ajmer. According to the plaintiff, since he has given his option under Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Service (Protection of Service Conditions) Rules, 1957 and then he passed his B.A. Examination in 1957, he became entitled to be fixed in the time scale of trained graduate Grade-II of 115-250 with effect from July 1, 1957. Inspite of repeated representations the proper fixation was not done and he was assured that proper action is being that.3. The defendant contested the suit, although they admitted that he, has passed B.A. Examination in 1957.4. The trial court after recording the evidence did not grant full relief to the plaintiff, but only allowed him trained graduat...
Ram Dayal and 7 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN649
Gopal Klshan Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19-12-1984 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 13/1984 whereby he convicted all the accused appellants for the offence Under Section 148, IPC and sentenced each of them to 3 years R.I. He also convicted all the appellants Under Section 302, IPC or in the alternative under Section 302/149, IPC and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default whereof to undergo further 2 months R.I. He also convicted all the accused appellants for attempt to murder Mangilal, Ramlal Ramnath, Rameshwar, Ramchand and Sukha, and convicted them for the offence Under Section 307, IPC or in the alternative Under Section 307/149, IPC, and sentenced each of the appellants to 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment whereof to further undergo one month's R.I.2. We would like to mention that it is most unfortunate that the learned Sessions Judge could not...
Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur Vs. Shiv Charan Lal Vaish
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1985
Reported in: I(1987)ACC79; AIR1986Raj176; 1986(1)WLN51
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a petty case of compensation of Rs. 1200/- allowed and decreed on account of death of one she buffalo belonging to Shiv Charanlal, the respondent plaintiff, due to the touch of electricity wire.2. The facts are not in dispute but, Shri H.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, has vehemently submitted that the finding of negligence on the part of the employees of the appellant is wholly erroneous and deserves to be quashed in second appeal,3. On a thoughtful consideration of the entire record and the submission of Shri Gupta and Shri D.L Bardhar, appearing on behalf of the respondent plaintiff, I am of the opinion that there is no error of law committed by the courts below in coming to this finding. There is no escape from the conclusion that normally it is the duty of the Electricity Board to maintain and keep all its instrumentation including poles, their fixtures, in such a condition that the passers-by, may be human bei...
Bombay Motors Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1985
Reported in: [1986]157ITR623(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. These three reference applications arise in similar circumstances and raise identical questions. As such, it would be proper to dispose of them by a common order.2. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in purchase and sale of automobiles and automobile parts. The assessee firm, during the relevant assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, allowed one of its employees, Gopal Dass, a commission at the rate of 5% on the sale of automobile accessories and parts in addition to his salary. The assessee claimed the amount of commission paid to Gopal Dass during the aforesaid assessment years as business expenditure deductible from its total income. According to the assessee, the amount of commission paid by the assessee-firm to the said employee represented the amount paid to him for the services rendered by the employee and was allowable deduction within the meaning of Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' herein). In the alterna...
Janki Devi Bajaj Seva Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1985
Reported in: [1985]154ITR445(Raj)
1. This application under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, has been moved by the assessee on account of the refusal of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to make a reference to this court regarding questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated February 26, 1980.2. The assessee is a charitable trust. In its return for the assessment year 1975-76, relatable to the accounting period from January 1, 1974, to December 31, 1974, the assessee, besides other expenditure, claimed the amount of income-tax, wealth-tax and other taxes and payments made for rent and rates and for establishment expenses as allowable expenditure on the ground that the said amount was applied for charitable purposes. The ITO by his order dated August 29, 1977, disallowed the aforesaid claim of the assessee. On appeal, the AAC, Udaipur, by his order dated November 21, 1978, allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that payments of income-tax, wealth-tax and other taxe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›