Rajasthan Court September 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.
Rawat Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)491
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. The appellant have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh by his judgment dated 9th September 1985. The appellants Rawatram, Kalooram and Shakoorkhan were convicted for the offence under Section 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') and each of them was sentenced to five years' RI and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' RI. The appellant Hardeep was convicted of the offence under Section 414, IPC and was sentenced to 1 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to furrher undergo three months simple imprisonment.2. On the report of RamsinghJat, on 31-1-1985 case under Section 2 of the aforesaid Act was registered and it was stated by him that he had seen the accused persons namely Rawatram, Kalooram and Shakoorkhan removing the skin of the two cows, one male and female calf. Earlier th...
Ram Kishan and 2 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)421
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. These three appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Juge No. 2, Alwar, on 6th February, 1986 in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1982 (60 of 1985), whereby the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced.2. In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1986, Ram Kishan, Bhajan, Babu, Mulya, Ramesh and Hari Singh are the accused-appellants. In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1986 Kajodi is the accused-appellant. In Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1986, Nand Lal and Nand Ram are the accusedappellants. Since the above three appeals arise out of the same judgment they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. In these three appeals; the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:S. No Name of accused Offence under Section Sentence awarded(1) Ram Kishan Under Section 302/149, IPC Imprisonment for life; Under Section 148, IPC Two year's RI; Under Section 307/149, IPC Five year's...
Swaroopa Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)501
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21-5-1984 passed by 'he Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur whereby he convicted each of the accused-appellants under Section 302/34, IPC, and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 years RI each.2. One Laddu, son of Rugha lodged a written report at PS-Sawai-madhopur at about 1 PM on 2-5-1982, to the effect that his brother, Badri had gone to have a wnestling bout, and that at about 7.50 pm, he (Laddu) came to know on the basis of a rumour in the village that the sons of Kalyan had thrown his brother Badri (deceased) after causing grievous injuries to him, into a culvert known as Bahi-ka-Nala'. Thereupon, Ladu along with Sanwalia Rampal and many other persons rushed to the place of occurrence, where Badri was lying drenched with blood. At that time, Badri was alive. Ramnath Soniya, Bhadya and Mandhya were...
L.K. Koolwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Raj2; 1987(1)WLN134
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Right and duty co-exists. There cannot be any right without any duty and there cannot be any duty without any right. It is a happy sign that the citizens of Jaipur, through the present petitioner Mr. L. K. Koolwal has moved to this Court in the matter of sanitation of Jaipur City. Good number of affidavits have been filed by the citizens of Jaipur relating to each of the locality referred to in the writ petition to show that the sanitation problem is acute in Jaipur which is hazardous to the life of the citizens of Jaipur. Insanitation leads to a slow poisoning and adversely affects the life of the citizen and invites the death at an earlier date than the natural death.2. Article 51A of the Constitution has been inserted in the Constitution of India vide 42nd Amendment in 1976. We can call Article 51A ordinarily as the duty of the citizens, but in fact it is the right of the citizens as it creates the right in favour of the citizen to move to the Court to see that the ...
Commissioner on Income-tax, Rajasthan Ii, Jaipur Vs. Kishangarh Madira ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1986
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Raj)86; [1987]167ITR393(Raj)
This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (for brevity, hereinafter, 'the Act') at the instance of the Revenue to decide the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the difference of Rs. 2,29,524 between the guaranteed amount and the actual purchase of country liquor was allowable as a trading loss in the computation of the assessees total income for the assessment year 1968-69 ?'The relevant assessment year is 1968-69. The assessee-firm carries on business of purchase and sale of country liquor. There was a minimum guarantee clause requiring the assessee to purchase liquor of the value of Rs. 5,07,640. The assessee lifted liquor of the value of only Rs. 2,67,745 and there was a shortfall of Rs. 2,29,525. The assessee accordingly incurred a liability to pay this amount. Towards discharge of that liability, a sum of Rs. 50,772 deposited by the assessee ...
Ganpati Printing Works Through Its Partner Nathur Ram Vs. E.S.i. Corpo ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN356
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 82 of the ESI Act against the judgment dated 19 April, 1979 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Jaipur in ESI Case No. 18 of 1978.2. The appellant filed an application under Section 75 of the ESI Act on 28-10-1976 before the ESI Court Jaipur praying that the Ganpati Printing Works, Pali was not covered under the provisions of the ESI Act and therefore the respondent could not demand the ESI contribution as a sum of Rs. 4,738.82 declared to be due in the appellant and the declaration was sought that the petitioner was not liable for any contribution under the ESI Act and no amount could be recovered from it.3. Mr. Calla's principal contention is that since by notification dated September 25, 1975 there has been exclusion and this has been accepted by the ESI court therefore the finding that the appellant is included as an establishment is contradictory and cannot be sustained. In support of this he referred to the notifica...
Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN138
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax wa...
Dr. M.B.L. Saxena Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)544
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed that the respondents may be restrained from demanding the petitioner an additional amount as communicated by the order dated 30th September, 1980 (Ex. 7) amounting to Rs. 15,888/-. He has also prayed that respondents should be restrained from cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner.2. The Rajasthan Government constituted the Rajasthan House Board, Jaipur, under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act. The Rajasthan Housing Board has framed Regulations in exercise of the power under Section 53 of the Act with the previous sanction of the State Government. The Regulation has been named as 'Rajasthan Housing Board (Disposal of Property) Regulation, 1970'. The Rajasthan Housing Board issued Schemes for the allotment of constructed houses in the various cities of Rajasthan including Jodhpur. The Rajasthan Housing Board published general Registration Scheme, 1978. The petitioner applied for registration und...
Mangilal Vijay Kota Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1986
Reported in: [1987]167ITR37(Raj)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee to answer the following question of law: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in serving of tea, coffee, pan, meals, etc., to the customers is in the nature of entertainment expenditure within the meaning of Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1973-74?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1973-74, for which, the accounting year ended on Diwali, 1972. The assessee was doing the business of commission agency. During the relevant year, he claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,509 as expenditure on tea, coffee, coca cola, etc., and Rs. 5,930 for meals provided to his constituents who visited him in his business premises in connection with the business. This amount was, therefore, claimed as a deduction on account of business expenditure. The ...
Ansari Jewellers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1986
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Raj)286; [1987]167ITR380(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the assessee to answer the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee should have filed two appeals, one against the status and quantum under Section 246(c) and another against the refusal of registration under Section 246(j) and, on that view, in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with a direction to him to dispose of the appeal afresh, according to law, after giving an option to the assessee to choose whether the appeal was against refusal of registration or it was against the quantum of the assessment.' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1969-70. The assessee M/s. Ansari Jewellers, Jaipur, claimed to be assessed as a firm. The Income-tax Officer, however, assessed it as an 'association of persons' under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, and determined the total income ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »