Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-10-1969
Reported in : AIR1970Raj32; 1970CriLJ300; 1969()WLN71
ORDERB.P. Beri, J.1. This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated the 11th December, 1967, passed by the City Magistrate, Jodhpur. The petitioner prays for the quashing of the order of his commitment to face a trial under Section 6(e) of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Act, 1950, hereinafter called 'the Act'.2. The circumstances which have led up to this application, briefly stated, are these. Manglaram applicant was appointed as a constable in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (R.A.C.) on the 20th of June, 1963. On the 10th of October, 1964, he was attached to the 5th Battalion stationed at Jodhpur, when he absented from duty. His case is that he had orally taken permission to leave the service from the Platoon Commander, whereas the case of the prosecution is that he absented without leave. It is not in dispute that on the 11th of October, 1964, he joined as a soldier in the Indian Army. On the 13th of October, 1964, a first information report was lodged at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-02-1969
Reported in : [1971]79ITR83(Raj); 1969()WLN589
D.M. Bhandari, C.J.1. These two references have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ' A ' (hereinafter called ' the Tribunal '). Income-tax Reference No. 7 of 1966 is under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Income-tax Act'). Wealth-tax Reference No.8 of 1966 is under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called ' the Wealth-tax Act '). The facts and points of law in both the references are similar and, therefore, they are disposed of by this judgment.2. We first take the income-tax reference. There is a palatial building known as 'Dholpur House' at New Delhi. It belonged to Maharaja Udai Bhan Singhji, Ruler of the erstwhile Dholpur State. On the merger of the Dholpur State the question arose whether the ' Dholpur House' should be treated as private property of the ruler or the property of the State of Rajasthan. By letter dated 20th October, 1951, the Government of India informed the said Maharaja that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-28-1969
Reported in : 1969WLN554
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for perpetual injunction instituted by them in the Court of Civil Judge, Neem-ka Thana on 14. 7. 1960 with a prayer that the defendants may be restrained from raising any construction on a piece of land lying contiguous to the plaintiff's house situated in the village Neem-ka-Thana.2. It appears that the village Neem-ka-Thana was a Jagir village of Bhomiyas Baldeo Singh. Bhoor Singh, Than Singh, Sanwat Singh and Narain Singh, who agreed to sell the land in question which is a small piece of land measuring about 210 sq ft. lying between the public road and the house of the plaintiff for Rs. 50/- but did not execute a sale deed in the defendant Govind Deo's favour nor handed over the possession of the same to him. Consequently Govind Deo filed a suit for specific performance against the aforesaid Bhomiyas in the Court of Civil Judge, Neem-ka-Thana, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 207 of 1957 and obtained an e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-05-1969
Reported in : 1969()WLN615
Bhargava, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred for decision by the Division Bench to the Full Bench.'Whether the amount of annual maintenance allowance payable to persons entitled to such allowance under Section 27 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, should be determined after taking into account the amount of money payable by the Jagirdar to his creditors under the provisions of the Rajasthan Jagirdars' Debt Reduction Act, 1956, or not?'2. The Board of Revenue which is one of the respondents in the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in its order dated 25-10-1962 held that 'in fixing the amount for maintenance the question of the Jagirdar's debt does not find any place under the law' and, therefore, directed the Additional Jagir Commissioner to determine afresh the amount of maintenance which they are entitled to receive in accordance with law.3. The petitioner who holds a decree against the Jagirdar i.e....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-07-1969
Reported in : AIR1970Raj26; 1969()WLN1
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This appeal has been brought by certificate granted under Section 18 (2) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance from the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18th March, 1966 in S. B. Civil Misc. Application No. 61 of 1965 (in S. B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 452 of 1960), 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated within a short compass. 3. The plaintiff-respondent Radhey-shyam (landlord) filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment from a shop situated in Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur, against the defendants-appellants Namamal and others (tenants) on two grounds viz., that the defendants have not paid rent of the premises for more than twelve months and that the premises are required reasonably and bona fide by the landlord for his own occupation. The landlord's plea for personal necessity was rejected by the trial Court. However the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed on the ground that the defendant-tenants had committed defa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-31-1969
Reported in : AIR1970Raj70; [1969]74ITR378(Raj); 1969()WLN83
1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act) made by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' and it arises out of the following circumstances : 2. The assessee in this case has been. assessed as an individual. The assessment year concerned is 1957-58 for which the relevant previous year is the financial year ending on 31st of March, 1957. The assessee had various sources of income out of which one source was the income from dividends. The Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, Jaipur, while assessing the income of the assessee increased the income-tax on dividend income which was undoubtedly included in the unearned income by 15 per cent to compute the amount of special surcharge as per the Finance Act, 1957. The assessee challenged the assessment order by filing an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, 'A' range, Jaipur, on various grounds, but this question that special su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-18-1969
Reported in : AIR1970Raj207; [1971]79ITR702(Raj)
Bhandari, C.J. 1. This is a reference by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', hereinafter called the 'Tribunal', under Section 256(1) of the Indian, Income-Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called the Act, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-Tax. 2. Messers. Indra and Company, Jodhpur, a registered firm under the Act and one of its partners Shri Jiwanlal Maheshwari had to submit their income-tax returns under Section 139(1) of the Act by or before 30th June, 1962. Both of them made applications to the Income-Tax Officer, A Ward, Jodhpur, for extending the time for filing their returns and the time was extended upto 31-8-62 in both the cases. Again, applications were made for extension of the time and they were granted time upto 20-9-62 and further extension was granted upto 30-9-62, but the returns were not filed even on that day. The said Income-tax Officer then served notice on the assessees under Section 139(2) of the Act calling upon them to file returns with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-04-1969
Reported in : AIR1970Raj225; 1969()WLN540
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. This is a group of 150 Writ petitions whereby the petitioners have challenged the validity of Sections 4, 5, 6, '8, 16, 18, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 44, 47, 50, 52, 53, 67, 68, 71 to 77, 85 to 98, 100, 101, 103, 108, 110 and 118 of the Gold (Control) Act, (No. 45 of 1968) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that they are violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution o India as these provisions put unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade of the petitioners.2. The petitioners are licensed dealers in gold under Chapter 3 of Part 12A of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, and were authorised thereunder to carry on their business as a dealer in gold. After the Act came into force, the Superintendent of Excise in charge of the Gold Cell for the places where the petitioners reside sent form Ex. 1 to file the returns under Section 16 (1) read with Section 16 (7) of the Act. Petitioners' allegation is that the respondent No. 4 has called...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-18-1969
Reported in : AIR1970Raj91; 1969()WLN223
ORDERP.N. Shinghal, J.1. This is an application under Section 543 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, by the Official Liquidator of Messrs. Jaipur Vastra Vyopar Sangh Ltd., in liquidation hereinafter referred to as 'the Company', for examination of the conduct of respondent Shyam Sunder Lal Patodia, who is a past director of the Company, and for an order compelling him to restore the money, with interest at such rate as the Court thinks just, or to contribute such sum to the assets of the Company by way of compensation in respect of misapplication, retainer or breach of trust as the Court-may think proper.2. The Company was registered under the Jaipur Companies Act of 1942. It is not in controversy that the provisions of that Act were similar to those of the Indiars Companies Act, 1913, and that the respondent was the Managing Director of the Company from March 21, 1946 to December 31, 1948.3. The Company is a public company and it has been alleged that, taking undue advantage of his po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-13-1969
Reported in : AIR1971Raj151
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. This writ petition, has been filed by a Trust known as His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur Museum Trust, City Palace, Jaipur, (hereinafter called the Trust) under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the levy of entertainment tax on the proceeds received by the Trust for allowing admission of the visitors to the museum on payment of certain fees prescribed by the Trust.2. His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur by a registered deed created a Trust on the 16th April, 1959, and founded a museum in a portion of the city palace, Jaipur. It was a public charitable Trust. His Highness had a vast collection of various articles of historical, scientific, literary and archaeological importance which came in his possession from several generations. The Maharaia relinquished all his rights., title and interest in those articles and handed over them to be placed in a museum for which the aforesaid Trust was created by him. According to the petitioner, this museum was foun...
Tag this Judgment!