Rajasthan Court September 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.
Karaniya Vs. State of Rajasthan and Vice Versa
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)478
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. As the appeals are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judged), Jodhpur dated September 29, 1976, they were heard together and are decided by a common judgement. By the impugned judgment, accused Karaniya was convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has come up in appeal to challenge his conviction. The State has also come-up in appeal with a prayer that the appellant should also be convicted under Sections 325, 342 and 447, IPC.2. Put briefly, the prosecution case is that PW 14 Allahabux was allotted agricultural land Mauja Peeparla-ki-seed district Jaisalmer. He was cultivating it since the allotment. In Samvat Year 2027, Allahabux went with his live-stock to some other area. Taking advantage of his absence, accused Karaniya made unlawful possession over that field and started cultivating it. When Allahabux returned, he asked the accused to deliver possession of the fie do him. The ac...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.K. Golcha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR664(Raj)
1. This order shall dispose of both these references.2. These references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are at the instance of the Revenue in respect of the same assessee for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, for answering the following questions of law, namely :Assessment year 1969-70 : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty order passed under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, holding; that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy the said penalty of Rs. 3,70,733 on March 2, 1977 Assessment year 1970-71 : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty order passed under Section 18(1)(c), holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had 10 jurisdiction to levy the said penalty of Rs. 3,95,333 on March 2, 977 ' 3. The assesses filed a wealth tax return for the assessment year ...
Poonam Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN95
M.C. Jain J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner admittedly did not join within the joining time and as such Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Joining Time) Rules, 1981 automatically came into operation, resulting into interruption of the petitioner's service. Rule 5(5) of the said Rules empowers some authorities to grant extension in joining time. Upto 30 days, the time can be extended by the Heads of Department and beyond 30 days, the time can be extended by the Department of Government. The petitioner joined after 124 days. For extension beyond 30 days, the power vests in the Department of the Government. The petitioner ought to have approached through proper channel to the concerned department of the Government for extension of joining time. On perusal of Rule 8 of the Rules, we do not find any vice in it and, so, it is not ultra vires of the Constitution. The petitioner may approach the Government for extention of the joining time under Rule 5(5) of t...
Poonam Chand S/O Dan Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)575
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner admittedly did not join within the joining time and as such Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Joining Time) Rules, 1981 automatically came into operation, resulting into interruption of the petitioner's service. Rule 5(5) of the said Rules empowers some authorities to grant extension in joining time. Upto 30 days, the time can be extended by the Heads of Department and beyond 30 days, the time can be extended by the Department of Government. The petitioner joined after 124 days. For extension beyond 30 days, the power vests in the Department of the Government. The petitioner ought to have approached through proper channel to the concerned department of the Government for extension of joining time. On perusal of Rule 8 of the Rules, we do not find any vice in it and, so, it is not ultra vires of the Constitution. The petitioner may approach the Government for extension of the joining time under Rule 5(5) of the said Rule...
Chaina Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN278
S.S. Byas, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for (1) quashing Annexure P/8 and Annexure P/9, by which the election of the members of the Committee of Kray Vikray Sahkari Samiti, Deedwana was postponed and (2) directions to the respondents to declare the ten persons mentioned in Annexure P/10 as duly elected members of the Committee.2. As per averments disclosed in the petition, respondent No. 6 Hanuman Singh was appointed as the Election Officer to conduct the election for the constitution of the Committee of Kray Vikraya Sahkari Samiti, Deedwana. The Election Officer published the notice-cum-programme of the election vide Annexure 1 dated January 27, 1987. The final lists of voters (Annexure 4 and Annexure 5) were published on January 31, 1987. The nomination papers were to be presented between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. on February 3, 1987 for eleven vacancies. In all, ten nomination papers were filed. The names of the ten candidates who h...
Deep Chand Kothari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(Raj)117; [1988]171ITR381(Raj)
Milap Chaxdra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the assessee for answering the following questions of law, namely ;'1. Whether, in the proceedings initiated under Section 147(a), the validity of the notices and proceedings taken in pursuance thereof has been raised before the Income-tax Officer and the appeal of the assessee has been accepted on merits, the Tribunal was legally not right in not allowing the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to initiate the notice and as to the validity of the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof to be raised ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in order to go into the question of jurisdiction, the authorities below will have to find out facts in coming to the conclusion one way or the other and thereby not going into that question ...
George Talkies Circuit Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Raj)150; [1988]171ITR386(Raj)
Milap Chandra, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the assessee, to answer 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 status of the petitioner firm is that of an unregistered firm and not that of an association of persons as claimed ?'2. The facts of the case giving rise to this reference may be summarised thus. The case relates to the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee was carrying on the business of film distribution and exploitation at Jodhpur. The firm and all its partners were declared insolvent on November 17, 1971, by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, and a receiver was appointed on May 18, 1971, He continued the said business in respect of the pictures whose term did not expir...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sanwarmal Shivkumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Raj)5; [1988]171ITR377(Raj)
Milap Chandra, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the 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, Jodhpur, for answering the following question of law, namely ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the entire amount of loan liability of the assessee, towards purchase of 1,150 shares of the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., should be allowed as a deduction while computing the net value of the shares of the said company held by the assessee ignoring any deduction of the said loan liability which is attributable to any part of the value of the said shares that is otherwise exempt from tax under Section 5(1)(xxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. The facts of the case giving rise to this reference may be summarised thus. The case relates to the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee...
Harikishan Vs. Smt. Shantidevi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1987
Reported in: 1989CriLJ439; 1988(1)WLN354
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. This is an application Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. against the order of the Sessions Judge dated 31st July, 1981 passed in criminal revision No. 134/80 whereby the learned , Sessions Judge dismissed the applicant's revision petition in proceedings relating to maintenance. 2. The facts may briefly be stated as under leading to the present application:3. The respondent Smt. Shantidevi submitted an application Under Section 125, Cr. P.C. for maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter Ashakumari. The present applicant did not appear in that application despite service of notice and final ex parte order was passed on 19-6-79 granting maintenance to Shanti Devi and Asha Kumari. Thereafter an application was submitted on 30th November, 1979 by the applicant for cancellation of the order dated 19-6-79 mentioning it to be Under Section 125, Sub-sections (4) and (5), Cr. P.C. It was stated in that application that the applicant had filed proceedings for judicial sepa...
Misara Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)64
K.S. Lodha, J.1. Accused Misra has been convicted under Section 304, Part-II, IPC and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of two months by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore by his judgment dated 19th December, 1985. Aggrieved of this judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal through jail.2. I have heard learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record.3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on April 25, 1985 one Govind Ram was going to his shop from his house, when accused Misra armed with spade came near him and started giving blows with the spade Govind Ram fell down raising cries, but Misra did not stop and went on giving more blows. In the meantime, Hariram and Chamanlal, who were going to the house of Govind Ram reached the spot and saw the incident. They, however, could not interfere out of fear. After inflicting few blows and taki...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »