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.
Ramesh Chandra and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN396
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioners by this writ petition have prayed that by a writ of mandamus the respondents be directed to pay the petitioners the same pay as is paid to the persons belonging to their cadre.2. The petitioners are working on the post of L.DCs. in various offices of the State of Rajasthan in Udaipur District but they are not paid the regular pay scale of L.D.C. How ever, they have been paid a sum of Rs. 15/- per day as daily rates workers. The grievance of the petitioners is that other persons who are working on the post of L.D.Cs. they are getting the regular pay scale of L.D.C. where as the petitioners are only paid daily wages at rate of Rs. 15/-per day though they are performing the same duties as other L.D Cs. who are working in the office are performing. But they are paid in the pay scale of 880-1680. Therefore, the petitioners' grievance is that on the principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India they m...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kishanlal and Brothers.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1988
Reported in: [1988]174ITR728(Raj)
JAIPUR BENCHThis reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the Revenue, to answer the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs. 2,125 made under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The relevant assessment year is 1978-79. One Kishanlal was a partner in his individual capacity in the assessee firm, Kishanlal & Bros., Kota. There were two accounts in the assessee-firm, one for the said Kishanlal as a partner in his individual capacity and the other for the Hindu undivided family represented by Kishanlal in his representative capacity. Interest was paid by the assessee-firm during the relevant period to both these accounts. We are here concerned with the disallowance of interest under section 40(b), which was paid to the Hindu undivided family represented by Kishanlal and not with the amount of interest which was paid to K...
Miss D.K. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN624
V.S. Dave, J.1. This bail application has been filed under Section 17 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (here in after referred to as the' Act, 1985') read with Section 439 Cr. P.C.2. The petitioner is an accused in sessions case No. 3/87 pending before the Designated Court, Ajmer In the aforesaid case charge-sheet has been filed against several accused including the petitioner for offences under Sections 302, 307, 354, 224, 225, 109, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of the Act, 1985.3. Prosecution's case in brief is that on 4th September, 1986 at 1.20 a.m. the guard of train No. 1 BHL running between Ganganagar and Surat Garh, informed the Police Station, G.R.P. Shri Ganganagar through the Assistant Station Master that certain accused persons named in the report and who were being taken in police custody were freed from the police custody after killing one C...
Jaliya and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)326
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This matter comes upon the 4th bail application of appellant Jaliya. The application was dismissed by this court on 3-8 1987 and it was directed that the appeal shall be heard on 10-8-1987. How ever it could not be possible to hear the appeal till now and, therefore, this 4th bail application has been proved.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that instead of hearing the bail application, the appeal itself may be disposed of He further submits that he does not press the appeal, so far as appellants No. 2 and 3 Gyana Ram and Bahdar, are concerned and so far as appellant Jaliya is concerned, his only contention is that the sentence awarded to him under Section 304, Part-II. IPC is excessive and should be reduced. The sentence awarded is 7 years rigorous imprisonment to appellant Jaliya, according to him, has already undergone more than 3-1/2 years rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 324, IPC and was sentenced to two years' RI on two count...
Tara Chand and ors. Vs. Chokali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1988
Reported in: II(1988)ACC603; (1990)ILLJ239Raj
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. These two appeals and the cross-objections have been filed against the award dated 14th September, 1982 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, allowing a compensation of Rs. 9,720/- to the claimants in each of the claim petitions.2. The accident took place on 15th January, 1974, at Pratapgarh. In the accident the truck No. RJH 850 belonging to Tara Chand and Jayanti Lal was involved. It was being driven by Bardhi Chand driver. Two persons, namely, Onkar and Babu were killed in the accident. They had been employed as labourers on the truck. The truck was used for loading and unloading of stones. To bring stones the truck was taken on kacha road, where it overturned, resulting in the death of Onkar and Babu. Two claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur. Claim Petition No. 14 of 1974, renumbered as 141 of 1978, related to the claim for compensation for the death of Onkar. It was filed by Kalu, father of the deceased, Ch...
Sardarilal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ274; 1988(1)WLN517
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. Sardarilal has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 27th ; July, 1985, passed in Sessions Case No. 39/84, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Baas, by which, he convicted the appellant Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life,2. One Madanpal submitted a written-report (Ex. P1) at PS - Kishangarh bass, alleging that the accused-appellant had caused injuries by knife, to his mother Kaushalya Devi. It was mentioned in the report that Kaushalya Devi was grazing her she-buffaloes near the godown in the noon, at about 1 O' clock, when Sardarilal came there, and inflicted knife blows on her head and neck and then ran away. Madanpal and his younger-brother Bahadur Singh had seen the appellant, Sardarilal inflicting those blows to Kaushalya Devi. It was further mentioned in the report that their father had died about 3 years back, and the appellant was seeking marriage with their mother Kaushalya Devi, and had told their m...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Zoraster and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1988
Reported in: [1989]179ITR416(Raj); 1988(2)WLN67
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue is to answer the following questions of law, namely : --'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 10,117, Rs. 5,000, Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 7,000 incurred by the assessee was not in the nature of entertainment and was, therefore, not hit by Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on charity and donations amounting to Rs. 22,557 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1972-73.3. The assessee claimed certain deductions as business expenditure under Section 37(2B) on account of the expenses incurred for supply of snacks and beverages, etc., to its constituents. The assessee further claimed deduction ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Mannalal Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR184(Raj)
1. This is a consolidated reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue to answer a common question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order in respect of two different assessees and for different periods. The questions as framed in the common statement of case are as under :'1. In respect of RA No. 141/JP/1978-79 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was justified in holding that since the settlement was not theresult of the application of any provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961, andthe Wealth-tax Act, 1957, it was not income-tax and wealth-tax liabilitywithin the meaning of Section 2(m)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, andthat the liability pertaining to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70determined at Rs. 16,50,000 on March 24, 1975, was allowable as a deduction under Section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, for determination of thenet wealth for the assessment year 1972-73 2. In respect of RA Nos. ...
Lala Ram Vs. Executive Engineer Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR217]; (1994)IIILLJ922Raj
Milan Chandra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayers that the order (Annexure-II) of the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jodhpur, dated August 3, 1985 be quashed and the respondent No. 1 be directed to make payment of Rs. 4,561.60 P, with interest to the petitioner. The facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition may be summarised thus.2. The petitioner was Junior Filter Attendant, Filter House, Jodhpur in the year 1965. He had prolonged illness during the years 1965, 1966 and 1967. He reported on duty on January 1, 1968. He was not taken back in service. At the instance, the State Government made a reference under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter to be called the Act). It was decided by the Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Rajasthan, Jaipur on January 22, 1975, directing that the petitioner would be taken back in the service on his production of a medical fitness certificate. It was also o...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Sardul Textiles Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1988
Reported in: [1988]71STC223(Raj)
M.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, dated January 31, 1986, whereby the appeal of the department was dismissed.2. Two questions of law have been urged in the present revision petition :--(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty of Rs. 2,950 imposed under Section 6C(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the tax and penalty imposed in respect of sales made by M/s. Sardul Textiles Mills in its canteen account under Section 16(1)(c).3. The Commercial Taxes Officer by his order dated 12th October, 1976 determined the tax liability in respect of the canteen sales to the tune of Rs. 450 and imposed penalty of Rs. 900 for non-submission of the quarterly returns and further found that the assessee purchased silicate, tinopole and caustic soda to the tune of Rs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »