Rajasthan Court December 1995 Judgments
Chandi Ram Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: [1997]230ITD611(Jodh); [1997]225ITR611(Raj); 1996WLC(Raj)UC121
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The notice dated February 13, 1995, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1987-88 has been challenged on the ground that the proceedings under Section 147 as amended by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, could not have been initiated in respect of the assessment year 1987-88 and the said provisions are applicable from April 1, 1989, i.e., the assessment year 1989-90. The notice is without jurisdiction. This argument is based that there is substantial change in the provisions of Section 147 and now the power which has been given affects a vested right. Section 147 could not be considered merely procedural but is substantive in nature.2. The assessment of the assessee was completed on the basis of the return submitted on October 8, 1987, declaring an income of Rs. 54,419. Investment allowance on purchase of new machinery under Section 32A at the rate of 25 per cent. to the extent of Rs. 2,03,684 was allowed. The...
Tag this Judgment!Chandi Ram Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Raj)256
ORDERV. K. SINGHAL, J. :The notice dt. 13th Feb., 1995 issued under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of asst. yr. 1987-88 has been challenged on the ground that the proceedings under s. 147 as amended by Direct Tax laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 could not have been initiated in respect of asst. yr. 1987-88 and the said provisions are applicable from 1st April, 1989, i.e., the asst. yr. 1989-90. The notice is without jurisdiction. This argument is based that there is substantial change in the provisions of s. 147 and now the power which has been given effect vested right. Sec. 147 could not be considered merely procedural but is substantive in nature.2. The assessment of the assessee was completed on the basis of the return submitted on 8th Oct., 1987 declaring the income of Rs. 54,419. The investment allowance on purchase of new machinery under s. 32A at the rate of 25% to the extent of Rs. 2,03,684 was allowed. The proceedings under s. 154/155 were also initiated to withdraw the said...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ736; 1996(2)WLC146
B.R. Arora, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment/award dated 14.1.1987 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalore, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal dismissed both the claim petitions filed by the appellants-claimants on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.11.1983 Nathu Rarn, the driver of the Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation, at about 4.30 p.m. parked the bus No. RRM 1473 at the Bus Stand, Jalore. The bus was to commence its journey to Bhinmal. The booking of this bus started. The passengers bought the tickets from the booking window and after buying the tickets, boarded the bus. Rukmani w/o Ram Chandra alias Ram Kishan, Indra d/o Ram Chandra, Manju d/o Kesri Mal, Bajrang s/o Ram Chandra, Bhanwari d/o Misri Mal and other passengers boarded the bus after buying the tickets. Defendant No. 5, Banshi Lal, also boarded the bus. He was carrying one big ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Hari Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj182
Arun Madan, J. 1. This civil second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C., 1908 has been preferred to this court against the judgment and decree, dated 7th March, 1995 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal on the ground of default preferred by the defendant-appellant while maintaining the decree for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises on the grounds of nuisance and sub-letting.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that a civil suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') from the suit shop situated in old sabji mandi behind Johari Bazar, Jaipur, was filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter, referred to as the 'respondent'). It was alleged in the suit that the suit shop was rented out to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month and that it was an old tenancy. The plaintiff filed the said suit for eviction of ...
Tag this Judgment!Subh Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1413
Gopal Lal Gupta, J.1. This jail appeal has been preferred by Subh Ram against his conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu vide Judgment dated 3-4-1991.2. The occurrence took place on 17-6-87 in village Dhani Alayla in which two persons Smt. Kamla (28) and her daughter Km. Guddi (6 months) lost their lives. The prosecution case is that the accused Sub Ram husband of Mst. Kamla and father of Km. Guddi had caused their death by inflicting Gandasi blows. The first information report was lodged by Ram Nath(PW-l), father of accused on 18-8-87 in which it was stated that Subh Ram reached his Dhani at about 8.00 AM on 17-6-87 and in the evening Ramnath came to know about the murder of Mst. Kamla and Guddi. On this report a case under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered in Police Station Taranagar. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan. Charges under Sections 302...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Keshav Ram Nemi Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR413(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Revenue, by this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has prayed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to refer the following questions bf law for the opinion of this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is not pervorse? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 36,200 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The assessee is the registered firm dealing in country liquor. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1977-78, the assessing authority noticed the cash credit in the names of five persons in the books of account of the assessee. The assessing authority accepted the genuineness of the cash credits of Ram Narain and Ratan Lal but, however, the cash credit in favour of ...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1613; 1996WLC(Raj)UC613
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the applications as well as learned Public Prosecutor at lenght.2. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants before me is that according to the facts and circumstances alleged in the FIR the male accused No. 1 to 5 were sufficient to cause injury to the first informant and it is highly importable and unbelievable that two ladies viz. Krishna and Kanta also accompanied the accused persons. The allegations against these two ladies appear to be highly improbable and unbelievable. According to the learned counsel for the applicants the first informant unscrupulously included the name of aforesaid two ladies in order to harass the accused applicants.3. The aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants are refuted by the learned P.P. He raised a preliminary objection that since the applicants did not press their bail application on merits before the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, the insta...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra Nath Soral Vs. Sajjan Kumar Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2564
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. This contempt petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, arises out of breach of undertaking dated 4-4-1995 furnished by the respondent-contemnor before this Court in Civil Review Petition No. 36 of 1995 arising out of S.. B. Civil First Appeal No. 57 of 1995 decided on 23-3-1995. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction against the contemnor Sajjan Kumar Jain and M/s. Goyanka Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd. in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The said suit was decreed on 13-1-1995 in accordance with law.2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a suit was filed in respect of a residential premises No. D-23, Sarswati Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur against the defendant-contemnor for his eviction on the ground that the suit premises were taken on rent @ Rs. 7000/- p.m. for the purpose of running,guest house and office. Eviction was sought on the ground that the contemnor had violated the condition of the ten...
Tag this Judgment!Budh Singh and ors. Vs. Hapu Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1576; 1996(2)WLC133
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the order impugned.2. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the instant petition are that the non-petitioners have filed an application under Section 133 Cr. P.C. against the petitioners on 12-9-95 before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaitaran wherein they have stated that they are the Khatedars of Bera Navora which is situated in the agricultural boundary of village Bagyara. They are living with their families and others at the said well where their houses are situated.3. It is further alleged that they are using a 161/2 feet wide public way which connects their well from Khushalpura Bagyara Road as was shown in the enclosed rough sketch by red-line and marked 'A,B,C and D'. The existence of public pathway was alleged to be in existence for last 100 years.4. It is also alleged by the non-petitioners in their application under Section 133 Cr. P.C. that through the...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-01-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC18; 1995(2)WLN646
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Accused petitioner Vijay Raj is facing trial in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The case against the accused petitioner as disclosed in the petition, was registered on the complaint of one Shyam Sunder, Food Inspector, The sample of Chilies power was taken on 29th July, 1989, which after analysis by the Public Analyst was found not conforming to the prescribed standard of purity.3. The complainant examined himself on 5th January, 1995 and thereafter, the case was posted for arguments and charges. The charge was framed on 8th August, 1995 and thereafter, the complainant produced his further evidence. The complainant closed his evidence and accused petitioner was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. he was asked to produce his defence.4. On 19th August, 1995, the accused petitioner moved an application to the court under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adultera...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›