Rajasthan Court August 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Roshanlal Kasliwal.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Raj)93
ORDERBy the Court - This is an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the revenue, wherein it has been prayed that the revenue, wherein it has been prayed that the following question of law arises in the case and the Tribunal be directed to draw a statement of case :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 11,000 levied under section 273(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Notice of demand for payment of advance tax of Rs. 31,466 was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 2,36,280 and the assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 2,76,600 (after appeal effect). The tax on the income comes to Rs. 1,89,585. Since the tax levied on the basis of returned income exceeded the tax demanded by one-third of the latter amount, the assessee was required to file estimate and pay advance tax and a notice under sectio...
Deepak Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)473
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that respondent No, 2, R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur may be directed to grant entry to the petitioner in the three years Residency System in the speciality of Paediatrics.2. The petitioner did his M.B.B.S. and one year compulsory rotating internship. The petitioner sought appointment as Resident House Officer in the course of admission to three years Residency system. In the application submitted by him he indicated his first preference for General Medicine and second preference for Paediatrics and then other preferences. The petitioner was given admission in the General Medicine and the respondent No. 3 was given admission in Paediatrics by the order dated 12-6-1986 Annx. 1.3. The petitioner submits that he gave his preference in Paediatrics because those of the candidates who had done their M.B.B.S. prior to the petitioner are eligible to seek along with him. If those persons were to be given entry to the thre...
Bhura Lal Vs. R.T.A. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)396
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the R.T.A. Udaipur may be restrained from granting any stage carriage permit either temporary or non-temporary on the route Bhilwara to Gulabpura via Arjiay, Banera etc.2. The petitioner is holder of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the present route i.e. Bhilwara-Gulabpura via Arjiya, Mahu, Khurd, Kamalpura, Banera, Ufreda, Dabla. Angucha Chauraya Hurda etc. There are two non-temporary stage carriage permits one with the petitioner and the other with Kanhaiyalal Khandelwal. It is submitted that Bhilwara Gulabpura route on which the petitioner is an existing operator is overlapped by the notified route of Bhilwara-Ajmer under Section 68-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Acts in its portion from Bhilwara to Arjia Mod measuring 7.4. kms. He further submits that the route is further overlapped by two draft schemes. He further submits that this route is covered by draft schemes as well as notified schemes. He fu...
Prem Films Vs. Municipal Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)398
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the notice dated 29-10-1982 (Ex. 33) issued by the Municipal Council, Chittorgarh claiming arrears of rent.2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and is carrying on the business of film distribution and exhibition in the name and style of M/s Prem Films. The U.I.T., Chittorgarh as it then was (which has been subsequently merged into the Municipal Board) issued an auction notice for auctioning a land for construction of a cinema house near Gandhinagar Project. The auction was held on 20-11-1976 and the petitioner being the highest bidder was allotted the land and he deposited a sum of Rs. 17,142 78 in the office of the UIT, Chittorgarh.3. The petitioner submits that inspite of the case of the petitioner's bid and the depositing of the necessary amount by the petitioner the authorities did not execute a lease deed nor issued any orders. However, possession of the plot for construction of a cinema hou...
Dr. (Mrs.) Guneet Makkar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)469
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider the application of the petitioner for the admission in Post Graduate Course as per her merit and grant her admission in the academic session beginning from June, 1986.2. The petitioner after doing her M.B.B.S. undertook 1 year's rotating internship at General Hospital, Chandigarh in pursuance of permission accorded in this behalf by the Principal and Controller, Associated Groups of Hospitals, R N.T. Medical College, Udaipur. After completing one year's internship she became eligible for admission in three years Residency System-Post Graduate Course.3. A notice inviting applications for admission to P.G. Course was issued on 17-5-1986 and displayed on the notice board of the college, her father who was staying at Udaipur came to know on 22-5-1986. He obtained the form and sent the same to the petitioner at Chandigrah which was received by her at Chandigarh on May 27...
Ramavatar Kailash Chand and Co. and ors. Vs. Smt. Suraj Bai and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj16; 1986(2)WLN294
S.N. Bhargava, J. 1. This is tenants' second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City setting aside the judgment and decree passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff Smt. Suraj Bai.2. The plaintiff Smt. Suraj Bai filed the present suit for eviction from the suit premises which was given on rent to the appellants on 13-6-1951 at the rate of Rs. 18/- per month and wherein the appellants have got their godown. The plaintiff is running a primary school namely, Nehru Bal Shiksha Kendra, and the accommodation which she had was insufficient for the School. Therefore, the plaintiff required the suit premises which is adjacent to the school, for accommodating the students as also for office.3. The suit was contested by the tenants. In the written statement, it has been asserted that there is no reasonable and bona fide necessity and further that the plaintiff wanted to increase the rent...
Ghoomar Cafe and 37 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN748
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. All the writ petitions mentioned in the Appendix 'A' are disposed of by this common order as common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ-petitions.2. For the convenient disposal of these petitions, the facts of the case in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2141 of 1984 Ghoomar Cafe v. State of Rajasthan are taken into consideration. The petitioner is carrying on his business as a sole proprietor in the name of Ghoomar Cafe at Ghas Mandi Road, Jodhpur. The petitioner is having a V.C.R. and T.V. in respect of which he has regularly paying the licence fee for the commercial use of the same. He further submits that he is using V.C.R. and T.V. for the entertainment of his customers. He submits that he is paying entertainment-tax in respect of the above V.C.R. and T.V. under the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisement Tax Act, 1957. He further submits that he displays the Video Cassette Films duly certified under the Act. He submits that he has been give...
Panchayat Samiti Through Lrs. Pradhan Kan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)357
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Mr. Rathore appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner has produced before me the Gazzette Notification dated 2nd Aug., 1986 and submitted that now necessary amendments have been made in the Act. He has also produced before me the copy of the telegram which reads as under:jktdh; lk/kkj.k rkjiz/kku]iapk;r lfefr Jhek/kksiqjftyk lhdj Jh txnh'k izlkn O;kl fodkl vf/kdkjh dk LFkkukUrj.k fopkjk/khu gS A vkidh jk; pkSchl ?k.Vs es Hksts A fodkl3. Consultation must be an effective consultation and sending a telegram on 31-7-1986 which is said to have been received on the office of Block Development in the evening of 31st itself and without giving an opportunity to express the view in the matter it cannot be said to be an effective consultation. Thus, sending of the telegram and asking a person to express opinion within few hours is nothing but misuse of power by the Government. Now in the facts and circumstances the transfer order of...
Smt. Satyavati Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN526
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. In this petition under Section 439(2) Cr.PC it has been prayed that the bail granted to non-petitioner No. 2 may be cancelled.2. The application contains two grounds for cancelling the bail. First that the offence alleged against the petitioner is of grave nature and secondly that he has no fixed abode and there are chances of his absconding. While advancing the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that one witness Rajendra has been turned hostile to the prosecution and the possibility of Kailash tampering with the witnesses cannot be ruled out.3. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the order dated February 10, 1986 and argued that a part from the merits of the case the learned Sessions Judge was swayed by the financial position of Kailash and the deceased wife being unable to maintain the children. According to Mr. Mathur, in such a case where there is allegation of gruesome murder of a girl by Kailash and co-accused Ramd...
Jai Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)376
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner Jai Chand has prayed for quashing the proceedings against him under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (here in after to be referred as 'the Act') pending before the Special Judge, Sirohi.2. On December 17, 1982 shop of the petitioner was inspected by the Enforcement Inspector. A complaint against him was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Sirohi on the ground of violation of Rule 6(a) of the Rajasthan Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stock and Prohibition of Export) Order, 1981 (for short 'the Order'). The allegations were that the petitioner had imported 25 bags of Guar from Gujarat to Abu Road by Truck No. RJQ 4162 and thus violated the provisions of the Order. A number of grounds have been raised in the petition for getting the proceedings pending before the Special Judge, Sirohi quashed, but the learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to the point that the O...