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.
His Highness Maharana Bhagwat Singh Vs. Bhopal Electricity Supply Comp ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN770
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The privileges enjoyed by the erstwhile Rulers of the State of Rajasthan are still having a 'hang over' in the form of, litigation, wherein the head having been lost, the tail is still being tried to be caught, for concerning whatever little is possible.2. The present one is a series of that litigation in connection with the electricity charges. With the advent of freedom and integration of the States, the Indian Electricity Act 1910, was applied to the states also and the privileges of the rulers come into fire.3. The present suit and the appeal relate to the very minor amount of Rs. 13,763/-which the ruler claimed against the Electricity Company as a refund on the ground that the firm supplied 3000 unit per month in the year 10-10-1948 and continued, till as per the judgment of this Court, Ex. 1 dt. 2-12-62 in S.B.C. Regular Second Appeal No. 707 of 1958 H.H. Maharaja Bhagwat Singh of Udaipur v. Maharana Bhopal Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. the committee for revis...
Babulal Vs. Madadeen and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj143; 1988(1)WLN70
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J.1. This case is having a chequred history. Suit was instituted for the pre-emption in the year 1967. During The pendency of the suit the permission was granted to construct the building to the present petitioner on the condition that in case the suit is decreed the defendant present petitioner will remove the construction. Defendant petitioner also gave an undertaking before the Court that he should be permitted to construct and in case the decree is passed in favour of the present non-petitioner he shall remove the construction so made. Mr. Lodha counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction has been raised by the present petitioner during the pendency of the suit and his client will suffer irreparable loss. Undertaking given by the parties will have to be strictly complied with otherwise people will lose faith in judicial system. Mr. Lodha cannot agitate this point now in the execution particularly when a decree has been passed by this Court and the revi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.L. Sanghi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR670(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue is to answer the following question of law :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to interest under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. The only point involved for decision is, whether the assessee is entitled to interest in accordance with Section 214(1) of the Act on the amount of tax ordered to be refunded as a result of the order made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the quantum appeal filed by the assessee against the Income-tax Officer's order of assessment. In the present case, a sum of Rs. 4,781 was found to be the excess amount of tax deposited by the assessee as a result of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order deciding the assessee's quantum appeal and the same was directed to be refunded to the assessee together with interest payable in accordance with Section ...
Chhaganlal Gulab Chand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR664(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the assessee for answering the following questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the partnership constituted by the karta and another member of the same Hindu undivided family and a stranger was not a valid partnership, so as not to be entitled to registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, is correct and justified in law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the partnership formed by the karta of the Hindu undivided family, a member of the same Hindu undivided family and a stranger was not a partnership valid in law merely because the funds of the Hindu undivided family were all shown in the name of the karta as capital, and none shown in the names of other members, and as such not entitled to registration under Section 185 of the Income...
KutubuddIn Vs. Habib Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)145
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order dt. 7 11-1985. Non-Petitioner Plaintiff was allowed to have the repairs of the damaged property on 22nd February 1986. Order granting temporary injunction has become final and the defendant petitioners were prohibited by that order not to disturb the plaintiff-non-petitioner from carrying out necessary repairs. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the court that the plaintiff is not allowing the defendant to carry-out necessary repairs which are necessary for the purpose of residence and enjoyment of the leased property. Initially the application was rejected and subsequent application has been accepted vide impugned order.2. It is the duty of the Court to see that the tenant enjoyed the property and carries out without any obstruction the necessary repairs which are necessary for the enjoyment and with this view in mind the court passed the temporary injunction on 22-2-1986. Granting of permiss...
Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)61
G.K. Sharma. J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th Aug., 1984, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sikar, convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment; he has further been convicted under Section 201, IPC and sentenced to two year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences awarded to the appellant, were however, ordered to run concurrently.2. One Sukharam Balai gave a Parcha-Bayan at PS, Dantaramgarh, on 29th April, 1984 at about 1 p.m., alleging that Nathuram and Prabhu Balai used to cultivate the field of Hanuman Pareek. His field was adjacent to the field of Hanuman Pareek. His real sister was married to Prabhu Balai, and as such, he was very well-acquainted with their family. Mohan appellant is ...
Shoki Alias Shoki Ram and Khalid Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)537
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 28th Feb., 1987, and hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Both the appellants have been found guilty of offence under Section 302, and each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.3. Ramswaroop lodged a report at P.S., Ramgunj, on 16th November, 1985, at about 8 p.m., with regard to an incident, which had taken place on that day at about 5.30 p.m. He alleged that one Nauratan had come to him and informed that his (informant's) brother Moti, had been attacked with knife in Mehron-ki-Nadi, where he rushed to the spot, and reaching there, he saw that Shoki and Khalid were inflicting knife-blows to his brother Moti, and that one more person was with them, but he did not know that man but could identif...
Sunari Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Sunari and anr. Vs. State of Raj ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Raj32
M.B. Sharma, J.1. An important question is involved about the powers of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies Rajasthan, Jaipur to order postponement of the elections of Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies Rajasthan Jaipur under his order dt. April 18, 1987 (Annr. 5) has stayed the programme of elections of the Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur. It is the aforesaid order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan Jaipur which is under challenge in this writ petition.2. The challenge to the aforesaidorder is on two grounds, (i) that under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, the Act) and the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules), the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies Rajasthan, Jaipur has no jurisdiction to issue the aforesaid order Annr. 5 and the same is without jurisdiction and (ii) it is not in public interest to postpone the elections and it has been so wron...
Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Raj)8; [1988]170ITR653(Raj)
1. This order shall also dispose of Income-tax Reference No. 94 of 1980. Both these references relate to the same assessee and they involve for decision the same question of law in respect of the two assessment years 1973-74 and 1975-76. The question of law referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, at the instance of the assessee, for decision by this court is the following, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax paid by the assessee-companywas not allowable as a deduction in computing the total income under the Income-tax Act ?'2. The assessee, M/s. Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd., is a public limited company. In respect of both these assessment years 1973-74 and 1975-76, the assessee claimed deduction of surtax liability determined on the basis of the assessee's income from business. This claim was not made before the Income-tax Officer but for the first time before the ...
Het Ram Beniwal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN350
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The two petitioners, against whom cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar, have challenged the order of the learned Magistrate dated May 21, 1985, by which he directed the investigation under Section 155(2), Cr. PC and further the order dated April 17, 1986, by which cognizance has been taken against them for offences under Sections 427 and 120B, IPC.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this application are that non-petitioner No. 2 Harish Thapar, Manager of the factory J.T.C Mills, Sriganganagar filed a report before the Police Kotwali, Sriganganagar on April 29,1985 alleging that the labourers and their leaders had spoiled and damaged about 30,000 meters of cloth of the mill with an intention of causing wrongful loss to the Mill and, thus, they have committed offence under Section 427 and 120B, IPC. On this report, the police found that the report related to a non-cognizable offence and therefore, it referred the compl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »