Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jun-30-1982
Reported in : 1983(12)ELT6(Raj); 1982()WLN543
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. The three writ petitions listed above raise a common question of law, and may therefore be disposed of by a common judgment. The question of law requiring decision is whether the definition of 'value', as given in Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which makes the cost of packing of excisable goods, deliverable at the factory gate, except the cost of packing which is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the assessee, includible in the value of such goods for purposes of levy of duty of excise thereon, is ultra vires the Constitution and also con- travenes Section 3 of the said Act. It has arisen in the following circumstances.2. The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) which consolidated and amended the law relating to Central duties of excise and to salt came into force on February 28, 1944. Section 3 of the Act which makes provision for levy of duties of excise lays down that such...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-18-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Raj13; 1982()WLN258
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Can the protective umbrella of Section 42, Rajasthan Tenancy Act, aimed to implement the socio-economic uplift of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, by prohibiting transfer of land by them, so that they retain land, be nullified and set at naught by ingenious legal trickery of affluent and resourceful segment of society by obtaining compromise decrees, surrendering the land to Non-Scheduled Caste When a landless tiller Harijan or Girijan again becomes landless by compromise, would the law permit such economic suicide by Harijans, against legislative intent of Section 42, is the pivot of debate in this Harijan's litigations.2. And now the traditional narration of facts.3. This is plaintiffs' second appeal - after making attempt to get a decree in two lower Courts.4. The plaintiffs' are Harijans and therefore members of Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan. The plaintiffs are Khatedars of some agricultural land. There is a chequered history of the case in which in an earli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-02-1982
Reported in : AIR1984Raj14; 1982()WLN740
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. A short but interesting question as to whether a person receiving no vote at an election should be considered to have obtained the lowest member of votes or not arises in this case.2. The undisputed facts are that for the election to the office of Chairman of the Municipal Board, Nokha four persons were duly nominated as candidates. The voting was completed in three rounds and the votes obtained by each one of the four candidates in the three rounds ware as under :--Ist roundIInd roundIIIrd round1.Kesarichand5582.Shri Niwas7873.Gangadutt32104.Dev Kishan08-('E' stands (or elimination)3. The respondent Kesarichand obtained the highest number of votes in the third round and as such he was declared elected to the office of Chairman of the Municipal Board, Nokha. The case of the petitioner-appellant is that Devkishan having received no vote in the first round, he should not have been considered at all to have been a candidate at the election and Gangadutt should have bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-04-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Raj274; 1982()WLN182
ORDERM.C. Jain, J. 1. This writ petition raises an important question as to the applicability of Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1955 Act)' and Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1956 Act') to the ceiling proceedings under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1973 Act'). 2. A notice under Section 11 (1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner submitted his return. The petitioner's ceiling case was then decided by the Authorised Officer by his order dated 28-4-1975 (Ex, 1) and it was found that there is no surplus land available with the petitioner. Thereafter, the Collector issued a show cause notice dated 17-3-1981 (Ex. 2) calling upon the petitioner as to why reference should not be made to the Board of Revenue under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and under Section 82 of the 1956 Act, in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-15-1982
Reported in : [1984]148ITR72(Raj); 1982()WLN19
Dwarka Prasad, Actg. C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', has referred the following question to us for our decision :'Whether on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 15B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the assessee is entitled to rebate in respect of donations made to Bangur High School, Arogya Bhawan Hospital and Bangur Hospital '2. We have held by our order dated December 22, 1981, that the asses-see is entitled to rebate, in respect of donations made to Bangur High School, Arogya Bhawan Hospital and Bangur Hospital, under the provisions of Section 15B of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and decided the reference in favour of the assessee. We now proceed to record the reasons for our aforesaid decision.3. The facts which have given rise to this reference may be briefly stated:There was an educational institution known as Darbar High School at Pali, which was wholly financ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-26-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Raj154
Kasliwal, J.1. In all the above three writ petitions learned single Judge by his order April 11, 1979, has made a reference to a larger Bench under Rule 59 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for an authoritative decision, Learned single Judge formulated the following point:'Whether the consumption of the electricity energy by the petitioner electricity company in its power house and other allied premises and process of equipments for the purpose of generating conversion and/or manufacturing process of electricity for being supplied to the consumers in the city of Ajmer would bring the petitioner within the definition of 'consumer' as contemplated by Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act, 1962.'2. Learned single Judge further observed as it is the principal point on which all these three cases can be broadly decided, all the three writ petitions as a whole are referred to the larger Bench to avoid delay and complicacy of arguments again before this Bench.3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-03-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Raj77
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. The only point which falls for determination in the four connectedpetitions for revision under Section 115 C.P.C. listed above, is whether a tenant induct-ed into possession by a usufructuary mortgagee retains his status as a tenant even after the redemption of mortgage by the mortgagor and is as such, entitled to the protection of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950. It has arisen in the following circumstances.2. Kapoor Chand and others (respondents 1 to 10 herein), the mortgagors, hereinafter collectively called the decree-holder, obtained a final decree in a suit for redemption against Ghisilal and others (respondents 11 to 13 herein), hereinafter called the mortgagees, in respect of a building, situate in Jaipur city, on March 6, 1982. Between 1959 and 1973, when the mortgage was still continuing, the mortgagees inducted into possession from time to time Ram-chandra (petitioner in C.R. No. 307 o 1982), Janwar Mal (petitioner in C. R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-05-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Raj215
Kasliwal, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 14th April, 1971, affirming the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Bhil-wara dated 5th Oct. 1966.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the defendant-appellant M/s. Mewar Textile Mills Ltd., Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Textile Mills') was altotted wagons of coal for its use by the Deputy Coal Controller, Government of India. The Textile Mills used to send permits of coal to the plaintiff-respondent and the plaintiff then used to obtain priority sanctions in the name of the Textile Mills. After obtaining such sanctions the plaintiff then used to approach the collieries, pay the money for the coal, and get the coal toadied in Railway wagons, The railway receipts were got prepared by the collieries as consignors in the name of the Textile Mills as consignee. The case of the plaintiff was that between ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-15-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Raj109
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for possession, which has been dismissed by both the courts below.2. It is no longer in dispute that the house property, which is subject matter of litigation between the parties belonged to the joint Hindu family of Sheshmal. It has been mentioned in the plaint that the said house situated in village Devria, Tehsil Jetaran in the District of Pali, was the ancestral house of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs themselves Sheshmal migrated to Maharashtra and started residing in village Chandai in District Aurangabad, in the State of Maharashtra. The plaintiff's case is that the house in dispute was lying vacant, but five years prior to the institution of the suit the defendants, who were related to the plaintiffs as they came from the same stock, unlawfully entered the disputed house and occupied the same without any right. Thereafter, the defendant-respondents also obtained a patta in respect of the disputed house from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-07-1982
Reported in : AIR1984Raj1; 1982()WLN666
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is a joint reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court in the two revisions involving somewhat similar questions, as according to him there are conflicting decisions of the learned Judges of this Court relating to the provisions of Order XVI, Rule 1, C. P. C. as amended by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act (No. 104 of 1976) (for short 'the Amendment Act'), which came into force from Feb. 1, 1977.2. We will notice the facts giving rise to S. B. Civil Revision No. 49 of 1979, Yaqoob Ali v. Firm Taj Khan Ibrahim. as S. B. Civil Revision No. 289 of 1979, Heeralal v. Pyarelal was disposed of by a Division Bench onJanuary 8, 1982 on account of the concession made, it was not considered proper to decide it on merits. S. B. Civil Revision No. 48 of 1979.3. The plaintiffs-non-petitioners filed a suit again the defendant-petitioner for specific performance of contract, damages etc. The suit was contested on various grounds by the defendant. Issues wer...
Tag this Judgment!