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.
Ajay Sharma Alias Pappu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)376
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dated 23-7-1986 whereby he has taken cognizance against the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and has rejected the application filed under Section 169 Cr.PC by the Inspector, CID, CB, Jaipur for cancelling the prosecution against the accused petitioners.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this case briefly stated are that the Inspector, CID, CB, Jaipur filed a challan in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar against one accused Daljeet Singh. In the challan papers, it was mentioned that further investigation is going on against the accused-petitioners. The learned Magistrate, after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that on the basis of the material submitted before him, prima facie a case under Section 302/34 IPC is made out against the accused-petitioners and,...
Gheesa and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)457
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. In an incident which occurred on 30th June, 1988, four persons including one Mst. Manni were injured. The incident occurred when there was a dispute between rival parties about the flow of rain water. A case under Sections 452, 147 and 323, IPC was registered against the accused-petitioners. They were arrested and the trial court namely, Additional Judicial Magistrate, Tonk accepted their bail application and they were released on bail.2. On 11-7-1988, Mst. Manni died and the cause of her death was given by the Doctor as brain haemorrhage due to the head injury. The offence under Section 302, IPC was added in this case. On 12-7-88, the prosecution applied before the Magistrate that the bail granted to the accused petitioners be cancelled and they should be directed to be arrested.3. As the offence under Section 302, IPC was added and only a Chief Judicial Magistrate could deal with the matter, the relevant papers along with the application of the prosecution were pl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Minerva Dyeing Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: [1988]174ITR598(Raj)
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 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that interest of Rs. 5,403 paid by Shri Kantilal, partner to the firm, on his debit balance was not taxable in the hands of the firm ?'The relevant assessment year is 1978-79. During the relevant period, the assessee-firm had received Rs. 5,403 as interest from one of its partners, namely, Kantilal. The firm also had paid interest to Kantilal on the credit balance in his capital account. The assessee offered to pay tax on the difference between the two amounts which was Rs. 2,145. The Income-tax Officer, however, rejected that claim on the basis of section 40(b) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, upheld the assessees contention. The Tribunal has taken the same view. Hence, this reference at the instance the Revenue.We...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhikamdass Bastiram.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: [1988]174ITR670(Raj)
This 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, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that after April 1, 1976, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to levy any penalty ?'The relevant assessment year is 1969-70. The question of jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to levy penalty depends on the date on which the reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was made by the Income-tax Officer as held in a series of decisions of this court. It was held that where the reference by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was made subsequent to April 1, 1976, when sub-section (2) of section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was deleted, the reference was incompetent and gave no jurisdiction to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty; but when such a refer...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mishri Mal.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Raj)122
By the Court :This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT 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 justified in holding that income from assets acquired by the assessee on the death of his father is assessable in the status of HUF in the hands of the son notwithstanding the provisions of ss. 6 and 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ?'2. The relevant assessment years are 1975-76 to 77-78. The point involved for decision is the same as in IT Ref. No. 12 of 1982 since reported as CIT vs. M. M. Jain (1988) 72 CTR (Raj) 55. We have stated therein that it is a settled principle of law that even the self-acquired property of the father dying intestate coming to the son is to be treated as ancestral property in the hands of the son. Accordingly, the Tribunals view taken in favour of the assessee is justified.3. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bikaner Woollen Press.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: [1988]174ITR597(Raj)
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, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that on the death of the two partners, the old firm stood dissolved each time and, therefore, separate assessments for the three broken periods were to be made ?'The relevant assessment year is 1975-76. The assessee initially had three partners of whom one died on February 2, 1974, when two new partners were inducted and the business was carried on by the new firm Thereafter, one more partner died on August 8, 1974, as a result of which another new firm was constituted by taking two new partners According to the assessee, on both these occasions, the firm stood dissolved on the. death of the partners and the business was continued by the succeeding firm so that it was a case of succession governed by section 188 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and n...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bikaner English Wine Store.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: [1988]174ITR600(Raj)
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, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the firm stood dissolved on the death of Shri Ibrahim Khan (partner) on July 19, 1977, and, therefore, two separate assessments should have been made by the Income-tax Officer for the two periods, meaning thereby, up to July 19, 1977, and for the period from July 20, 1977 to March 31, 1978 ?'The relevant assessment year is 1978-79. The assessee-firm consisted of three partners of whom one Ibrahim Khan died on July 19, 1977. The assessee, therefore, filed two returns, one for the period up to July 19, 1977, and the other for the remaining period thereafter. The assessees contention was that the firm stood dissolved on the death of Ibrahim Khan and a new firm was constituted by a fresh deed thereafter. According to the assessee, it was a case of su...
Smt. Sugani Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)194
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner who has been an accused of an offence under Section 454 IPC, has moved this bail application under Section 439 Cr.PC. The petitioner has been earlier convicted for the offence under Section 454 IPC at least of eight occasions. It has been contended that it is the first instance in the last eight years. The petitioner is an agriculturist having agricultural land in village Narali, Tehsil Srinagar. She has only one son who is also studying. She has been in custody for about a month. The incident in which she has been arrested, took place in village Toda Raisingh, where she had gone to visit some relation.2. Considering all these facts and circumstances, and also the previous history of the petitioner, it can be said that one last opportunity can be given to her for leading a blameless life and for that purpose she can be released on bail.3. Therefore, it is directed if the accused petitioner Smt. Sugani w/o Shri Lala, furnishes a personal bond in the su...
Vinod Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)192
Farooq Hasan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The accused non-petitioners have been released on bail on 11-11-1987 and 13-11-1987 by this Court. Through this application it has been prayed that the aforesaid order be recalled because the accused non-petitioners are misusing the concession granted to them. In this application it has been stated that the accused non-petitioners are threatening the witnesses in order to refrain them from giving their evidence before the trial court. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the report for the aforesaid facts have been lodged by Shri Jhiburam s/o of deceased and one Shri Madan Lal the so-called eye witness. It has not been claimed that after receiving that report the concerning police took any action. In this application it has been alleged that the police did not initiate any action against the accused non-petitioners. In this view of the matter it is alleged that the accused non-petitioners are misusing the liberty of th...
Devi Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)263
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has pray that he may be declared as quasi-permanent and confirmed on the of Mate-II on and from the date persons junior to him are so confirmed. Further prayed that he may be given promotion to the post of Mate-I w.e.3-9-1983 and he may be considered for further promotion to the post Tractor Driver w.e.f. 1-4-1982. He has also claimed the consequential bene arising there from. He further prayed that he may be given House Allowance from 3-9-1969 to 13-10-1985 and also cash earned leave for of period from 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84.2. The petitioner was an employee of the State Farm Corporation India Ltd. while working at the Central State Farm, Suratgarh, the service the petitiones were terminated, therefore, he filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 401 of 1977 before this Court, challenging his removal from service. Court by the order dated 5-9-1984 quashed his order of termination declared that the petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »