Rajasthan Court August 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 Wealth-tax Vs. Moti Chand Khajanchi (Decd. by Legal Re ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR289(Raj)
Milap Chandra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act'), made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Rajasthan-I, Jaipur, to answer the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of paintings was not includible in the wealth of the assessee ?'2. It relates to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. The facts of the case giving rise to it may be summarised thus. The assessee, the late Shri Moti Chand Khajanchi, was the karta of his Hindu undivided family. Besides holding movable and immovable properties, he held paintings, manuscripts and other art objects. In the wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, he made a note in them to the effect that drawings, paintings, manuscripts, etc., being not intended for sale were ex...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Moti Chand Khajanchi. (Decd. by Legal R ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1987
Reported in: (1988)66CTR(Raj)193; [1988]171ITR280(Raj)
MILAP CHANDRA J. - This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act'), made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, on the request of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, to answer the following question, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was neither carrying on any business in the purchase and sale of paintings nor was the transaction an adventure in the nature of trade and, therefore, the receipts from the sale of paintings were of a casual and non-recurring nature, not arising from business, profession or vocation ?'The facts of the case giving rise to the reference may be summarised thus. The assessee, Sri Moti Chand Khajanchi, derived income from interest, dividends and shares from three partnership firms, besides income from property. For the assessment year 1964-65, he filed a return showing an income of...
Vishan Das Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)22
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19th February, 1987, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 55 of 1986.2. It is an admitted case of the parties that after the determination of the provisional rent, the amount was deposited by the present petitioner defendant on the first date of hearing and during the continuation of the proccedings. The case of the petitioner is that he was depositing the amount in advance. He further submits that 6 months advance was given to the Advocate for depositing in the court but the Advocate did not deposit the amount in the court resulting in default of one month payment in time. The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950, is a beneficial legislation needs interpretation for the benefit of those for whose benefit, the law has been enacted. It is an admitted position that the past conduct of the tenant shows that he was not in pay...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Himmat Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)46
M.C. Jain, J.1. These revisions by the petitioner Kanhaiyalal are directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nathdwara dated 18 11-1985, whereby, the petitioner Kanhaiyalal's application Under Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC was rejected and the application of Mst. Mangi Bai Under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC and of Babulal (defendant) Under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC were allowed and both of them were plaintiffs in the suit.2. It is necessary to state a few relevant facts in order to correctly appreciate the controversy in the present revision petitions.3. One Mst. Tammu Bai widow of Shri Sunderlal Chordia filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction of the suit-shop. Inter alia, it is alleged by her that the shop in question was an ancestral property of Babulal and Basanti Lal and her husband Sunderlal Choridia. After the death of her husband, the suit shop fell to the share of Babulal and Basantilal and the plaintiff was given a right to recover the rent f...
Kishania Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN88
K.S. Lodha, J.1. Two appellants Kishania and Sanwaria alias Hans Raj have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, vide his judgment dates May 4, 1985. They have been convicted under Section 376(2) and sentences to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' rigourous imprisonment each. They have further been convicted under Section 447, IPC and sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment each.2. The prosecution story may be briefly stated here. Kumari Sayara, alleged to be 15 years of age, is daughter of Malaram. It is alleged that on June 25, 1984, at about 3.00 p.m. when she was in her field, both the accused Kishania and Sanwara came there and forcibly raped her. While she was being so raped, her brother Prahlad aged 13 years and her maternal uncle Ramu Ram aged about 35 years, happened to pass by that site and on her hue and cry, they cli...
Ramavatar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)207
V.S. Dave, J.1. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Alwar,by which he has directed the witnesses to be summoned by his order dated 25-7-1986 in a case which is pending since year 1978. The order does not disclose as to the witnesses were to be examined, for what particular purpose and why it was in the interest of justice to resummon at such a belated stage, when the prosecution evidence was over 5 years before. Change of the Judicial Officer does not mean change of opinion and if the opinion has to be revised, then specific reasons must be disclosed for such change. It is borne out from the order of the learned Magistrate himself that although three witnesses were present in court four years prior to date of passing of this order, yet they had been given up by prosecutor. A properly drafted application should have been filed explaining why the witnesses were first dropped and opinion is being changed. This court has time and...
Nathu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)608
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petioner after notice to the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner has been convicted of the offence under Section 304A, IPC. The petitioner was the driver of Bus No. R.S.Q. 719. On 16-6-1978 he was driving the Bus at about 3.30 p.m. on the road proceeding from Merta to Nagaur. At the place of accident labour was working on the road under the P.W,D. contractor M.S. Chiranjilal. While he was so driving, he met with an accident with one Sohini, who died on the spot. A report of the occurrence was lodged by the Manager of that contractor, Shri Samander Singh. Sohini was working on the right side of the road and was throwing 'mud', on the 'kachha'. The accused was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently and collided against Sohini resulting in her instantaneous death. After necessary investigation charge-sheet was presented and after trial, the petitioner was found guilty of the offence under Section 304A, IPC, I have been carried through...
Chunnu Mian Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)612
Mahendra Bhushan Shrama, J.1. The non-petitioner No. 3 Dharam Singh Sagar at the relevant time i.e. in the month of May, 1976 was posted as Dy. Suprintendent of Police, Fatehpur, District-Sikar and later on was selected/appointed as I.A.S. and presently is posted some where in Rajasthan. The non-petitioner No. 2 Shankarlal was then Dy. Superintendent Neem-ka-Thana District Sikar. Balu Ram non-petitioner No. 4 at that time was S.H.O. Police Station Raghunathgarh, District Sikar. Pannalal non-petitioner No. 5 was Reader to non-petitioner No. 3. The petitioner Chunnu Mian had registered an FIR No. 10 dated January 26, 1976 at the Police Station Fatehpur District Sikar. Chunnu Mian was produced for remand before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikar on May 4, 1976 and he made a statement on oath before the Chief Judicial Magistrate wherein he also stated that accused non-petitioners gave beating to him with cleaves and shoes in Ringas Guest House and he had got himself medically exam...
Harvinder Singh S/O Pratap Singh Vs. Jaswant Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)461
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has also filed a Civil Suit where the temporary injunction has been granted in his favour and this is not a matter where proceedings should be continued in a criminal court. It is submitted that, continuation of the proceedings, in criminal court in the case like one will amount to abuse of the process of the court. It is submitted that before the impugned order was passed, the suit had already been filed wherein interm order had been passed by Munsif, Kota City, North. In this view of the matter propriety demand that order dated 20th July, 1987 should not have been passed. He submits that he undertakes to handover the possession of the premises to Jaswant Singh, in case, injunction order is vacated by the Munsif or that the civil court does not accept his prima facie claim of possession. He also submits that he will agitate his right in civil court even after quashing of the proceedings Under Section 145 Cr. P...
Harpreet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)543
Vinod Shankar Dave, J.1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr. PC in a case under Section 3/6 of I.P.P.R., 307 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (here in after referred to as 'the T.A.D.A. Act')- The petitioner was taken into custody on 25th April, 1987 in FIR No. RC 8/87 registered at SPE, Jaipur. This report was lodged by Shri Nahar Singh, Company Commander, B.S.F., Sri ganganagar on 16th June, 1987. This case was registered initially against accused Mohan Inder Singh alias Pushpinder Singh alias Ajeet Singh. During the investigation of the case Shri Mohan Inder Singh made a detailed statement before the Investigating Officer where in he also made reference to the petitioner and made certain disclosures about the petitioner's rendering services for carrying out certain activities prejudicial to the security of the State. On the basis of this statement, as mentioned aforesaid, the petitioner was arreste...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »