Rajasthan Court May 1988 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.
Raghunath and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)446
J.R. Chopra, J.1. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 321 of 1987 and S.B. Criminal Misc Petition No. 95 of 1987 involve a common question and, therefore, I propose to decide them by a common order.2. In both these cases, F.R.'s. were submitted by the Police after investigation and the learned trial court took cognizance against the accused persons regarding certain offences which were prima-facie made out against them. In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 321 of 1987, the cognizance was taken against the accused-petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 325/149, IPC whereas in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition, No. 95 of 1987, the cognizance was taken against the accused-petitioner under Sections 426 and 372, IPC.3. Mr. B.S. Rathore, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused petitioners has raised only one contention before me that in these cases, the cognizance could not have been taken by the learned lower court without giving a notice to the accused-petitioners and without affo...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Durlabhji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR599(Raj)
1. This application by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is to direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer certain questions of law said to arise out of the Tribunal's order. The Commissioner had applied to the Tribunal for referring these questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order under Section 27(3) of the Act. These questions relate to the applicability of Rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, and exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Tribunal has declined to refer any of these questions. Hence, this application under Section 27(3) of the Act.2. The relevant assessment year is 1979-80. So far as the first question relating to the applicability of Rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules is concerned, the same does not arise out of the Tribunal's order. This rule is attracted only when determination of the market value of the closing stock is at an amount exceeding by more...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Gopi Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR150(Raj)
1. This is an application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax for a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer certain questions of law said to arise out of the Tribunal's order to this court for its decision.2. The relevant assessment year is 1978-79.3. The questions relate to the applicability of Rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, and the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, The Tribunal has declined to refer both these questions under Section 27(1) of the Act, Hence, this application under Section 27(3) of the Act.4. In our opinion, questions of law do arise with regard to the applicability of Rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules as well as the exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act. The question of applicability of Rule 2B(2) arises where determination of the market value of the closing stock is at an amount exceeding by more than 20 per cent. the value di...
C. W. T. Vs. Ram Mohan Rawat (Huf).
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1988
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(Raj)182
ORDERBy the CourtThis is an application under s. 27(3) of the WT Act by the CWT for a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer certain questions of law said to arise out of the Tribunals order to this Court for its decision.The relevant assessment year is 1976-77.2. The questions relate to the applicability of r. 28(2) of the WT Rules; and exemption claimed by the assessee under s. 5(1) (xxxii) of the WT Act. The Tribunal has declined to refer for both these questions under s. 27(1) of the Act. Hence, this application under s. 27(3) of the Act.3. In our opinion, questions of law do arise with regard to the applicability of r. 28(2) of WT Rules as well as the exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act. The question of applicability of r. 28(2) arises, where determination of the market value of the closing stock is at an amount exceeding by more than 20 percent the value disclosed in the balance sheet. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the onus of proving t...
Latia Alias Hari Ram Alias Natwar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)424
J R. Chopra, J.1. It is alleged against these two accused persons that they went to the Kotdi of Gopal (where Vithal resides as a servant of Gopal) about 8 or 9 in the night of 20th March, 1988.: The allegation of the prosecution is that Vithal has illicit relations with Baburi who happens to be sister of Latia & Babu, accused petitioners. They went there & asked him not to keep such relations with their sister to which he agreed but still it has been stated that these persons sprinkled Kerosene on him and lit fire to his clothes. Latia put cloth on his mouth so that he may not cry. They bolted the room from out side and went away. Vithal jumped from the window of the room from the back side of the house and ran away to his house. He was crying through out the way. It is alleged that report of the incident was lodged on 29-3-1988 because he was not in a position to move or to speak and his father Logar was in Gujarat.2. Mr. Mridul, appearing for the accused petitioners has submitted th...
Kripa Vs. Sufeda
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)WLN(Rev)148
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. The above mentioned three appeals arise out of different suits filed for specific performance and are disposed of by common judgment as identical questions arise in all these appeals Appellants entered into an agreement for sale in respect of different portions of agricultural land, situated in district Alwar, on June 10, 1986 which were between permanent allottees of those lands. These lands were earlier evacuee properties and were transferred to Slate, the allotment of which was governed by Rajasthan Land Revenue (Permanent Allotment of Evacuee Agricultural Land) Rules, 1963 (here in after referred to as 'the Rules'). The first contention of Shri H C Rastogi learned Counsel for the appellants is that the agreement to sell itself was void and illegal in as much as it went against the specific provisions of allotment in Sub-rules (5) & (7) of Rule 5 of the Rules. It is pointed out that the allottee could not sell, mortgage or in any other manner transfer or part ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mani Ram and anr. and Vice Versa
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)589
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The learned Additional Sessions Jndge No. 1, Hanumangarh has, by his judgment dated 4-9-87, convicted the, accused Mani Ram and Heeraram under Sections 302 and 302/34, IPC, and sentenced them to death. He has also convicted them under Section 307 IPC and sentenced the m to 10 year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine to one month's further imprisonment. He further convicted them under Section 450 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine to 1 month's further imprisonment. They have also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to two year's R.I. each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has submitted the proceedings for confirmation of the sentence of death passed on both these accused. The Murder Reference has been registered as No. 4/87.2. Both the accused Mani Ram and Heera Ram have also filed an appeal against their convictions and sentences and th...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Moti Chand DagA.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(Raj)102; [1988]174ITR379(Raj)
JAIPUR BENCHJ. S. VERMA C.J. - Both these references relate to the same assessee. The relevant assessment years in these references are 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. The facts on which a common question of law arises being the same, this common order shall dispose of both these references.At the instance of the Revenue, these references are made under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, to answer the following common question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that when there is no other positive material to establish the market value of the closing stock with the Wealth-tax Officer, the gross profit rate alone shown by the assessee is not sufficient evidence to determine the market value and come to the conclusion that the market value of the closing stock of the firm in which the assessee is a partner exceeds more than 20% of its book value, as contemplated in rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 19...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Moti Chand Daga
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN69
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. Both these references relate to the same assessee. The relevant assessment years in these references are: 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. The facts on which a common question of law arises being the same, this common order shall dispose of both these references.2. At the instance of the revenue these references are made under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 to answer the following common question of law, namely:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that when there is no other positive material to establish the market value of the closing stock with the WFO, the G.F. rate alone shown by the assessee is not sufficient evidence to determine the market value and, come to the conclusion that the market value of the closing stock of the firm in which the assessee is a partner exceeds more than 20% of its book value, as contemplated in Rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957?3. The assessee was a ...
Ram Swaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)163
V.S. Dave, J.1. In this case the back ground is that a jeep bearing registration No. RSB 3508 belonging to the police department killed a boy on the spot while it was being driven rashly or negligently. Besides the driver Sumer Singh in the jeep, S.H.O. Police Station Mahua was also occupying the same. People tried to stop them but in vain. They did not have even the courtsey to take the injured to hospital though he was a Police Officer and Incharge of a police station. Placed in that situation an angry crowd of the whole town rushed to the Police Station, may be udder the command of the Pradhan, they had gone for a protest against the conduct of a responsible Police Officer who has failed to act in a manner required by him and if somebody from the crowd turned violent unless specific over act is attributed, each cannot be made liable. That was a natural re-action of the people particularly in the case where a senior Police Officer of the rank of S.H.O. of a Police Station runs away f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »