Rajasthan Court January 1987 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.
Prahlad Maliram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Raj)271; [1987]166ITR149(Raj)
P.C. Jain, J.1. D.B. Income-tax Cases Nos. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97 and 98 of 1973 were decided by a common judgment passed by this court on December 14, 1976, as common questions of law arose in all the aforesaid cases. This court was pleased to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer the question of law as given in its order to this court along with a statement of case for the assessment years 1955-56 to 1961-62 (Reference Case No. 102 of 1979). Similarly, this court, vide its order dated August 2, 1977, directed the Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer questions of law for the opinion of this court with respect to the assessment year 1966-67 (Reference Case No. 17 of 1978). By the same order dated August 2, 1977, this court directed the Tribunal to draw up a case and refer the question of law for its opinion for the assessment year 1968-69 (Reference Case No. 18 of 1978).2. The Income-tax Ap...
Golcha Properties (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1987
Reported in: [1987]166ITR259(Raj)
1. All these three references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), are at the instance of the assessee for the decision of some common questions of law. The five questions of law referred in Reference No. 16 of 1978 are questions Nos. 1 to 5 in Reference No. 24 of 1978 and the remaining question No. 6 in Reference No. 24 of 1978 is merely consequential. The only question referred in Reference No. 25 of 1978 is question No. 3 in Reference No. 16 of 1978. This is how all these references involve the same questions relating to the same assessee in respect of different periods of assessment.2. Reference No. 16 of 1978 pertains to the assessment year 1965-66 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1965. Reference No. 24 of 1978 relates to the assessment year 1966-67 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1966. Reference No. 25 of 1978 relates to the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 for which the accounting peri...
Associated Iron and Steel Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC85(Raj)
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the demand notice issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commercial Taxes Officer') under Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955. The said demand notice is for the recovery of the penalty imposed by the Commercial Taxes Officer under Section 7AA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, read with Section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1966 as well as the interest imposed under Section 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The main reason why the petitioners approached this Court directly by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was that they have challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in Sub-section (2A) of Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act which was inserted in the Central Sales Tax Act by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1976. The...
Ali Mohammed Vs. Smt. Zaida
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN27
Gopal Krishan Sharma, J.1. The main miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr. PC is hereby disposed of Ali Mohammed filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr. PC against the judgment dated 12-2-1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur by which he dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner.2. Smt. Zaida filed an application under Section 125 Cr. PC in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Kherwada. She alleged that she was married with Ali Mohammed some 10 years before and had three children from this marriage. Ali Mohammed one year after the marriage started quarrelling with her, used to beat her and he wanted to turn her out from the house on making false allegations against her. He has also married another woman, so she claimed maintenance allowance.3. Ali Mohammed contested this application. He admitted that he was married with Zaida but denied all other allegations. He has also admitted his marriage to another woman. He had taken a plea that...
Mohanlal Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Raj106; 1987(1)WLN123
G.K. Sharma, J.1. Mohanlal has preferred this appeal against the order of award dated 15-9-1984 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara against him under Section 92A, Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter mentioned as the Act).2. An accident took place on 27-8-1983 by truck No. RJQ 1187 near 'Chhatris' of Prithvi-vilas in Banswara in which Shri Badri Chand died. The claimants-respondents 3 to 8 filed their claim under Section 110-A of the Act for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Along with this claim the claimants also submitted a claim petition under Section 92-A of the Act for passing an award for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as the first mentioned compensation. The learned Tribunal passed a claim of Rs. 15,000/- against the appellant Mohanlal on 15-9-1984. This order has been challenged in appeal.3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri P. K. Bhansali learned counsel for respondent 1 National Insurance Company to this effect that the Insurance Company was not party in the main ...
Subhash Chandra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1077; 1987(1)WLN220
ORDERK.S. Lodha, J.1. Petitioner Subhash Chandra, an accused in a criminal case, being refused permission to look into the case-diary during the cross-examination of Investigating Officer, in order to verify whether a particular note said to be appended to the diary as alleged by the Investigating Officer, was there or not, and for some such other entries in the said diary, has now challenged the vires of Section 172(3) of the Cr.P.C.2. Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:172. Diary of proceedings in investigation.- (1) Every police officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.(2) Any criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such court, a...
Usuf Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN204
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. The material on record before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Kota, was that on the night intervening 2nd and 3rd July, 1982 at about 2.30 a.m. while Mst. Shamim, was sleeping in her house, the petitioner Yusuf Ali entered into the house of Mst. Shamim, caught hold the breast of Mst. Shamim and opened the lace of her Salwar, she was awakened and she raised the cry where-upon her brother and other members of family were also awakened and tried to catch hold the accused petitioner Yusuf Ali, but escaped. On this material appearing from the documents furnished by the police along with its report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota framed the charges against the accused petitioner for the offences under Sections 456 and 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C.2. The only controversy is that according to the accused-petitioner, the material before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota, only showed that the accused petitione...
Layak S/O Chima Rajput Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)127
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in this revision petition has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under section 457 IPC. His only contention is that in the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence of 6 months is excessive and the accused has already undertaken 11 days imporisonment after his appeal was dismissed and though he is not sure as to how much more imprisonment he has undertaken but the accused has undergone some imprisonment during investigation by the police till he is on bail. He therefore, contended that taking into consideration that the occurrence has taken place in the month of September, 1981 more than 5 years ago, ends of the justice shall be met in case the accused is sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone and to pay the fine.2. In this case the theft actually was not committed and the accused committed lurking house trespass by night in order to commit an offence of theft. There is no previous convict...
Mohanalal Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC203
G.K. Sharma, J.1. Mohanlal has preferred this appeal against the order of award dated 15-9-1984 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara against him under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter mentioned as the Act).2. An accident took place on 27-8-1983 by truck No. RSQ 1187 near 'chhatris' of Prithvi-vilas in Banswara in which Shri Badri Chand died. The claimants-respondents No. 3 to 8 filed their claim under Section 110A of the Act for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Alongwith this claim the claimants also submitted a claim petition under Section 92A of the Act for passing an award for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as the first mentioned compensation. The learned Tribunal passed a claim of Rs 15,000/- against the appellant Mohanlal on 15-9-1984. This order has been challenged in appeal.3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri P.K. Bhansali learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 National Insurance Company to this effect that the Insurance company was not party...
Smt. Chameli Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN642
1. This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to life imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one years' rigorous imprisonment.2. Deceased Smt. Manju w/o Vijai Kumar has died of burns and Mst. Chameli, who is mother-in-law of deceased Manju has been found guilty for murdering her daughter-in-law, by the learned Sessions Judge. Mst. Manju was aged 20 years when this incident took place and was married to Vijai Kumar in February, 1982. Vijai Kumar was employed in the Post-Office. On the day of incident, according to the prosecution, Smt. Chameli sprinkled kerosene oil on Mst. Manju. A cry was raised by Phoolwati (DW/1) who is Jethani (wife of elder brother of the husband of deceased) when she saw Manju lying on the Chabutara after being burnt and accused appellant Smt. Chameli is alleged to have come to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »