Rajasthan Court March 1996 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.
Smt. Triveni Devi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Raj)293
N. K. JAIN, J :By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the retention of original deed by the respondent and also prays that the respondent be directed to deliver the original title deed expeditiously.2. This writ petition has been filed on 18th May, 1996. In pursuance to the show cause notice issued on 27th May, 1996, the respondent has filed reply. Rejoinder has also been filed.3. As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.4. The petitioners case is that during the search conducted by the IT Department authorities at the residential premises of the petitioner on 8th May, 1988, the original title deed of the disputed property situated at E-10, Gokhle Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur was also seized and taken into possession by the authorities vide Annex. 1.5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the seizure and detention of the original title deed is bad and without jurisdiction particularly when the factum of purch...
Jairam and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC316; 1996(1)WLN634
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. This Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated April 20, 1996, whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioners.2. The petitioners are being prosecuted in the Court of learned Magistrate since 13.9.1995 for allegedly having committed the offence punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 504 1PC. After the filing of the charge-sheet the petitioners are stated to have appeared before the learned Magistrate on 13.9.1995, 28.10.1995, 20.12.1995, 24.2.1996, 20.4.1996 and, may be, thereafter. It appears that on 20.4.1996 the substance of the accusation were read over to the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners moved an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. requesting the learned Magistrate to exempt their personal attendance in the case and to allow their appearanc...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Jaipur Hosiery Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj10; 1996WLC(Raj)UC700
Arun Madan, J 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 12th January,1982 passed by Additional Distt. Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Appeal No. 211 of 1977 whereby he partially confirmed the decree dated 3-5-1977 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 46/1976 for declaration, injunction and damages.2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 M/s. Jaipur Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd. was assessed to Sales Tax by the Commercial Tax Officer, Special Circle-11, Jaipur (for short C.T.O.). The assessment orders for the years 1963-64 to 1967-68 were passed on 5-9-1972 vide Exs. 41 to 45 on the record. The respondent did not challenge the assessment orders passed by the C.T.O. in appeal or revision nor it took any appropriate proceedings within the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act but instead filed a regular suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur, Ci...
NizamuddIn Vs. Jugal Kishore
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Raj207
Arun Madan, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred to this court by the above-named defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 29-10-93 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Baran in Civil Regular Appeal No. 10/93 whereby the judgment and decree dated 16-8-93 passed by Munsiff and Judl. Magistrate, Baran in Civil Suit No. 140/93 has been upheld.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit under Order 37, C.P.C, against the defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs. 11,200/- in the Court of District Judge, Baran. In the said suit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been claimed towards principal amount and Rs. 1200/- on account of interest. The said suit was transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge No. 2, Baran who thereafter again transferred the same to the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Baran for disposal in accordance with law.3. In the plaint presented before the trial court t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prakash Chand Dhadda
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR102(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated December 7, 1983, has referred the following question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated March 14, 1983, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was justified in holding that precious stones declared under theVoluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1975, were not a capital asset and no capitalgain arose to the assessee in view of exception provided by Section 2(14)(i)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee made a disclosure of his concealed income in the form of precious stones under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1975, and that part of the precious stones out of the stock disclosed worth Rs. 21,168 and Rs. 1,272 had been contributed towards capital on November 10, 1977, relevant to the assessment year 1978-79 in the firm, Jus Gems, on the market value. Thus, aga...
Qazi Sharaf Ahmed Vs. Dau Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Raj227; 1996(2)WLC608; 1996(1)WLN400
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 17-10-1995 (17-11-1995) passed by learned AdditionalCivil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Jodhpur whereby he refused to take on record a certified copy of the judgment pronounced on 30-5-1980 in Civil Original Suit No. 131/79 and a certified copy of the judgment rendered by him on 16-1-1994 in Civil Original Suit No. 39/90.2. Indisputably, aforementioned two suits were filed by the defendant-revisionist against tenants for eviction from two portions of the disputed house which is subject-matter of the present suit between the parties. It is true that in the aforesaid two suits the non-petitioner was not impleaded as party.3. According to the learned trial Court since both the judgments were given in such suits which were instituted subsequent to the present suit, therefore, these judgments rendered by him are not receivable in evidence. It is further held by the learned trial Court that the provisions...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Late H. H. Maharaja Bhagwat Singh.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Raj)467
BY THE COURT :The Revenue, by this application under s. 26(3) of the GT Act has prayed that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur may be directed to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that amount in question was not chargeable to gift-tax and as such no penalty under s. 17(1)(c) is leviable ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that deceased H. H. Maharana Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar (now represented through his son and legal heir M. K. Arvind Kumar Singhji), in response to the notice under s. 16 of the GT Act issued by the GTO, District B-Ward, Udaipur, filed a nil data under protest. The GTO, also, issued a notice under s. 15(2) of the Act to the assessee for the asst. yr. 1969-70 and in pursuance to which the authorised representative of the assessee attended the proceedings. The assessee was required to ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.M. Bhatiya Associates
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Raj)378; [1997]226ITR675(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and respondent on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. We condone the delay in filing the reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and it be posted for hearing.3. The present application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, is on the limited question as to 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the firm was a genuine one and in granting registration under Section 185 to the assessee-firm' ?4. The assessee-firm contended that it came into existence with effect from April 1, 1986, under a partnership deed dated December 21, 1987, and it was comprised of six partners. The accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1988-89 ended on March 31, 1988. On March 2, 1988, the assessee-firm applied in Form No. 11 for the registration of the f...
Laxman and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC128; 1996(1)WLN81
N.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to quash the impugned orders Anx. 1 dt. 19.6.1993 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Sri Vijaynagar and Anx. 2 dt. 23.11.1993 passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Hanumangarh.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioners are that the respondent No. 5 Mahavir Prasad and some other persons got allotted uncommand land in Chak 26-A of Tehsil Anupgarh and made a demand from Executive Engineer for water supply for irrigation purpose who referred the matter to the Superintending Engineer. Vide order dt. 19.6.1993 (Anx. 1), the Superintending Engineer ordered to create a new Chak 6 MSR-A. Thereafter an appeal was filed before the Chief Engineer who vide order dt. 23.11.1993 transferred the whole of the area of Chak 26A to MSR Minor. Being dissatisfied with the orders Anx. 1 and 2, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.3. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 16.12.1993 stayed the oper...
Mahadeo Prasad Garg Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN502
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.2.87 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 799/1986.2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the appeal briefly stated are that the present appellant employee Mahadeo Prasad Garg applied to the State of Rajasthan for making a reference to the appropriate Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This application was rejected by the State Government on the ground that no dispute exists. The petitioner, thereafter, made a further representation requesting the State Government to reconsider the question of making reference and on rejection of that representation in October '85 filed the above mentioned Writ Petition on 21st of December '85. By the impugned order the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, rejected the petition merely on the ground of laches, observing that there being no provision for making such se...