Rajasthan Court March 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. D. R. Anand.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Raj)287
Milap Chandra, J. - This reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 is at the instance of the Revenue for deciding the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the IAC had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1971-72 for which the accounting period ended on 31-3-1971. The ITO made certain additions to the income shown by the assessee in the return filed by him. On the basis of these additions the ITO also initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and referred the matter to the IAC concerned. The IAC imposed penalty of Rs. 39,500 under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessees appeal to the Tribunal against imposition of the penalty was allowed and it was held that the IAC had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty aggrieved by the view taken by the Tribunal the Revenue applied for a reference under s. 256(1) of the Act which has been ma...
Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Phool Kanwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN431
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. Heard learned Counsel, Shri R.M. Lodha, appearing for the petitioner and Shri J.P. Goyal, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner. The petition is disposed of at the stage of admission as per consent of both the parties.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the order of this Court dated 27-2-1982 passed in the earlier revision petition, this Court had granted permission to the parties that the defendant may file an affidavit of the nature, which he has filed before this Court and the Court after giving an opportunity to file counter affidavit to the petitioner, will consider this aspect of the matter. The grievance of the learned Counsel is that the learned trial Court vide its impugned order has not permitted the plaintiff to be cross examined on the affidavit filed by him It is urged that the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced, if the permission to cross-examine the plaintiff on the affidavit filed by the plaintiff is not allowed,3. Learned Coun...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Naresh Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN515
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. These are four criminal revision petitions against order passed in four cases under the Minimum Wages Act being Criminal Revisions 14/82, 15/82, 16/82, 17/82 by the District and Session Judge, Jaipur. All of them have been decided on identical grounds. The prosecution is for the purpose of non-maintenance and non-supplying and disposal and not making available the various record to be kept by a Company under the Minimum Wages Act.2. The allegation is that when the Inspector went to inspect the various requirement of the Minimum Wages Act, in the shape of maintenance of the record were not made available and therefore the laws were violated. In all these cases the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the company has not been made a party and therefore, no prosecution can be allowed to be continued against the Managing Director. In the complaint the allegation is that the non-petitioner is responsible and liable for the enforcement, compliance and ...
Abda and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)411
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of the accused appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh 31-7-1976 whereby he has convicted all the three accused appellants under Section 302 and 14.8 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and under Section 148 two year's rigorous imprisonment. He has however, acquitted the accused appellants under 379 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.2. The facts giving rise to this case are that an oral report was filed by one Keshar Singh PW 2 on 8-6-1973 at about 6.30 p.m. at Police Station, Tibi stating that at 3.30 p m. Balbirsingh son of Sadhu Singh came to him and informed him that in Talwara Jheel he was assistant to Vaid Jarnail Singh and at about 10.30 a.m. Dheer Singh and Gurubachan Singh both came with an engine loaded in a bullock cart They placed their cart before the shop of Jarnail Singh and came inside the shop. Dheer Singh asked him to bring...
Jaysynth Dyechem and Etc. Etc. Vs. Mewar Textile Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj16; [1988]64CompCas334(Raj); 1987(1)WLN627
ORDERM.C. Jain, J. 1. In these winding up petitions by the creditors, objections have been filed by the creditor-petitioners challenging the validity of the Rajasthan Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and consequently, the notification issued by the State Government under the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The first notification was issued on April 8, 1985 and subsequently the term was further extended by one year by the notification dt. 14-2-86. By the notification, issued under Section 4 all pending proceedings in any court have been stayed. Reply to the objections have been filed by the non-petitioner-Company refuting the case pleaded by the creditor-petitioner. The creditor petitioners' case is that the Act is covered under the entries 43, 44 and 95 of the List I Union List in the VII Schedule, whereas the case of the non-petitioner-company is that the Act is covered under entries 23 and 33(a) of list III of the 7th Schedule i.e. C...
Smt. Maya Devi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj15; 1987(1)WLN625
M.C. Jain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Collector dated 3-6-86 whereby non-petitioner No. 4's revision petition was allowed and the order of the Gram Panchayat, Goluwala Niwadan dated 4-7-85 was quashed and set aside on the basis that under Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter), the powers vests in the Collector and not in the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner moved the Panchayat for starting an oil mill on 4-6-85. Notice was issued by the Gram Panchayat inviting objections. A month's period was given for filing objections and on 4-7-85, the Gram Panchayat issued No Objection Certificate. The petitioner also obtained registration of the unit from the District Industries Officer. A provisional registration certificate was issued. The Rajasthan Financial Corporation also sanctioned a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as loan for construction of the industrial unit by the petitioner. Non-petitioner No. 4 raise...
Ram Chandra Vs. Jagdish NaraIn Mathur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj204
ORDER1. This is a civil revision petitionunder Section 116 CPC against the order dated 1-6-82 passed by the learned Additional Munsif, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 154/78. By this, the learned lower court allowed the amendment of the plaint.2. A suit was filed by the petitioner for ejectment against the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent and subletting alleging therein that a Chabutara measuring 12' X 16' was give nonmonthly rent of Rs. 25A to the non-petitioners. The amendment application was allowed on 20-7-81 notice dated 16-11-1976, and personal necessity of Chabutara and comparative hardship.3. The main contention of learned counsel Shri K.H. Tikku appearing for the defendant petitioner is that the plaintiff/ non-petitioner was were of all these amendments even at the time of filing of the suit, therefore, such amendment should not have been allowed by the trial court. Reliance has been placed on Laduram v. Sheodev, 1959 Raj LW 273, in which it was held by Shri Jagat...
Gaj Raj S/O Kanwari Lal Mahajan Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Food In ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN475
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Adulteration of ghee is subject matter of this legal debate in this revision petition. The Sessions Judge, Bundi by judgment dated 27-8-1983 confirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed.2. The accused is not satisfied and has come up in this revision. The sample was taken up on 21-8-1976. It was found that in a Dalda tin was kept there one and a half Kg. ghee. Food Inspector purchased 450 gms. of ghee and paid Rs. 10.50 as price. As usual the sample was divided in three parts and the chemical examination was done by the Public Analyst on 24-8-1976 Report dated 11-9-1976 opined that the sample of ghee does not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. The adulteration was Vanaspati. On 9-10-1976 a complaint was filed against the petitioner. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses and examining the petitioner under Section 313 Cr. P...
Prabhu Dayal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN529
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This writ petition has been directed against the order of the Government, dated June 6, 1985 by which it has refused to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal relating to the dismissal of the petitioner from service.2. The ground for challenge is that the State Government bas not considered the guide lines given by the Supreme Court in cases of ordering references. It is submitted that in case of termination and dismissal referable for adjudication, or Industrial dispute defined under Section 2 and falling under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act the Government can only refuse to make reference if the prayer is either perverse or frivolous else the workman has a right to get the case adjudicated from the Industrial Tribunal otherwise a workman has no other remedy or forum to challenge the order of dismissal which according to him is illegal and unjustified.3. We have perused the petition and the decisions their Lordships of the Supreme Court report...
Kishan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1609; 1987(2)WLN487
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. This is a miscellaneous petition and though it raise's a simple question of law which emerged from the reading of Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act), but for the guidance of the court it is necessary to refer to the provisions of law as to how the case of the present nature should be dealt with.2. A complaint was filed by incharge traffic police Jaipur City in the court of learned Magistrate that on May 17, 1985 at about 7.25 a.m., the petitioner brought his vehicle during the prohibited hours on the prohibito road. The learned Magistrate on beaforesa complaint issued a summon,accused to put his appearance and on Dec. 12, 1986 the accused had not put in appearance and the advocate filed an application under Section 130 of the Act and pleaded guilty of the offence but the learned Magistrate observing that earlier also a similar application had been dismissed, dismissed the application and ordered that as already ordered, the accused pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »