Rajasthan Court August 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.
Mahendra Pal Kaur Vs. Saudagar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)130
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This is a revision by Mahendra Pal Kaur against the order of the District Judge, Ganganagar dated March 19, 1987 discharging the caveat filed by her on May 23, 1986 in proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate on the death of her husband Baldeo Singh.2. The petitioner was discharged from her caveat on the ground that she had not complied with Rule 785 read with Rule 778 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules. The Division Bench of this Court in Kalyansingh v. Mst. Gendkanwar 1961 RLW 143 has held that the combined effect of these Rules is that who ever wishes to approach for grant of Probate or Letter of Administration can do so only by filing a caveat and this caveat must be supported by an affidavit by the Caveator, and the affidavit must be filed during 14 days of the lodging of the caveat. It is further necessary that the affidavit must disclose the right and interest of the Caveator on the ground on which he opposes...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Baldeo Goswami and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)438
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Bikaner dated 8-7-1987 whereby he has discharged the accused-non-petitioner of the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471, IPC and Section 5(1)(d)(ii) of the Anti Corruption Act, 1947.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition briefly stated are: that in year 1980, the accused-non-petitioner Baldeo Goswami was posted as Executive Engineer, PHED Sardarshahar. He invited tenders for purchasing 'single phase Preventors with Automatic control' vide tender notices dated 11-2-1980 and 29-2-1980. It is alleged that in pursuance of those tender notices, the accused-non-petitioner No. 2 Shri K.K. Nayyar, who is the proprietor of firm Gomati Electric Company, Jaipur submitted his tender. Two others tenders were also received on, from M/s Krishna Engineering Work, Jaipur and other from M/s Rallonix, Jaipur. It is alleged that all ...
Mahipal Singh and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)WLN(Rev)32
1. A broad brush fundamental Constitutional backdrop will help delineate the pristinely forensic cotroversy in the matter of writ jurisdiction of this Court One of the fundamental principles in regard to the issuing of writ of certiorari is that it can be availed of only to remove or adjudicate or the validity of judicial acts, which expression includes the exercise of quasi judicial functions by administrative bodies or other authorities or persons in contrast to purely ministerial act. The second eseential feature of this writ is that the control exercised through it is not appellate but supervisory. In granting writ of certiorari, the superior, court does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It merely demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palyably erroneous but does not substitute its own views or those of the inferior tribunal.2. Mere formal or technical error, even though of l...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Moti Lal Ramjiwan and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR25(Raj)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, to answer the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that interest payments on the loans advanced by Tarachand and Rameshwardas representing their respective Hindu undivided families out of the Hindu undivided family funds were not inadmissible under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1979-80. The partners in the assessee-firm were representing their Hindu undivided families in the capacity of karta. The Hindu undivided families had advanced loans to the firm and the interest on those loans were paid by the firm for the benefit of the Hindu undivided families. The question was whether the amount of interest so paid by the firm could be deducted while computing the income in view of Section 40(b) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer disallow...
Bald Gaum Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]178ITR204(Raj)
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the assessee. The Tribunal has remanded the case to the Commissioner taking the view that the findings recorded by the Commissioner are insufficient for deciding the case on merits. The contention of the assessee is that the findings recorded by the Commissioner are sufficient to decide the case on merits and, therefore, there is no occasion to make the remand.2. The question relating to the sufficiency of the findings for deciding the case on merits is a question of law. Accordingly, a question of law does arise out of the Tribunal's order and we, therefore, allow the application and direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer to this court for its decision, the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in remanding the case to the Commissioner of Income-tax on the ground that the findings recorded by the Commissioner are i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Santlal Kalyani and Co.,
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR24(Raj)
1. This reference is under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue to answer the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that no interest under Section 139(8) is chargeable treating the firm as an unregistered firm in a case where no tax is payable by the firm as a registered firm, while Explanation (2) to Sub-section (8) of Section 139 clearly speaks of determination of tax payable treating the firm as an unregistered firm for charging interest under Section 139(8)?'2. The relevant, assessment year is 1977-78. The assessee i.s a registered firm. After taking into account the advance tax paid by the assesses and the tax deducted at source, no tax was payable. However, the Income-tax Officer charged interest under Section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for late submission of the return. The assessee disputed its liability for payment of interest. ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Agarwal Constructions.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(Raj)248
By the CourtThis Reference is under s. 256(1) of the IT Act at the instance of the Revenue to answer the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that no interest under s. 139(8) is chargeable treating the firm as unregistered firm in a case where no tax is payable by the firm as Registered Firm while explanation (2) to sub-s. (8) of s. 139 clearly speaks the determination of tax payable treating the firm as an unregistered firm for charging interest under s. 139(8).'2. The relevant assessment year is 1981-82. The assessee is a registered firm which filed the return late. However, on completion of the assessment, it was found that no tax was due from the assessee and in fact the assessee was entitled to refund of some amount taking into account the tax which had already been paid.3. The point involved for decision is concluded by the Supreme Court decision in Ganesh Dass Shreeram vs . I...
Gandhi Ramnani Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)101
J.R. Chopra, J.1. Heared and perused the case diary submitted for my perusal. It is alleged against the accused-petitioner that he purchased certain goods from complainant M/s Virendra Textiles, Mahavir Market, Tripolia Bazar, Jodhpur vide Bill No. 261 for a sum of Rs. 8,688.15p. It is further alleged that the accused-petitioner himself is a shop-keepeer, who runs his business in the name and style of M/s Jyoti Textiles, Tripolia Road, Jodhpur. At the time of purchasing these goods, the accused-petitioner told the complainant that he will pay this amount in the evening. In the evening when money was demanded, it was told that he was to recieve money on that day but it has not been received and so, he will send it on the next day. It so happened that no payment was made for about 4 to 5 months and on 5-9-87, a cheque was given to the complainant drawn on the Laxmi Commercial Bank by the brother of the accused. This cheque was given to the accused fully knowing the fact that the Bank Acc...
Associated Road Carriers Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)122
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.PC where the petitioner has prayed that he should be permitted to hand over the goods on Supurdagi to National Thermal Power Corporation since he was the consignee of the goods initially. A similar application was moved before the trial court which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 6th May, 1988 and it is there after, that the petitioner has approached this Court.2. In normal course, during the pendency of the case property cannot be handed over to the person for the purpose of disposal before the investigation of the case but the extra ordinary circumstances prevailing in the case compel me to take a course different from the normal. In this case the consigner was K.E.C. International Limited and the consignee was the National Thermal Power Corporation. In between transportation through the carriers, the goods could neither remain with the consignor nor could reach the consignee. The National Thermal Power Corporatio...
Hari Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)186
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner jumped bail in the year 1983 and appeared in court only on 3-6-1988 when he came to know that a non-bailable warrant for his arrest has been issued. From the order of the learned Sessions Judge it also appears that the address given by the petitioner was incorrect and it was only when another person Jagdish Narain furnished the correct address of the petitioner that the petitioner decided to surrender before the trial court. The reason given by the petitioner for not attending the court is that his counsel informed him that it was no longer necessary for him to appear in the court. Considering the fact that the trial of the case will take some time and that the conclusion can be imposed for purpose of ensuring the attendance of the petitioner one more chance can be given to him.2. The petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfacti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »