Rajasthan Court June 1987 Judgments
Smt. Vidyawati Devi Rathi Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Raj)241; [1988]169ITR708(Raj)
V.S. Dave, J.1. This reference has been sent by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal along with the statement of the case, dated November 25, 1975, under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Tribunal has referred the following questions to this court for its opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case and on a correct reading and interpretation of the agreement dated October 21, 1957, and the partnership deed dated November 1, 1957, Smt. Vidyawati Rathi was possessed of any property within the meaning of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 2. Whether, on a correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 3(2) and (3) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, XVIII of 1937 (as amended by XI of 1938) and Sections 4 and 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Tribunal was right in holding that on the death of Seth Vithal Das, husband of Smt. Vidyawati Rathi, in the year 1951, the share of Smt. Vidyawati Rathi be...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Hari NaraIn Gyarsi Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC442(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') wherein the petitioner, namely, the Commercial Taxes Officer (Revisions), Ajmer, is seeking to challenge the correctness of the orders passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board of Revenue').2. This revision relates to the assessment year 1968-69 and the period relevant to the said assessment year is from 1st December, 1967 to 21st October, 1968. M/s. Hari Narain Gyarsi Lal, non-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a partnership firm dealing in pure ghee. On 4th November, 1968, the Commercial Taxes Officer, (Survey & Investigation) (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessing authority') visited the premises of the assessee and during the course of inspection he found a book containing khatas for the sales of pure ghee on 'adat' and loose papers connected with sales of such ghee, during t...
Tag this Judgment!Ajanta Enterprises Vs. Bimla Charan Chatterjee and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN172
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendant petitioner against two orders of the Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur, dated 6th and 7th February, 1987, by which he has allowed the plaintiff petitioner to file a rejoinder to the written-statement filed by the petitioner. The second order of 7th February, 1987, is an order by which time has not been granted to the petitioner to file revision, which cannot be said to be of any importance in the face of the first order which has to be examined in this revision petition.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is a tenant of non-petitioner No. 1 against whom a suit was instituted on the ground of personal necessity. This suit was decreed by the trial court and the petitioner filed an appeal which is pending before the Additional District Judge No. 4. During the course of pendency of this appeal, he moved an application for the amendment of his written-statement. In order to introduce the facts t...
Tag this Judgment!Gheesa Ram and Dharu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-19-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)459
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly the application for bail is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 4,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Merta for their appearance when ever and where ever required....
Tag this Judgment!Talib Khan and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-09-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ266; 1987(2)WLN209
ORDERN.C. Sharma, J.1. This order will decide 13 Habeas Corpus Petitions Numbers 831, 909, 919, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 966, 1030, 1037 and 1177 of 1987 filed respectively by Talib Khan, Gazi Khan, Gulsher, Meette Khan, Haleem Khan, Sawan Khan. Kande Khan, Achar Khan, Allahrakhia, Jumme Khan, Rahim, Lakhe Khan and Govind Lal in this Court against their detention under 13 separate detention orders, all passed by the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer, on Jan. 7,1987 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, hereinafter, 'the Act'), in the Central Jail, Jodhpur, as common questions of law and facts are involved in them.2. In all these 13 Habeas Corpus petitions, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective petitioners revolved around following points:(i) In all these cases, all the 13 detenus were served detention orders Annexure 1 on the same day i.e. Jan. 7, 1987 and they were detained on that very day. The order of detention Annexure 1 in ...
Tag this Judgment!Vimala Devi and 4 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-05-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN373
Navin Chandra Sharma, V.J.1. Heard Mr. Choudhary.2. Jugal Kishore had lodged a FIR on 28-1-1986 alleging that While he was sleeping in his house at about 11-12 p.m., accused Hem Raj and others entered his house and started breaking open the door. It was stated that accused Ganpat was armed with knife and others were armed with lathies. It was also stated that the ladies were also there and they were empty handed. On this report, the police, after investigation, filed challan against eight persons. On the day when the matter came before the Judicial Magistrate, Pipar i.e. 1-5-1986, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application before the Magistrate for taking cognizance against ladies petitioners. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on that very day and bailable warrants were issued against the petitioners. Petitioners filed Criminal Revision No. 329/86, which was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, on 3-4-1987. Hence the petitioners have made this applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-01-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)361
Inder Sen Israni, V.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and also perused the case-diary as well as the order of the learned trial court.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence is said to have taken place from 10th July to 13th Oct., 1986, and the FIR in respect of the same was lodged under Section 409, IPC, on 2nd May, 1987; and that, the allegation is that the petitioner after taking ticket-books, did not give any account for the same. From the statement of Satya Narain, recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC, it comes out that account was to be given every month for the ticket-books issued to him. It is alleged that no account was given by the petitioner for the whole above period and the matter came into light only when audit-report was received.3. I fail to understand as to how fresh ticket-books were issued every time when no account for the ticket-books issued earlier, was given ...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Singh and Bhawani Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-01-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)360
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner gives out that the marriage of the daughter of petitioner Bhawani is to take place on 7th June, 1987.3. It is further submitted that the marriage of Balabai, who is niece of petitioner Hari Singh, is also to take place on the same date. The father of Balabai, Kishan Lai, is not traceable for the last few years, and the only male member in the family, Roop Chand, is a boy of 14 years of age. An application in this respect has also been moved by both the persons in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas, where certificates of the Sarpanch and the Pradhan, along with the marriage-cards, which have been produced here also, were filed.4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioners from 3rd June to 13th June, 1987. The petitioners be released on bail on each of their ...
Tag this Judgment!Het Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-01-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)376
Inder Sen Israni, V.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant Kashi Ram as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Shri Surana appearing for the petitioner has submitted that two others accused persons have been given indulgence of grant of application for anticipatory bail and the case of the present petitioner Hetram is similar to that of accused Santosh Kumar He has also pointed out that there is difference between the allegations made in FIR and statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC. He has also shown certain judgments which show that the petitioner has been acquitted in some cases that were filed against him and an affidavit has also been filed that there are no convictions against the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the case of Surja v. State of Rajasthan(1) 1986 RLW 325 in which it has been held that even though there are cases in which the petitioner may not be entitled for bail, but accused-pers...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›