Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj203
Mathur, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 27.7.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur directing the Commissioner of income-tax, Jodhpur to grant registration to the applicant society under Section 12-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. This appeal has been admitted by the order of this court dated 24.7.2001 on the following substantial question of law :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that on the proper construction of aims and objects of the assessee association as disclosed in its Constitution fall within the purview of Section 2(15) of the income Tax Act so as to entitle the assessee society to registration under Section 12-A of the Income Tax Act?'3. The respondent assessee is a society registered under the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958 in the name of 'Jodhpur Chartered Accountants Society, Jodhpur'. The as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj546
Panwar, J.1. This is appeal is directed against the order dated 14.11.1990 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Camp at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby application (suit) filed by the appellant against the respondents was dismissed.2. Briefly stated facts which are necessary for decision of this appeal are that; a suit was filed by the appellant before the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur for recovery of Rs. 32,872.35 which was transferred to the Tribunal established under Section 24 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The case as set up by the appellant before the Tribunal is that; appellant firm had booked bales of cloth on 23.7.1986 by parcel train from Jodhpur to Hindaun City vide PWB No. 699790 dt.23.7.1986. PWB was 'self'. The appellant had sent the PWB to State Bank of India, Hindaun City with the instruction that the bilty be handed over to M/s. Gupta Cloth Store, Hindaun City on payment of Rs. 23,958.27. M/s. Gupta Cloth Store did not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1975CriLJ968; 1975()WLN1
S.N. Modi, J1. The two appellants. Bakhtawar Singh and Karnailsingh along with their fathers, Narsingh and Gurbux-singh respectively were tried for offences under Sections 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar acquitted Narsingh and Gurbux Singh and convicted the appellants for ant offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code for attempt to murder Jaggasingh and Balbirsingh by causing injuries to them by 303 rifles and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life, Jaggasingh succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The appellants were further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The appellants have come-up in appeal against their convictions and sentences.2. The incident relating to this, case took place at village Khaliwala, district Ganganagar, on 23-3-1972 at about p.m. in killa No. 5 of the field belonging t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1975Raj134; 1974(7)WLN965
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act', by a wife against whom the learned District Judge has passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.2. The parties, who were. Hindus, were married according to Hindu rites on 4-5-65 (Baisakh Sudi 3, Samvat year 2022) at Jodh-pur. The husband averred that after the marriage was celebrated the wife did not live with him. He made several attempts to induce his in-laws to scad his wife, but they did not heed. He, therefore, made the application under Section 9 of the Act in the court of the learned District Judge on 14-12-1968. The wife appeared to be a minor at the time the proceedings were commenced and,therefore, a guardian ad litem was appointed for her. The guardian ad litem resisted the application on a number of grounds. It was pleaded that there was no 'Muklava' ceremony and, therefore, the marriage was not complete and then th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2003ACJ1163; AIR2002Raj226; 2002(4)WLC748; 2002(4)WLN41
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 14-11-1990 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. Camp at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby application (suit) filed by the appellant against the respondents was dismissed.2. Briefly stated facts which are necessary for decision of this appeal are that: a suit was filed by the appellant before the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur for recovery of Rs. 32,872.35 which was transferred to the Tribunal established under Section 14 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act. 1987. The case as set up by the appellant before the Tribunal is that; appellant-firm had booked bales of cloth on 23-7-1986 by parcel train from Jodhpur to Hindatin City vide PWB No. 699790, dt. 23-7-1986. PWB was self. The appellant had sent the PWB to State Bank of India, Hindaun City with the instruction that the bilty be handed over to M/s. Gupta Cloth Store, Hindaun City on payment of Rs. 23.958.27. M/s. Gupta Cloth Store did no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2007(3)Raj2602
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Dispute in this matter pertains to allotment of a retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at Halena in District Bharatpur located on National Highway No. 11. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus to the respondents directing them to cancel the candidature of respondent No. 3 Smt. Sadhana Dagur and not to issue Letter of Intent to her and instead issue such Letter of Intent to the petitioner Smt. Neelam Chaturvedi who was placed at serial number 2 in the select panel. An additional prayer has been made that if in the meantime, the Letter of Intent is issued to the non petitioner No. 3 the same be quashed and set aside.2. Factual matrix of the case is that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') a Government of India undertaking, published an advertisement in Rajasthan Patrika on 2nd January, 2004 inviting applications for allotment of 243 Retail Outlets in the State of Rajasthan. Applications were also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1958Raj114
Wanchoo, C.J.1. Three writ applications were filed by the Automobile Transport (Raj) Ltd., (No. 400). The Rajasthan Roadways Ltd., (401), and Framji C, Framji and others (402), and in each of them the validity of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (No. XI) of 1951 was challenged. The three cases carat before a Division Bench of this Court which has referred the following question to a Full Bench --'Whether Sections 4 and 11 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, do not infringe the rights of freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse granted under Article 301 of the Constitution?'2. The facts of the case may be briefly narrated in order to understand the point raised by the three applicants --The applicants carry on the business of plying stage carriages, and all three of them have their Head Offices in what was the former State of Ajmer. All three of them ply vehicles on Nasirabad-Deoli Road, while the Automobile Transport (Raj.) Ltd. also ply motor vehicles between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1987Raj169; 1986(2)WLN674
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is a second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Jaipur Distt. Jaipur reversing the decree passed by Munsif, Bandikui and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for injunction.2. The plaintiff-respondents are tenants of shop No. 57 situated in the grain-market known as 'Madho Ganj' in Bandikui town. The said shop formerly belonged to the erstwhile Jaipur State and now, after formation of theState of Rajasthan, it belongs to the State of Rajasthan. There is an open piece of land measuring 30' x 13' in front of the said shop to its East. Towards the North of the said shop, there is a Government building known as 'Rahdari' having a window and a small door 'Pai'. The said building had been purchased by the defendant-appellants. The plaintiff's have been using the open plot of land in front of their shop for stocking and exhibiting the grains in which business they are dealing for the last 45 years. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1994Raj1
ORDERRajesh Balia, J. 1. These two revision petitions arise in the identical facts and circumstances giving rise to common issue. Hence they are decided by a common Order.2. One Kundanmal, who is petitioner in both the revisions filed two Civil Suits. Civil Suit No. 55/90 against Nand Kishore and Civil Suit No. 56/90 against Asha Ram. Plaintiff and defendants are real brothers. Each Suit is for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- based on identical pleadings.3. These two revision petitions are directed against the orders dated September 9, 1992 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Suits Nos. 55/90 and 56/90 by which the applications of the plaintiff-petitioner seeking permission to lead secondary evidence, in respect of a document executed by respective defendants in each case on April 9, 1987 and alleged to be in possession of the defendant or has been destroyed by him was rejected.4. The trial Court rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner on the ground th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1972Raj95
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Fateh Singh and it arises Out of the following circumstances :---The Gram Panchayat, Ransi Gaon, Tehsil Bilara. filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act) against the petitioner for the determination of Pan-chayat's debt which the Panchayat claimed as damages from the petitioner for the breach of contract. The petitioner filed a petition before the Debt Relief Court that the liability which was sought to be fastened on him by the Gram Panchayat did not fall within the definition of the term 'debt' as given in the Act. The Debt Relief Court held that the provisions of the Act were applicable for the debt for which the Gram Panchayat had filed an application underSection 6 of the Act. A revision petition was filed against that order of the Debt Relief Court before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur. who, by his ...
Tag this Judgment!