Rajasthan Court April 1992 Judgments
Rajendra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLC500; 1992(1)WLN450
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This habeas corpus petition is by Shri Rajendra Sharma, real brother of detenu, Shri Satyanarain Sharma. An order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (for short 'the act') has been passed by the State Government through the Secretary, Home Department, on 28-1-1992. The petitioner has challenged the afore-said order.2. Before we may take up the grounds of challenge to the impugned order, we will like to have a brief resume of the facts: A Vespa scooter No. RJ-14-1M-4848 was intercepted by the Customs officers on 2.7.1991 and a person who was driving the scooter was also arrested. The person disclosed his identity as Hari Narain @ Hari S/o Shri Phool Chand. During the search, 10 gold pieces bearing foreign marka, were recovered from the pocket of his trouser. The purity of the gold was examined which was found to be '999' Tunch and it was thus 24 carats purity gold. Each of the pieces when weighed, w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Oriental Power Cables Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: (1992)105CTR(Raj)76; [1993]203ITR237(Raj)
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for making a reference of the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not under obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A and consequently erred in quashing the Income-tax Officer's order under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The controversy has arisen in the background that the respondent-assessee, Messrs. Oriental Power Cables Ltd., Cable Nagar, Kota, was required to deduct tax at source on interest. There was a failure on its part to deduct tax, and therefore, a penalty under Section 201(1A) was levied for non-deduction of tax under Section 194A in respect of the assessment year 1978-79.2. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee having not deducted the tax at source under Section 194A was liable to pay...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Seth Gokuldas Pradeep Kumar Rathi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR1010(Raj)
1. This is a reference under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. Rajasthan, Jaipur.2. The controversy involved in the present case is a very short one and that is about the method of valuation to be applied to the shares which the respondent-assessee had in Krishna Mills Ltd., Beawar. Krishna Mills Ltd. is a private company and is a going concern. In the return submitted for the assessment year 1977-78, before the Wealth-tax Officer, the shares were valued on the basis of yield method. The Wealth-tax Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee and revalued the shares as per Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, which means that it was a break-up method. The assessee felt aggrieved by the order of the Wealth-tax Officer and filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ajmer. In appeal, the order of the Wealth-tax Officer was upheld and the appeal was rejected. Against the order of rejectio...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Kistoor Mal Gulab Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)84
V.K. Singhal, J.1. In these three revision, filed under Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales-tax Act 1954, following 3 questions have been raised:(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to produce declaration forms as required by Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act?(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal rightly interpreted the notification dated 23.3.63 in holding that it was not necessary to produce the 'C' Forms?(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the credit of the deposit made by the assessee could be given and whether the circular dated 1.10.1965 was applicable to the present case?2. No one has appeared on behalf of the non-petitioners insplte of service of notice. The submission of Mr. Bafna is that Insplte of notification dated 23rd March, 1963 the person effecting sale from the state of Rajasthan in the course of inter-State trade and commerce has to f...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Kant Bhati Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC20; 1992(1)WLN535
R.S. Verma, J.1. Two principal contentions have been raised in the writ petition. First contention is based on Proviso to Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Services of Engineers [Building & Road Branch), Rule, 1954. The Rule 21 reads as follows:Rule 21. Recommendation of the commissions--The commissions shall prepare a list of candidates, whom they consider suitable for appointment to the Services, arranged in order of preference and forward the same to Government:Provided that the commission may to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies keep names of suitable candidates on the keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list. The names of such candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in the order of merit to the Govt. within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the commission to the Government.2. It is urged on the basis of the proviso aforesaid that it was obligatory for the commission to keep names of suitable candidates to the extent of 60% o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagyomal Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN347
R.S. Verma, J.1. On dated 11.1.1990 notices were issued to the respondents to show cause why this petition be not admitted and allowed. Hence, the matter has come up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The fact in this case are not disputed. The petitioner was employed on the post of conductor under respondent No. 1 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. He entered in service on 19.4.71. The bus of the petitioner was checked on 2.3.1981 by the Checking Staff of the Corporation. Four passengers were found without ticket in the bus; all the four passengers were student and had declined to pay fare to the petitioner, yet the petitioner allowed the bus to proceed towards its destination. On the basis of inspection report, a charge- sheet was served on the petitioner and enquiry was made against the petitioner and disciplinary Authority terminated the service of the petitioner vide order Annex.3. Petitioner took an appeal before Appellate Authority on administrative side....
Tag this Judgment!Dhanpal JaIn Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN349
R.S. Verma, J.1. The matter has been heard for final disposal at admission stage in pursuance of order dated 12.1.1989. The case has a chequered history. The petitioner was appointed as Gram Sewak by District Education Officer, Doongarpur vide order dated 4.11.1981.The appointment was purely temporary for a period of six months. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time. The last extension was granted on 13.5.1983 vide Annx.1. On 12.4.1984 a notice was served on him intimating that his services shall stand terminated on expiry of one month from the date of notice Annx.2. Against this notice, petitioner went in appeal before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal stayed the operation of the notices served on the petitioner on 12.4.1984, with the result that petitioner continued to be in service. The appeal before the Tribunal did not meet with success and the same was rejected on 10.1.1986. Consequently, District Education Officer, Doongar...
Tag this Judgment!Bhom Singh Rathore Vs. the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN351
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:(i) to declare that the petitioner stands appointed as Meterreader Grade II, on and from the date the persons similarly situated were appointed and is entitled to emoluments on and from the date said date with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and he be paid back emoluments which has become payable to him but not paid.(ii) to declare the order dated 10.8.1990 posting the petitioner as Peon invalid and quashed.2. The factual matrix of the case, on which there does not appear to be any dispute after going through the petition as well as the reply, may be stated thus:3. The petitioner is matriculate and was appointed as class IV servant by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter called 'the Board'). Whether the petitioner was matriculate at the time of appointment or obtained such qualification subsequently, is disputed, but is not relevant for the present purpose because, admittedly, the petitioner was ...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Raj and anr. Vs. Amar Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC62; 1992(1)WLN528
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated October 5, 1991 by which he has held that the document in question did not require registration. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.2. The Central Bank of India, Jalorigate, Jodhpur (plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 5] has filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,40,000/- against the petitioner?, and non-petitioners No. 1 to 4 (defendants) with the allegations, in short, that the latter have obtained loan from it on the basis of eduitable mortgage of their properties by depositing their was tendered in evidence by the plaintiff. The defendants raised objection against it to the effect that it cannot be tendered in evidence for want of registration. After rearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial court held that the disputed document is not a mortgage-deed, it is simply a document re...
Tag this Judgment!Regal Sports Vs. Mohd. Siddique and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: II(1992)ACC740; 1994ACJ294
N.K. Jain, J. 1. Both these appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, filed against the judgment of the learned M.A.C.T., Jodhpur, dated 23.7.1983 in case No. 48 of 1980.2. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same award they are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. Admitted facts of the case are that on 4.1.1980 at about 7.30 p.m. one Abdul Aziz alias Aziz Khan was returning to his house after day's work. When he was crossing the railway line and reached near Pilater House, Lal Sagar, Jodhpur, the respondent No. 9, Mool Chand, came from the opposite side driving truck No. RJQ 7132 and hit Abdul Aziz due to which he had received injuries. The injured Abdul Aziz was brought to the M.G. Hospital but he expired within a few hours of the accident. A report relating to the accident was lodged with the police. A case was registered against the driver Mool Chand and a challan was filed against him in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur. After se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »