Rajasthan Court September 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1985
Reported in: [1987]164ITR268(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following two questions of law arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench 'E' (camp at Jaipur), dated May 21, 1981 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that it was not competent for the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to make an order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for withdrawing the extra shift depreciation allowance allowed on the items of machinery and plant in regular assessment ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the orders of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ?' 2. In the assessment of M/s Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd., Pali, Marwar (hereina...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Kaviraj Mahipat Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1985
Reported in: [1987]165ITR705(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. These five applications relate to consecutive assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76 in respect of the assessment of wealth-tax of Kaviraj Mahipat Singh, Kota (hereinafter referred to as ' the assessee')' As these five applications arise in similar circumstances and raise a common question, they are disposed of by a common order.2. The Wealth-tax Officer, after the assessments of the assessee in respect of the assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76 were completed, initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by issuing notices dated March 15, 1978. The Wealth-tax Officer expressed the opinion that the value of the portion of the Mardana Mahal and compensation money aggregating to Rs. 6,60,000, representing the difference between the value of the properties as shown by the assessee and as determined by the valuation cell, had escaped assessment by the assessing authority. The Wealth-tax Officer then made reassessment orders after a...
Rakesh Kumar Nagal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN495
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Rakesh Kumar, the appellant, has filed this appeal against his conviction of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- (in default of payment of fine, two months further RI), for committing murder of Urmila by burning her alive.2. Smt. Urmila Devi widow of Devi Sahay was a teacher in Railway Loco Primary School, Kota. Urmila did favour to Rakesh by maintaining him like a son. Rakesh developed bad habits and started harassing Urmila for getting money for liquor. Whenever Urmila refused to Rakesh, she was harassed and beaten.3. On the unfortunate night in between 29th and 30th August, 1979, Rakesh demanded money as usual from Urmila at about 10 p.m. and when Urmila refused, she was beaten. A constable on patrol took Rakesh and noted down the address of Rakesh which was objected to by Rakesh. Then Rakesh took his attachi and posed that he was going to Ahmedabad with the constable. Thereafter, they both took wine in the cooperative bank. Urmila having observed this f...
Kedar Nath S/O Bhagchand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN560
1. Kadarnath, the appellant accused, has filed this appeal challenging his conviction ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, under Section 302 and Section 377, IPC. The appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.000/- and in default of payment of fine, to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302 IPC, and under Section 377, IPC he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. One, Aryaneder alias Suman of Ajmer, young boy of 13 years of age, went out of his home along with the accused-Kedar in the evening of 24-6-75 at about 5.30 p.m. telling his mother that he would be returning after 10 minutes. However, he, as the ill-luck would have it, never returned back. Daramsingh, the father of the deceased, when returned from the dispensary, was asked by his wife to search about Suman. Dharamsing made a sear...
Ram Khiladi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN242
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. These three appeals are of exceptional and extraordinary nature. All the three appellants are Class-IV servants of the Railway, and they are working since 1962. Ail the three were sought to be removed from services by notices served upon them in December, 1972 making it effective from January, 1973.2. The facts are given in the judgments of the trial Court and the first appellate court, and both the learned Counsel jointly submitted that they are not in dispute.3. The crux of the matter is that from 1962 till now they are continuing in service as Class IV employees under the Inspector of Works, Western Railway, Gangapur City, without any break in service and were drawing pay and dearness allowance; and after 1973, when they were sought to be removed, it is common ground that the stay order was granted by the trial court and then by the appellate court and thereafter, by this court, with the result that all the three appellants have now completed about 23 years of ...
Rehmat Khan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN360
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. Since these two appeals are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated December 22, 1972, they were heard together and are decided by a common judgment. By the judgment aforesaid, the Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------S. No. Name of the accused Offence Sentence awardedUnder Section--------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) Rehmat Khan 302, IPC Imprisonment for life; 404, IPC Three years rigorous imp-risonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months RI;(2) Allahuddin 302, IPC Imprisonment for life;404, IPC Three years rigorous impri-sonment with a fine Rs. 200/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months like imprisonment;(3) Dadu Khan 302, IPC Imprisonment for life;404, IPC Three years rigor...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Harbhajan Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1985
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC432
G.M. Lodha, J.1. I would not allow victims of Motor Accidents to again become victims of Judicial accidents. In the first, the negligence is of the Driver and the second would be due to negligence of Bar or uncertainty of Judge made law, i.e. Bench. Let the Judiciary step in and make up to endure and heal up the wounds of accidents, which the God refused to cure, by liberal interpretation in favour of victims.2. In this golden Era of 'SOCIAL JUSTICE' new judicial innovations should be carved by out Judiciary moreso when the litigation is about getting relief to victims of social insecurity, imbalance or accidents, and the law to be interpreted is, 'Social Welfare Legislation' aimed, to provide social security. Pleadings and proof are all subsidiary, and secondary, and technicalities should give way to substantial and real Justice.3. The above is the 'Motto' of this judgment for guidance of 'Tribunals'. Now the traditional facts.4. This appeal alongwith cross-objection filed by the clai...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Raish Plastic and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1985
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC389; 1987(32)ELT541(Raj)
1. These 15 special appeals before us arise out of a common judgment dated May 6, 1982, passed by a learned Single Judge, by which he allowed 15 writ petitions, which have given rise to these appeals and declared that acrylic plastic sheets/tubes and plastic bangles do not attract excise duty under Central Excise Tariff ('the Tariff') Item No. 15A(2), of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (No. 1 of 1944) (for short 'the Act'), and the appellants, who were non-petitioners in the writ petitions, were restrained from levying excise duty on the aforesaid products.2. The question involved in these special appeals is common and so, they were heard together and we consider it proper to dispose of them by a common order.3. The facts leading to these appeals are substantially the same and, therefore, we shall notice the facts in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 572/82 : Union of India and Ors. v. Raish Plastics. This appeal has arisen out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1...
Devdutta Dheer Vs. Janki Vallabh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Raj170; 1985(2)WLN320
ORDERGopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is preferred against the judgment of Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated 10th Jan., 81, by which, he confirmed the judgment passed by the Munsif, Jaipur District Jaipur, dated 24th May, 80.2. Birdhichand and Jankivallabh filed a suit for rent and ejectment against Parmanand, and others, claiming rent on the basis of Rs. 20/- before the Munsif. During the pendency of the said suit, the parties entered into a compromise on 17th Jan., 68, and it was agreed that the defendants would pay Rs. 30/-per month as rent, w.e.f. 1st Mar., 67, and it was further agreed by the defendant that they would vacate the premises in dispute by the end of 1970. On the basis of this compromise, the learned Munsif, on 9th Feb., 68, decreed the suit Thereafter, decree-holder Birdhichand and judgment debtor Parmanand expired. An execution petition was filed by Jankivallabh and the legal representatives of Birdhichand, against the petitioner...
Mohammed Shafi Vs. Mst. Lajwanti Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN339
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. In this appeal the only point pressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent without satisfying itself as to whether the conditions specified in one of the clauses of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') has been fulfilled.2. The defendant tenant failed to file the written statement although several opportunities were given to him since July 7, 1982. On January 4, 1983, the counsel for the defendant appeared before the trial court and pleaded that the defendant was not present and no body was prepared to proceed with the case on behalf of defendant. The written-statement was not filed by the defendant on the date fixed and the trial court proceeded under Order 8, Rule 10,CPC and pronounced the judgment against the defendant and decreed the plaintiff's suit on that very day i.e. Ja...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »