Rajasthan Court November 1986 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.
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Foreign Import and Export Association
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1986
Reported in: [1988]70STC295(Raj)
G.M. Lodha, J.1. These are references made by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan to this Court which are now to be treated as revisions as per the orders of this Court dated 5th December, 1986.2. In all these cases the question of law being common, I am deciding them by one common order as agreed by both the learned counsel.3. The facts giving rise to these references have been discussed in para 2 of the statement of cases, which reads as under :The facts of the case are not disputed and are as follows. The non-applicant-assessee is a manufacturer of wool tops. He is also registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'). During the years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, the assessee purchased dyes in the course of inter-State trade and commerce on furnishing declarations in form C on payment of Central sales tax on these purchases at the rate provided under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Central Act....
Ajit Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)724
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bhunas district Bhilwara since December, 1981. In this writ petition, he prays for quashing the order Ex. 5 dated June 17, 1986 and Ex. 8 dated August 28, 1986 by which inquiry was initiated against him and he was put under suspension by the State Government.2. The impugned orders were challenged on two grounds (1): there is no material to initiate an inquiry against him and (2) the Minister (respondent No. 2), who passed these orders, had a bias against him because the petitioner had failed to oblige him in respect of the appointment of his son and brother in the Gangapur Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Gangapur, which is a public undertaking establishment.3. As regards ground No. 1, it may be recalled that a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the Collector submitted a report against him under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. Thereafter the...
Gopi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)743
Kishore Singh Lodha J.1. The three appellants Gopiram, Bhomaram and Rooparam have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- each by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner on August 25, 1.981, They have therfore, come up in appeal.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants has very candidly not disputed the prosecution story so far as the causing of injuries and the resultant death of Shaktaram. He has only contended that taking the prosecution story as it is the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be said to have been made out against the appellants and they can be held guilty only under Section 304, Part-II or at most 304, Part I, IPC.3. In view of the limited argument raised before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants we need not state the facts of the case at length. Suffice it to say that at about 6 a.m. on May 20, 1980, Megharam, brother of the deceased Shaktaram was going from...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›