Rajasthan Court August 1985 Judgments
Keshra Ram Vs. Jodha Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1985
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN824
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. There two matters arise from same judgment. one is leave to appeal by the state of Rajasthan and other one is revision petition by the complainant, but in both of them the acquittal of the accused persons-respondents has been challenged. It is not necessary to mention in details, the fact s of the case because, it is admitted that the dispute relates to an agricultural land and both the parties sustained injuries. It is also common ground that main bone of the dispute was regarding possession of the agricultural land. Jodharam claimed the adoption to Gangaram s/o Lachhi and the deceased who was a supporter of Lachhi is said to be hired labour called for cultivation.2. The trial court after a detailed discussion of the entire evidence produced in the case, in paras 24 and 25, summed up that from the evidence of the Sarpanch and the Patwari coupled with mutation order it is proved on record that the disputed land was in possession of Jodharam accused-party.3. Regard...
Tag this Judgment!Laloo Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN661
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14th April, 1980, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, The learned Judge by the judgment convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 394 IPCand sentenced him to imprisonment for life on the first count and imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 250/- in default of payment of fine to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment on the second count with an order that the substantive sentences awarded for both counts shall run concurrently.2. Briefly stated that facts of the case giving rise to the trial and conviction of the appellant in the present appeal are as under : On 10-8-1979 at 11.30 a.m. Kodara Gujar resident of Madhri lodged a written report Ex.P 14 at Police Station Falasiya to the effect that on 9-8-79 at about 2 p.m. his maternal aunt Smt. Nathi Gujar had gone to graze her cattle in Pipalwala jungle, where she had been murdered with a knife by Laloo and his companion. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Industries Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC88(Raj); 1985(2)WLN725
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Mr. K.C. Bhandari, the learned counsel for the sales tax department, was asked to put in appearance on behalf of non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. Non-petitioner No. 1, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer ('the Board'), has been impleaded as a non-petitioner as the order dated 16th October, 1984, was passed by a Division Bench of the Board which is under challenge in revision.2. Mr. Rajendra Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that this revision is squarely covered by the decision rendered in Commercial Taxes Officer v. Swastik Gum Industries (D. B. Civil Sales Tax Case No. 60 of 1980 decided on 30th July, 1985) [1986] 61 STC 83 and submits that the revision may finally be disposed of at the admission stage. We have heard Mr. Rajendra Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. K. C. Bhandari, the learned counsel for non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3.3. The Division Bench of the Board by its order dated 16th October, 1984, held that gowa...
Tag this Judgment!Murarilal Ahuja and Sons Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC393(Raj); 1985(2)WLN255
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This reference application has been filed by dealer-assessee for directing the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer ('the Board' herein) to refer the questions of law arising out of its order dated 27th August, 1980, passed in case No. 2/77/Revision/ST/Sriganganagar as it erroneously rejected its application under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1964) ('the Act'), by its order dated 24th May, 1981. It has been prayed by the dealer-assessee that the Board may be directed to refer the following questions of law which arise out of its order dated 27th August, 1980 :1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Members of the Revenue Board were not justified in maintaining the penalty levied under Section 16(1)(e) of the Act without applying their judicial mind whether there was mens rea and the petitioner was guilty of intentional evasion of the tax, especially when the assessment had taken place on the basis of t...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Hindustan Radiator
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1985
Reported in: [1986]62STC374(Raj); 1985(2)WLN752
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an application under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajas-than Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act'), for directing the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') to state the case and refer the following question of law, arising out of the order dated 18th June, 1982, passed in Special Appeal No. 1/80/ST/JU which the Board refused to refer by its order dated 5th November, 1982, on the application under Section 15(1) of the Act.Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, learned single Bench and double Bench were right in setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 5C(2) only for the reason that the assessing authority did not cancel the entry in R. C. whereas dealer has contravened the provision of Section 5C(1) and misused the declaration ?2. Non-petitioner No. 1 (dealer-assessee) is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacture of motor radiators, etc., and is a registered d...
Tag this Judgment!Yashpal and NaraIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN415
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. The petitioners along with Shri Narain and Dhansingh were prosecuted for the offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act. Dhansinah absconded during the trial and the accused Shri Narain confessed his guilt so he was convicted and sentenced. The petitioners were tried by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Neembaheda who by his order dated December 30 1975, found the petitioner guilty under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act and sentenced each of them to 24 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. In appeal the petitioners were unsuccessful and their conviction and sentences were maintained2. The prosecution story is that on February 28, 1972 at about 4 30 a.m. the Preventive Inspector Narcotic Shri Govind Gurnani along with Gopal Lal and Nandlal Seni Preventive Inspectors and members of the police pany spotted an ambassador car No. DLK 6700 coming from towards Neemach at th...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Rahmani Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN703
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd February, 1977, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 100 of 1976. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-. She has also been convicted under Section 309 IPC and sentenced to under go one year's rigorous imprisonment. In default of payment of fine, she was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.2. The prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that the appellant was living with her husband in village Dholidhup. There was a terror and the family of the appellant left village DholiDhup and established in village Kheri. The prosecution case further goes that the family members of the accused appellant purchased agricultural land from one Om Prakash. The amount of the land could not be paid to the seller of the land and, as such, the silver Karas of Mst. Rahmani were taken away by her husb...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Anchi and ors. Vs. Maida Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Raj11; 1985(2)WLN206
Inder Sen Israni, J. 1. This is a civil second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. filed against the judgment and decree dated 19-1-1977 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu in Civil Appeal No. 38/73 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31-7-1973 in Civil Suit No. 112/70.2. Briefly stated the facts of the appeal are that the plaintiff respondent filed a suit for specific performance and cancellation of gift deed and also for obtaining possession of the suit properties bearing Khasra No. 554, 557, 560 and 561 situated in village Kishorepura Tehsil Neem-ka-thana. The suit was originally filed against Govinda and appellant No. 4 Jhabar. Govinda however died during the pendency of the suit and appellants Nos. 1 to 3 were substituted as legal representatives of deceased Govinda.3. The case of the plaintiff respondent was that an agreement to sell agricultural land measuring 7 bighas 18 biswas bearing the aforesaid Khasra Nos. in village Kishorepura along with Quwadi situated ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Master Kairas Tarapore and Naushir Khan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1985
Reported in: [1987]164ITR237(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. These six applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act arise in similar circumstances and raise similar questions and are, therefore, disposed of by a common order. 2. Mr. Naushir K. Marfatia and Smt. Gulnar Marfatia were partners in the firm, M/s. New Majestic Talkies, Ajmer. Master Kairas Tarapore (minor) was also admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Smt. Gulnar Marfatia filed returns of wealth in respect of the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 showing the value of the assets of the firm at Rs. 3,05,522 and submitted that the net wealth of the assesses was not liable to payment of tax under the Wealth-tax Act. She submitted an approved valuer's report in respect of her contention and the assessments were completed by the Wealth-tax Officer, accepting the report of the approved valuer. 3. No returns of wealth were filed in respect of Naushir K. Marfatia and Master Kairas Tarapore in relation to the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan Machinery Mart (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR952(Raj); 1985(2)WLN142
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' herein), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated December 10, 1979, passed in ITA No. 764/JP/1978-79 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 11,039 incurred by the assessee on the tour of its managing director to the U.S.A. was allowable as revenue expenditure '2. The assessee (non-petitioner) is a private limited company. It derives income from selling tractors, luna mopeds, godrej steel furniture, etc. For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 11,039 on the foreign tour of the managing director, Shri P.S. Murdia. The case of the assessee is that the tour was undertaken to the U.S.A. mainly on the following two grounds :' 1. To take dir...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »