Rajasthan Court July 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. Jitendre Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR487(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the Revenue for answering the following question of law, namely:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the bonds were received in 1968, but in law the right to receive compensation accrued to the assessee in 1956, when the jagir was resumed by the State Government and, therefore, the gain arising from the sale of jagir bonds were to be treated as long-term capital gains ?'2. The assessee's jagir was resumed on September 12, 1956, when he became entitled to payment of compensation on resumption of his jagir. The Jagir Commissioner passed an order quantifying the amount of compensation in 1962 and the bonds representing the amount of compensation due to the assessee were issued in 1968. The assessee claimed that the surplus amount obtained by sale of the jagir bonds should be treated only as a capital gain. The Income-tax Officer rejected ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chunilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR482(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short 'the Act' hereinafter), 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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was validly constituted and that it should be granted registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1973-74 corresponding to the financial year 1972-73. The assessee was a firm consisting of six partnersconstituted by an instrument of partnership executed on September 5, 1972. It derived income from sale of country liquor. A licence for sale of country liquor had been taken in the name of one of its partners, namely, Chunnilal Tak. According to the terms of the partnership, the business of selling country liquor under the said licence was to be treated as property of all the partners of this firm. It was also agreed between ...
Kewal Ram Vs. Tilok Das
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN158
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.PC against the order dated 20th July, 1981 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Sujangarh in criminal revision No. 3/80 under Section 59 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (here in after referred to as the Act) whereby the petitioner's revision was dismissed and the order of the Nyaya up-Samiti village Luhara dated 9-5-1979 was upheld hereby the applicant was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/- for the offence under Sections 379 and 427 IPC and the petitioner was further ordered to make payment of Rs. 25/- in respect of each tree total Rs. 75/- by way of compensation to the complainant Tilok Das.2. An application was moved on 2-5-1975 by Shri Tilok Das that 'Bordi' trees have been cut and removed from his field. The accused applicant Kewal Ram was summoned but he did not appear. Thereafter on 3-5-1975 site was inspected and the complainant was directed to produce his evidence. On the basis of the evidence and ...
Geparam Vs. Ghewar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN130
M.C. Jain, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr.PC is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali dated 21st August, 1982 upholding the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Sojat dated 14-6-1979 whereby, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC attached the land in question and appointed a receiver and it was not possible for him to decide as to which party was in possession, he directed the parties to approach the competent court and get their rights adjudicated.2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated: The respondent Labhu submitted an application under Section 145 Cr.PC before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sojat on 28-6-1977, on which a preliminary order was drawn on 4-7-1977. Along with the application, certain affidavits were filed by the applicant Labhu, Against the preliminary order dated 4-7-1977 Gepa Ram preferred revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Pali and the learned Sessions Judge by his order d...
Ravindra Bal Niketan Samiti, Sikar and ors. Vs. Smt. Sushila Shrivasta ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj177; 1988(1)WLN74
D.L. Mehta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties perused the order dt. 5-9-85 passed by the Court below.2. Plaintiff instituted a suit against the present petitioners defendant for the declaration that her services have wrongly been terminated and she is still the employee of the institution.3. Application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 was filed by the present petitioner 1. The petitioner also moved an application under Order 11, Rule 12 as well as under Order 11, Rule 14. The application was granted and the present petitioner has been directed to produce the documents in the court.4. Mr. Chaddha appearing on behalf of the present petitioner defendants submitted that application under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 cannot be submitted in miscellaneous application filed in a suit for the grant of temporary injunction. Order 11, Rule 12 provides that any party may apply to the court for directing any other party to a suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been...
Moti Singh Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)638
1. Mainly, two prayers have been made in this writ petition viz, (i) a writ of mandamus or prohibition or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof be issued directing the Additional District Judge, Deeg to dispose of the application of the petitioner moved before him for being impleaded as a party to the Reference made under Section 30 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act'): (ii) a direction may be issued to the Additional District Judge, Deeg, that the petitioner is entitled to recover the compensation for the land compulsorily acquired by the State Government and till the application is disposed of the amount of compensation lying with the court should not be paid to any body.2. There is no dispute that so far as the land in dispute is concerned, an Award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer under which the land was acquired. No application under section 18 of the Act was made for making a reference to the court before Land A...
Amruthsheele Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1987
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT13(Raj)
1. The petitioner-firm (M/s. Amruthsheele) has its factory at Makrana (Rajasthan) for sawing rough marble blocks into rough marble slabs on job basis. It was set up during the year 1981 and started its operation since January, 1982. According to the petitioner-firm, sawing rough marble blocks into rough marble slabs does not amount to process of manufacture and does not involve any manufacturing process as defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, (for short, 'the Act'). According to the petitioner-firm, it was under a mistaken impression that it is liable to pay excise duty on its job work. The petitioner-firm applied to the respondent No. 2 vide a registered A.D. letter No. AMSL/77/82, dated the 20th March, 1982 that it has installed and commissioned one Gang Saw Clycor-60 machine, and the total expenses in fixing the assets in the plant and machinery is within the limit of Rs. 20 lacs.2. It was also intimated to the petitioner-firm to show as to what was the c...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Baldeo Singh and 20 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)37
M.C. Jain, J.1. The above revision petitions arise out of the order dated 9-2-1983 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur, whereby, the learned District Judge allowed the appeals of the claimants under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and awarded compensation at rate of Rs. 5.50 per sq.ft. and further ordered to pay interest at rate of 6 percent per annum with effect from 10-10-1974 upto the date of the payment of the compensation modifying the Award passed by the Additional Collector, Jodhpur, who determined the compensation at rate of Rs. 150 per sq.ft. by his Award dated 18-4-1980.2. The land of claimants was acquired under Section 52 of the Act and proceedings were initiated by the Additional Collector, Jodhpur. The claimants filed their claims, which were tried by the Additional Collector, Jodhpur. The Collector proceeded to determine the amount of compensation considering that the land is undeveloped land and land...
Ganesh Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN387
N.C. Sharma, J.1. The appellants Ganesha Ram and Bhagirath were tried by the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh respectively for the offences under Section 302 IPC and sections 25(1) and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in connection with the murder of Ami Chand son of Harlal of village Talwara Jheel with in the jurisdiction of Police Station Tibi. While Bhagirath was given benefit of doubt by the Additional Sessions Judge No 1, Hanumangarh and acquitted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, the appellant Ganesharam was held guilty under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Ganesha Ram was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case was that on June 25, 1980, Kirshan PW 2 was at his house in village Talwara Jheel. A...
Lakhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN741
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This bail application under Section 439, Cr. P.C. has been filed in a case registered for offences under Sections 395, 396, 397 and 302, I.P.C. The accused moved a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur which was rejected by the order dated 13-5-1987. The learned Sessions Judge in his order stated that the accused was summoned by production warrant dated 11-2-87 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur to produce him in his court, but since he has not been produced till date and his custody has not been given to the Rajasthan Police, he cannot be deemed to have been arrested in the instant case and for that reason application under Section 439, Cr. P.C. is not maintainable. This is pertinent to mention here that accused is in judicial custody in case No. 2/86 of police station, Kheragarh, District Agra for offence under Section 392, I.P.C. and at present he is lodged in Central Jail, Agra.2. The accused-petitioner, Lakhan Singh, is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »