Rajasthan Court August 1985 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ayodhya Kumari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1985
Reported in: [1985]156ITR898(Raj)
ORDER1. This comes up for orders on the application which was filed by thelearned counsel for the asscssee on February 4, 1985.2. We have perused the judgment dated February 3, 1984 [reported in and also the findings recorded on questions Nos. 1 and 4. In view of the findings recorded, there appears to be some error in the para above the penultimate para of the judgment. The. error is rectified. In the third line of the para above the penultimate para, after the words 'against the assessee', the words 'and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue respectively ' shall be added. After correction, the para above the penultimate para of the judgment will read as under:'We, therefore, answer questions Nos. 1 and 4, in the negative, i. e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue respectively. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.It is not necessary to ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal and 3 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN626
1. The three accused-appellant Gopal, Omprakash and Nandu are the sons of Hazari and are as such brothers. Babu alias Rambabu is the son of Nandu accused-appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City under his judgment dated 20-10-1981 convicted the above named four accused-appellants for the various offences. Accused-appellant Gopal has been convicted under Section 302, IPC, whereas the other three accused have been convicted under Section 302/34, IPC, and each of them has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, or in default of payment thereof to 4 months RI. The accused-appellant Rambabu, Nandu and Omprakash have been convicted under Section 323/34, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment thereof to 2 months RI.2. In village Badi Udai, PS Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Girraj PW 1 son of deceased Ganga Sahai runs a petty shop. In the same village nearly the shop of Girraj PW 1, Gopal a...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chnad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN677
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh dated the 24th April, 1984, framing charges against the petitioner for the offences under Section 419, 468 and 114 IPC.2. A Criminal case No.29 of 1980 was pending in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Chhoti Sadari against several accused including Mst. Munni under Section 379 IPC. The accused Mst. Munni failed to appear in the court and her bail-bond was forfeited. On January 20, 1982, two applications were filed on her behalf (1) for the remission of penalty under Section 446 Cr. P.C. and (2) for granting her fresh bail. The learned Munsif Magistrate accepted the aplication for fresh bail. Accordingly new bail bond was submitted on her behalf. These three documents, namely, the application for fresh bail, the application for remission of penalty and the bail bond bearing thumb marks purported to have been put by Mst. Munni. The surety bond was given by Jagdish, one of the co-...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Rao Raja Kalyan Singh (Decd.) (by Legal ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: [1987]163ITR411(Raj)
1. This reference application has been made under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by the Commissioner, Wealth-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, seeking a reference in respect of the following question which is said to arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dated July 4, 1980 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the Appellate Assistant Com-missioner that the value of the ten shops amounting to Rs. 50,000 was not includible in the net wealth of the assessee ?'2. The facts which have given rise to this application may be briefly stated. Late Rao Raja Kalyan Singh of Sikar was the owner of ten shops at Sikar. RaoRaja Kalyan Singh, since deceased, is represented by his legal heir, Vikram Singh, in these proceedings. The case of the assessee, Rao Raja Kalyan Singh, , was that the said ten shops were gifted by him to his daughter, Smt. Phool Kanwar, at the time of her marriage in Sam...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Singh (Legal Heir of Maharana Bhagwat Singh Who Was Legal Heir ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Raj)286; [1986]160ITR908(Raj); 1985(2)WLN789
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench ' A ', Bombay (for short ' the Tribunal '), has arisen in the following circumstances : Udaipur State known as Mewar was an Indian State prior to the independence of the country in 1947. After the Independence Act, 1947, the United State of Rajasthan was formed and with effect from that very date, the very said State of Udaipur known as Mewar was integrated along with other Indian States into the United State of Rajasthan. A covenant was entered into between the Government of India and the said integrated State including Mewar (State of Udaipur). The covenant was signed by the Maharana of Mewar, Maharaja Bhupal Singh, and according to that covenant, the said Maharana of Mewar was to be paid an annual privy purse of Rs. 10,00,000. The said covenant has been submitted as annexure A. We may reproduce article XI of the Covenant, annexure A, which is as under ;' (1) The Ruler of each Covenanting State sha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Ballabh Kumari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Raj)210; [1986]160ITR945(Raj)
1. The application for making a reference under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, has been made by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, praying that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, be directed to draw up a statement of the case and, refer the following questions arising out of its order dated July 17, 1980, to this court for its opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, are applicable for determining the market value of the plot for the purposes of wealth-tax on the relevant valuation date ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the assessee was quite correct in valuing the excess land of 16,000 sq. metres at the rate of Rs. 5 per sq. metre in view of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, is perverse and co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Late Rao Raja Kalyan Singh.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Raj)47
ORDERBy the Court - This reference application as been made under s. 27(3) of the WT Act by CWT, Rajasthan, Jaipur a reference in respect of the following question, which is said to arise out of the of order the ITAT dt. 4-7-1980 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the AAC that the value of the 10 shop amounting to Rs. 50,000 was not includible in the net wealth of the assessee ?'2. The facts which have given rise to this application may be briefly stated. Late Rao Raja Kalyan Singh of Sikar was the owner of 10 shops at Sikar. Rao Raja Kalyan Singh since deceased is represented by his legal heir, Vikram Singh in these proceedings. The case of the Assessee Rao Raja Kalyan Singh was that the said 10 shops were gifted by him to his daughter Smt. Phool Kanwar at the time of her marriage in Samwat year 1984, corresponding to the year 1927 A.D. and that since then, the shops in question belonged to Smt. Ph...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sunder and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN94
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated the 10th August, 1985 of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, quashing the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Jodhpur under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also setting aside the order of attachment passed by the said Magistrate on April 20, 1985.2. The dispute relates to the property known as Ashram in Shramik Pura, Jodhpur. Members of the Vishwakarma Samaj claim it to be the property of the Samaj and allege that Baba Bajarang Das was only a Pujari for the temple whereas Baba Bajrangdas claims the property in his own rights. The Vishwakarma Samaj calls the property as Chartravas.3. The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. commenced on April 17, 1983 on the report of Baba Garibdas at the Police Station, Shashtrinagar, to the effect that Baba Bajrangdas had gone out of station on April 3, 1983 and that in his absence 30-40 persons came there and asked the c...
Tag this Judgment!Kamji Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)45
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur dated 16-7-1980 By that judgment appellant, Kamji was convicted Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. On 10-11-1978 one Laxman of village Kochari lodged a report at police station Galiyakot to the effect that Punja Katara of village Badgama was married to his cousin Smt. Bhuri 15 years back and since then was residing at village Kochan. That, on the previous day i.e. on 11-9-1978, Smt. Bhuri informed Laxman informant about his brother-in-law Punja being given a beating by Kamji and having become unconscious. On this Laxman, Hoorji and Joyati went to Sarpanch Beharilal. He told them that on the previous day Kamji had belaboured Punja and on receiving the information he (Sarpanch), Dhanji and Rama had gone there at the site and found Punja lying injured bleedi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoora and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)38
Shym Sunder Byas, J.1. Since these three appeals are directed against one and the same judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated July 4, 1980 they were heard together and are decided by a common judgment. Accused Mehriya and Daliya were tried on a charge under Section 302 while accused Bhuri was tried on a charge under Section 302/34, IPC. By the judgment aforesaid, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Daliya and Bhuriya of the offence they were charged with, but convicted and sentenced them and accused Mehriya as under: NAME OF ACCUSED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION SENTENCE AWARDED (1) Mehriya 302, IPC Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment (2) Daliya 326/34, IPC Four years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's like imprisonment; (3) Bhuriya 326/34 IPC Four years' rigorous imprisonment wi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »