Rajasthan Court August 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Golcha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. (In Liqui ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR391(Raj)
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. In compliance with this court's order dated November, 1979 (CIT v. Golcha Properties' (P.) Ltd. ), passed under 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), in D. B. Civil Income-tax Cases Nos. 48 of 1975 and 93 of 1978 and 79 of 1979, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (for short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following common question, stated to be a question of law, to this court for its opinion :' Whether, on the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal, there was material to come to the conclusion that the contract of the assessee-company with Dhartidhan (P.) Ltd., Bombay, and Madans, Bombay, for leasing out of exhibition rights to cinema houses belonging to the assessee-company, were real and genuine and income arising therefrom did not belong to the assessee-company ?'2. An additional question, as reproduced below, was also referred bythe Tribunal for the assessment year 1968-69 to the court in deference tothis court's order d...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Golcha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. (In Liqui ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Raj)222
M. A. A. KHAN, J. :In compliance of this Courts order dt. 9th November, 1979 passed under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, The Act) in DB Civil IT Cases Nos. 48, 75 and 93 of 1978, and 79 of 1979 the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (for short the Tribunal) has referred the following common question, stated to be a question of law, to this Court for its opinion :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal, there was material to come to the conclusion that the contract of the assessee-company with M/s Dhartidhan (P) Ltd. Bombay and M/s Madans, Bombay for leasing out of exhibition rights to cinema houses belonging to the assessee-company, were real and genuine and income arising therefrom did not belong to the assessee-company ?'An additional question, as reproduced below, was also referred by the Tribunal for asst. yr. 1968-69 to the Court in deference of this Courts order dt. 6th Aug., 1980 in DB IT Ref. Case No. 55 of 1979 :'Whether, on the facts...
Ajeet Singh Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC568; 1996(2)WLN600
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard.2. Perused the order impugned dated 11.3.1996 Anx. 5 to the writ petition.3. A perusal of the order impugned dated 11.3.96 (Anx. 5) reveals that respondent No. 1 has passed the aforesaid order in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 3.11.95. There is no manifest error in the order impugned.4. The grievence of the petitioner before me is that in garb of the impugned order Anx. 5 to the writ petition, respondent No. 1 is circumventing the order passed by the Apex Court on 3.11.95, reported in AIR 1996 SC 475.5. In my humble opinion lis between the parties has been finally decided by the Apex Court on 3.11.95 on merits, therefore, the present writ petition is barred by principle of resjudicate.6. The principle of direct resjudicata as well as constructive resjudicata both are applicable to writ petition to void multiplicity of litigation between same party on any matter in issue which has been directly and substantially decided between the ...
Sohanlal Mundra and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC415; 1996(2)WLN604
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant writ petition is confined against the warrant of authorisation dated 7.5.96, Anx. 5 to the writ petition, issued by respondent No. 2 in exercise of his power under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act while rest of the reliefs sought by the petitioners have been withdrawn.2. Brief facts leading upto filing of the present writ petition are that on 2.5.96 the petitioners No. 2 and 3 who are relatives of petitioner No. 1 being brother-in-laws and the petitioner No. 2 is also working an Munim of his firm were returning with cash amounting to Rs. 9,80,000/- from Amrawati, Maharashtra where they had gone to purchase goods but said transaction could not be finalised. When they reached Shahpura on the aforesaid date in early hours, the vehicle in which petitioners No. 2 and 3 were travelling was intercepted by the police authorities and the cash of Rs. 9,80,000/- was seized under Section 102 Cr.P.C. on the ground of suspicion.3. Explanations given by petitioners No. 2 an...
Har Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ345
A.S. Godara, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, through the jail, against the judgment and order dated 30-5-1994, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 450, I.P.C. He has been awarded sentence of Life Imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. besides a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, six months' R. I. Besides, he has been convicted under Section 450, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 5 year's R. I. and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- and, in default, to further undergo 3 months' R.I.2. In brief, the prosecution story, giving rise to the present appeal is as follows: This incident is alleged to have taken place on 31 -10-90 at about 10 a. m. at the residence of Val Chand (deceased), situated in the village Karchha. P. W. 3 Daya, P. W. 16 Rama and the appellant are real brothers of Val Chand (deceased). Val Chand was the youngest brother. P. W. 4 Hakar is their mother an...
Tota Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Raj)460
Y. R. MEENA, J. :By this petition, the petitioner has prayed that proceedings in Crl. Case No. 37/85 be quashed.2. There was a search at the premises of petitioner on 20th May, 1983. The Department assessed the income of the petitioner under s. 132(5) of the IT Act (hereinafter, referred as the Act) at Rs. 33,500. The petitioner has filed the return declaring his income Rs. 25,430. It was assessed at Rs. 46,360 and finally assessed at Rs. 27,360 on the basis of addition of Rs. 1,930; the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and penalty of Rs. 8,364 was imposed. That penalty was cancelled by Dy. CIT(A) vide his order dt. 24th March, 1992 holding that mere addition does not attract the penalty automatically. No case of penalty was made out. When two opinions were available for concealment of income, the benefit goes to assessee, therefore, the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was cancelled by Dy. CIT(A).Simultaneously, a complaint under s. 256(1)(c) of th...
Rodu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC471; 1996(2)WLN19
Arun Madan, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the relevant documents, placed on the record, as well as the reply filed by the respondents to the writ petition.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in pursuance of an advertisement, applications were invited by the office of the respondent No. 2 from prospective candidates for appointment to the post of Agricultural Supervisor. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner had submitted all relevant particulars in lieu of which he was called for interview on 19th July, 93. The petitioner complied with the said communication and after due process of selection, selected candidated including the petitioner were directed to report on duly latest by 16.12.93, failing which their appointment shall be treated as cancelled. The grievance of the petitioner is that he come to know too late about his appointment on the said past because the appointment letter could not be served on him in time and ...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Vishwanath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN589
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. This Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.6.1995, passed by learned District Judge, Sikar, reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.10.1994, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, and decreeing the suit of eviction filed by the plaintiffs- respondents.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that late Shri Chiranji Lal filed a suit for eviction against the appellant Kanhaiya Lal on the ground that the appellant had materially altered the premises leased out to him without his consent. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff Chiranjilal died and his legal-heirs (respondents) were brought on record. The Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, vide his judgment and decree dated 18.10.1994, dismissed the suit holding that the plantiffs failed to prove that defendant materially alterted the premises leased out to him. On appeal ...
Mpsrtc and ors. Vs. Madhukar Tiwari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC42
Gopal Lal Gupta, J.1. The tragic accident occurred on 31.5.84 in which 8 persons lost their lives and many persons sustained injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased and the injured filed 12 claim cases before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur. All these cases were consolidated, tried and disposed of by the common judgment dated 19th of June, 1993. Claim Case No. 155/91 filed by Pyarelal, injured was dismissed. The remaining 11 claim cases were decreed against Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and the driver, owner of the truck and its insurer i.e. New India Assurance Co.2. The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and the New India Assurance Co. have challenged the Award passed in all the claim cases. Out of the 11 appeals filed by Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, seven appeals have already been admitted. Remaining 4 appeals have not yet been admitted. However, on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties these 4 ...
Official Liquidator Vs. Ashok Kumar Dalmia and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1996
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas269(Raj); 1996(2)WLN109
V. K. Singhal, J.1. This matter has come up on the application of the creditors that the transfers made by the company be declared as fraudulent under Sections 531 and 531A of the Companies Act.2. The facts of the case are that Company Petition No. 4 of 1991 was filed on March 13, 1991, for winding up of Ashoka Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. It was alleged that the properties of the company were being transferred fraudulently to defraud the creditors. Notice was issued by this court on March 15, 1991. The official liquidator was directed by the order dated April 12, 1991, to identify the property of the company which has not been transferred. On May 17, 1991, it was found that all the assets of the company had been sold under registered sale deeds before moving the application for winding up of the company. Notices were issued to 75 persons to whom the property was alleged to have been transferred. The report of the official liquidator was received and it was pointed out by learned counsel for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »