Rajasthan Court September 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Adu Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR324(Raj)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ('the Act'), 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 legally in holding that no penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is leviable in the case of the asses-see, a registered firm, because it had no tax liability in terms of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(a) and that the provisions of Section 271(2) did not govern the field in this case ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1978-79. The question as well as the facts on which this question arises is the same as in CIT v. Builders Engineers Co. . Following that decision and for the same reasons, this reference has to be answered in the negative.3. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by holding that the Tribunal was justified in taking-the view that no penalty under Section...
Arvind Kumar and anr. Vs. Jaipur Nagar Anchalic GramIn Bank
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN591
1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent not be deduct dearness allowance from the salary of the employees/officers of Jaipur Nagar Anchalik Gramin Bank (for short, the Bank) by impounding the same and, further directing the respondent to make payment to the employees/officers of the amount so far impounded.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is an employee of Jaipur Nagar Anchalik Gramin Bank and petitioner No. 2 is the Union which represents the majority of the employees employed on different posts in the service of Bank all over Rajasthan and it represents the interest of the member employees of the Bank It is stated that petitioner No. 2 is a Union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. It is further stated that the Bank Is a Regional Rural Bank established under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976. The respondent Bank is a ba...
R.L. Bhatnagar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)276
Gopal Krishan Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22nd Oct., 1977, passed by the Special Judge for the ACD-Cases, Jaipur, by which, the appellant has been convicted under Section 161 IPC, and sentenced to 1 year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment; and under Section 5(1)(d) and (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'the Act'), to 1 year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 200/-. and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.2. The appellant was working as Office Superintendent, in office of the CM and HO, Maharana Bhim Singh Hospital, Kota. On 18th Dec, 1973, one Labhchand, at about 8.15 a.m. lodged a written-report before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, Kota (for short, 'the ASP), alleging therein that he was...
Kashmir Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)518
S.S. Byas, J.1. Appellant Kashmir Singh is the son of the other appellant Latkan Singh and they have filed this joint appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Kishangarhbas (Alwar) dated December 18. 1987 by which the son was convicted 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment of life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, and the father was convicted 324 and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. Stated in short, the prosecution case is (hat PW 1 Kala Singh is the son and PW 2 Smt Preet Kaur is the daughter of the deceased victim Badbava Singh. They and the appellants are the residents of village Jakhopur Police Station Tapukda, District Alwar. The deceased Badhava Singh purchased Arazi Khasra No. 695 comprising an area of 17 Biswas situated in Moza Jokhopur on 20-7-1985 from one Badhava Singh who was the holder of the power of attorney of Bariyan Singh. Bariyan Singh was the. Khatedar of the said Arazi. Possession was taken over by Badhava Singh in pursuance to the ...
Balveer Singh and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)WLN(Rev)256
N.C. Kochar, J.1. The facts giving rise to this Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance are as under: On October 4, 1958. the appellants had filed a suit under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') against Bhura, respondent in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Phalodi, for possession of the land in dispute situated in village Kotra, Tehsit Osiyan, District Jodhpur.2. It was alleged that respondent Bhura had been inducted in the land is dispute for a period of two years under an agreement dated 12th September, 1950 but after the expiry of period of tenancy, Bhura who remained in occupation of the land in dispute as a trespasser, could not be evicted by the appellants because of the promulgation of the Rajasthan Regularization(Protection of Tenants) Ordinance ('the Ordinance'). The appellants, therefore sought a decree for possession of the land. The suit of the appellant was contested by Bhura who denied that he was a trespasser in t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. R.S. Bhatt
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1988
Reported in: [1990]185ITR592(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, theTribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled todeduct the full amount of tax deducted at source by the Iranian Government on his foreign salary earned in Iran from the tax payable on the saidincome in India ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1978-79. The question for decision and the facts on which the question arises are similar to those in D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 36 of 1982 (CIT v. Dr. R.N. Jhanji ) on August 29, 1988. Following that decision and for the same reasons, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 91(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of the full amount of tax paid on the total foreign income in the foreign country and that the assessee is entitled to the reli...
Kishore Alias Kirpal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)528
K.S. Lodha, J.1. Appellant Kishore alias Kirpal has been convicted Undes/Section. 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajasamand, by his judgment dated 25-3-1983. He has come up in appeal.2. The prosecution story briefly stated is as under: PW 9 Mahant I algiri has a 'Jamat' of 25 saints (SHANT) and he is the 'Mahant' of that 'Jamat'. Deceased Sadhu Dadhu Ram, who was known as Bhandari, originaly belonged to some other Jamat but had joined the Jamat of Mahant Lalgiri. Accused Kishore was the Mahot of the elephant kept by Lalgiri's Jamat. This Jamat was to reach Nathdwara on 12-12-1981. It appears that the deceased Bhandari along with PW7 Jagdish and the accused Kishore had reached village Bijnoi on their way to Nathdwara and had night halt there. It is alleged that at about 6.00 a.m. on 11-12-1981 deceased Bhandari and accused Kishore along with the elephant had gone to take bath the 'Bawai' near village Bijnoi. Th...
Lala Vs. Lal Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Raj17; 1(1989)WLN(Rev)415
R.S. Verma, J.1. All Mohd., Lal Khan and Gulam Mohd. brought a suit against present appellant Lala in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Churu, for recovery of arrears of rent and possession of a 'bari' on the averments that Lal had taken the aforesaid 'bari' with a well on rent from them on 28-11-67 at a monthly rent of Rs. 5/-. The lease was to expire on 31-3-68. A 'kirayanama' was executed on 28-11-67. The defendant did not pay any rent. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs required the 'bari' for their own use. A notice. of termination of tenancy was sent to the defendant on 17-3-69, which was received by the defendant on 18-3-69 but he neither paid rent nor vacated the bari and the well.2. The suit was resisted by the defendant, who traversed the claim of the plaintiffs. He denied that he had ever taken on rent the suit 'bari' or the well. It was pleaded that thumb impression of the defendant was obtained by the plaintiff Ali Mohd. by playing fraud on him. On such pleas, it was pray...
Gheesya and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)270
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. This case has a very chequered history. An incident took place on 30th June, 1988, about which cross complaints were lodged. On the side of the complainant four persons including one Mst. Manni were injured and the case against the accused persons was registered under Sections 452, 147 and 323 IPC. They were arrested and produced before the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Tonk who accepted their bail application and released them on bail.2. On 11-7-1988, Mst. Manni died and the cause of her death was brain haemorrhage due to head injury. Because, of this development the off nee under Section 302 IPC was added. There after the SHO, Police Station, Deoli moved application before the Magistrate to cancel the bail already granted to the petitioners and prayed that they should be directed to be arrested. Due to this application, the petitioners applied before the Sessions Judge, Tonk for grant of anticiptory bail and also contested the application which was moved before ...
Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)494
Milap Chandra, J.1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 397, Cr.PC, 1973 against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Hanumangarh dated August 19, 1973, by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioner and confirmed his conviction under Section 8, Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travellers) Act, 1975 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'). The facts of the case giving rise to this revision may be summarised thus.2. The accused-petitioner was a Conductor in Bus No. RRM 6758 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. On August 19, 1978, it was going from Hanumangarh to Rawatsar. It was checked by the checking party of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The checking parly detected that the accused-petitioner has issued the used tickets to two passengers after charging fare from them. The same day, a complaint under Section 8 of the Act was presented before the Roadways Magi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »