Rajasthan Court April 1995 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.
Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR404(Raj); 1995(2)WLN222
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated April 15, 1982, passed by the Commissioner of Income- tax under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-company paid advance tax amounting to Rs. 1,79,200 under Section 210 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as under :Rs.(i) 38,500On 14-6-1976(ii) 38,500On 13-9-1976(iii) 22,200Cheque given to the bank on 15-12-1976, and encashed on 16-12-1976, as per the certificate of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur.(iv) 45,216On 15-12-1976, by adjustment of refund due for the assessment year 1972-73 as a result of appeal effect. The letter for adjustment was given by the assessee on 15-12-1976. The date of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order was 8-11-1976. The total amount of refund for 1972-73 amounted to Rs. 1,22,125. The intimation about adjustment of refund was given to the assessee by the Income-tax Officer on 16-12-1976.(v) 34,784On 17-1-1977Total 1,...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ817; 1995(3)WLC214; 1995(2)WLN158
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner is assailing the validity and legality of the order of detention dated 15th June, 1994 passed against him by the Collector and District Magistrate, Bharatpur in exercise of power contained under Section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 (for short N.S.A.). The impugned order of detention has been challenged on various grounds inter alia, including that there was violation of the constitutional safeguards enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution in as much as the representation made by the petitioner through his mother Smt. Omwati to the President of India in the month of August 1994 has not been considered and disposed of.2. The order of detention (Anx. 1) was passed on June 15, 1994 by the Collector and District Magistrate, Bharatpur on the ground that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order his detention was necessary in pursuance to the orde...
Mohammad Yusuf and anr. Vs. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj239; 1995(2)WLN441
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J. 1. This is the respondent's application in an election petition for striking out pleadings and rejection of the petition for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83(1)(a) & (b) of the Representation of thePeople Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). The application has been moved under Order V1 Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 83, 86 and 87 of the Act. 2. It would be necessary to state basic facts before dealing with the application. 3. The petition relates to the respondent's election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Bali Constituency (No. 166). October 19, 1993 was the last date for filing nominations, October 20, 1993 was the date fixed for scrutiny of nominations, October 22, 1993 was the last date for withdrawal of candidature, November 11, 1993 was the date of polling and November 27, 1993 was the date on which the counting was to commence. The original petitioner Mitha Lal Jain was the c...
Prakash Babu Bajpai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC307; 1995(2)WLN22
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The Petitioner aggrieved by his dis-charge from the Indian Air Force, in which he was serving as corporal, has filed this petition. On 21st Dec. 92 a show cause notice, Annex-P/4 to the petition was issued to the petitioner by the Commanding Officer No. 265 SU, Air Force, calling upon him to show cause as to why administrative action should not be taken against him under Section 20(3) of the Air Force Act for contracting plural Marriage with Ms. Poonam Agnihotri D/o H.P. Agnihotri on 14th Dec. 91 in New Delhi. In this show cause notice it was alleged that the petitioner was already married to Ms. Gayatri Devi D/o R.K. Pandey before contracting marriage with Ms. Poonam Agnihotri, his marriage with said Ms. Gayatri Devi having been solemnised according to Hindu rites on 10th March, 91 at Kanpur. It was also pointed out that plural marriages were prohibited under para 578 of the requlations for the Air Force (RE), 1964. On 4th Jan. 93, the petitioner replied to the afores...
Marudhara Dye Chem. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN405
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner-firm has filed the instant writ petition seeking a relief to quash the impugned bill dated 14.9.83 (Ex. 6) in so far as, it creates demand under item No. 28 for Rs. 94,436.20 and further prayed to restrain the answering-respondents from recovering the aforesaid amount from the petitioner-firm in respect of load surcharge for the period from December, 1978 to February, 1983.2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition, are that after dissolution of the earlier firm M/S Rajasthan Forgings, the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (respondent No. 1) transferred the electric connection on Plot No. 27-B in the name of the petitioner-firm vide communication date 15.10.80 Ex, 2 to the writ petition passed by the Assistant Engineer (respondent No, 4) with the same sanctioned load. It is evident from the averments made in the writ petition that on the date of sanction of electric connection bearing Account No. 15/1/295 and Consume...
Dinesh Kumar Nagpal ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC244; 1995(1)WLN496
N.K. Jain, J.1. Since all these writ petitions raise a common question of law and fact, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners seek to quash the judgment of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer dt. 21.9.1992 and pray that the assessment orders Anxs. 1 & 2 and the demand notices Anx. 3 & 4 may kindly be declared non-set and void.3. For convenient disposal of these writ petitioners, the facts of S.B.C.Writ Petition No. 1495/94 are taken into consideration. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that the petitioner Dinesh Kumar Nagpal who is the Director of M/s. Nagpal Agro System Pvt. Ltd., Delhi is carrying on the business of pesticides and seeds of cereals and pulses at Sri Ganganagar and the firm is registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act having registration certificate No. 1508/43. The petitioner has alleged that he sold Sorghum Sudan Grass properly known Jowar Seeds worth Rs...
Anil Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj16; 1997(1)WLC482; 1995(1)WLN504
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned orderdt. 17-10-1994 passed by the R.T.A., Bikaner Region, Bikaner whereby the stage carriage permits have been granted to the non-petitioners Nos. 3 to 12. It has been prayed that the non-petitioners be restrained from plying their vehicle on the impugned inter-statal route.2. This Court while issuing notice on 28-11-1994, ordered that the non-petitioners shall not ply vehicle on the route which is inter-State till the permit is counter-signed by the corresponding State.3. In pursuance to the notice, reply to the writ petition has been filed on 13-1-1995 with Anx. R/7/1. The petitioner filed rejoinder dt. 5-2-95. In counter the respondent No. 7 filed reply to the rejoinder along with the documents Anxs. R/7/2 to 7/5 on 13-3-1995. The petitioner also moved application for amendment under Article 226 read with Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. and also moved application for deleting the name of non-petitioner N...
Desai Brothers Ltd. Vs. Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj286; 1995(2)WLC680; 1995(1)WLN492
ORDERN.K. Jain, J. 1. this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to restrain the non-petitioners from realising the octroi duty upon the goods which have not been brought within the Municipal limit of Sri Ganganagar for use or consumption and prays that the respondent be restrained from levying any octroi duty on the goods brought by the petitioner at their godown/depot at village Nathan Wali. The petitioner prays that the non-petitioners may kindly be directed to refund the octroi duty charged on 31-12-1987 vide Anx. 7 amounting to Rs. 7992/60 with interest @ 18% and the non-petitioners be further directed to provide the facility of transit pass to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's case is that it is a registered limited Company and having its one of the godowns at village Nathanwali, which is about 5-6 Kms. away from Sri Ganganagar. It is alleged that the petitioner is regularly paying octroi on the goods which have been brought for consumption, use or sale within the municipal limit...
Krishan Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3345; 1996(1)WLC587
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2. Hanumangarh in sessions case No. 63/85 on 26-8- 87 convicting the accused appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default further R. I. for three months. The accused appellants were also convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and sentenced to four years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default one month R. I.2. The prosecution story stated in brief is that at about 1.15 p.m. on 27th March, 1985, Shanker Lal with his father Prithvi Raj went to the house of Balwant Singh to request him to pacify the quarrel between Sheeshpal and Krishna Lal (accused). When they were returning and were about 15 steps away from the house of Balwant Singh near the house of Bhagirath, accused Ram Chandra, Lalu Ram, Saheb Ram, Krishan Lai and Dara Ram came and attac...
Om Prakash and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC627; 1995(1)WLN487
N.K. Jain, J.1. Since both these writ petitions raise common question of law and fact they are being disposed of by this common order.2. By these writ Petitions, the petitioners seek to quash the notice Anx. 2 dt. 1.10.1994 as time barred and the order dt. 26.10.1994 (Annex.4) and to hold that the petitioners are not liable to pay sales tax due to M/S Durga Trading Company and further to quash the complaint No. 203/89 (Anx.7) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh Junction. It has been prayed that Anx. 6 dt. 23.11.94 may kindly be quashed and direction may be issued to transfer the case from the respondent No. 2 to any other Assessing Authority.3. It is alleged that the petitioner Om Prakash (S.B.C.W. Petition No. 5653/94) and the petitioner Lal Chand (S.B.C.W. Petition No. 5652/94), father of Om Prakash are being called upon to pay sales tax amounting to Rs. 7.32 lacs due from one M/s Durga Trading Co. under the sole proprietorship of Om...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »