Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-25-1985
Reported in : 1985(2)WLN615
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Hanumangarh dated February 13, 1981, by which the appellant Mithasingh was convicted under Section 302, IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and three years' rigorous imprisonment on the respective counts.2. The prosecution case is short and simple and in succinct it is as follows. Azyabsingh the deceased victim in the case was the son of PW 1 Gulabsingh, Jat Sikh and cousin of PW 2 Sukhdeo Singh. He was living with his parents in village Chandro P.S. Hanumangarh, district Ganga-nagar. The accused is also resident of the same village. Azyabsingh was convicted under Section 307, IPC and was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment for making attempt on the life of the appellant. The appellant, due to this attempt on his life by Azyabsingh, started harbouring ill-will against him. Azayabsingh, went in appeal. The appeal was admi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-04-1985
Reported in : 1985(2)WLN189
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This writ petition and other writ petitions, a list of which is annexed as Schedule 'A' to this order, which are being disposed of by this order, raise a common question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to proportionate reduction in the minimum charges payable by them for the electric energy supplied to them in the event of curtailment of the supply of the electric energy to them on account of imposition of the power cut.2. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Electricity Board') has been constituted under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Electricity (Supply) Act'. The Electricity Board undertakes the generation and supply of electricity to the various consumers in Rajasthan and in the exercise of its powers, it is governed by the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act. Under 26 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, the Electricity Board, in respect of the whole Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-12-1985
Reported in : (1985)47CTR(Raj)182; [1985]156ITR714(Raj)
Bhargava, J. 1. This is an income-tax reference wider Section 256(1)of, the Income-tax Act, wherein the following question of law has beenreferred to this court for its opinion : . ..'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the. case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that no valid gift of outhouses of the building named as 'Deep Shikha' was made, by the assessee to his wife in terms of the G.T. Act, 1958?''2. The assessee is the owner of a building known as 'Deep Shikha' situated in C-Scheme, Jaipur. It has certain outhouses attached to it, The assessee claims to have gifted the said outhouses to his wife on September 30, 1966. A declaration in writing was made on October 10, 1966, duly signed by both the assessee as well as his wife, the donee, but the same was not got registered by the assessee with the Sub-Registrar (the declaration is dated July 10, 1966, but that is only a typographical mistake). The water receipts, electric receipts and bills are in the name...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-22-1985
Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Raj)286; [1986]160ITR908(Raj); 1985(2)WLN789
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench ' A ', Bombay (for short ' the Tribunal '), has arisen in the following circumstances : Udaipur State known as Mewar was an Indian State prior to the independence of the country in 1947. After the Independence Act, 1947, the United State of Rajasthan was formed and with effect from that very date, the very said State of Udaipur known as Mewar was integrated along with other Indian States into the United State of Rajasthan. A covenant was entered into between the Government of India and the said integrated State including Mewar (State of Udaipur). The covenant was signed by the Maharana of Mewar, Maharaja Bhupal Singh, and according to that covenant, the said Maharana of Mewar was to be paid an annual privy purse of Rs. 10,00,000. The said covenant has been submitted as annexure A. We may reproduce article XI of the Covenant, annexure A, which is as under ;' (1) The Ruler of each Covenanting State sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-01-1985
Reported in : 1985WLN(UC)570
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 20-11-84 (Ex.4) whereby the provisions of the Employees, Insurance Act, 1948 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') has been made applicable to the petitioner.2. Petitioner is unit of the All India ITDC Employee's Union affiliated to AITUC which is a registered body under the Trade Union Act and it has units at the various places of India running hostels, transport units and entertainments etc. Petitioner is the representative body of the employees of ITDC which foster for the interests, co-operation and betterment of its members so as to protect their service conditions.3. The employees of this Union are working in one of the hostel of the Corporation known as Laxmi Vilas Palace Hotel, Udaipur. Out of the total strength of 51 employees working in this hotel, 31 employees hail from places out side and therefore free medical aid to all the employees and their dependents was given to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-17-1985
Reported in : I(1987)ACC344; AIR1986Raj192; 1986(2)WLN145
Kasliwal, J. 1. One Chiranjilal died in a motor accident and his legal representatives Smt. Kistoori Devi and others filed a claim under Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by judgment dated 13-10-80 awarded an amount of Rs. 30,750/- in all by way of compensation to the claimants. The aforesaid amount of compensation also included an amount of Rs. 1,500/- allowed to Smt. Kistoori Devi widow of Chiranjilal deceased by way ofmental shock and loss of consortium, andRs. 800/- each to Banwarilal, Brajesh Kumar,Kamlesh Kumar, Vipin Behari and ChandraShekhar, all sons of deceased Chiranjilal byway of loss of love and affection and mentalagony, The Rajasthan State Road TransportCorporation, hereinafter referred to as the'Corporation', filed an appeal challenging theAward dated 13-10-80 given by the Tribunal.The learned single Judge considered that animportant question of law had been raisedduring the arg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-16-1985
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Raj)244; [1986]160ITR444(Raj); [1986]63STC126(Raj); 1985(2)WLN397
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ' the Tribunal '), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court, which has arisen out of its order dated April 12, 1977, passed in I.T.A. No. I45/JP/76-77, in respect of the assessment year 1972-73;' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid to the Sales Tax Department on the arrears of sales tax under Section 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, was an admissible deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. It is not necessary to recount the facts in detail, for, it is sufficient to state that the assessee had claimed interest paid on the delayed payment of sales tax as allowable expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (No. 43 of 1961) (for short ' the Act '). The Income-tax Officer by his order dated January 24, 1975, rejected the claim of the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-23-1985
Reported in : AIR1987Raj11; 1985(2)WLN206
Inder Sen Israni, J. 1. This is a civil second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. filed against the judgment and decree dated 19-1-1977 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu in Civil Appeal No. 38/73 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31-7-1973 in Civil Suit No. 112/70.2. Briefly stated the facts of the appeal are that the plaintiff respondent filed a suit for specific performance and cancellation of gift deed and also for obtaining possession of the suit properties bearing Khasra No. 554, 557, 560 and 561 situated in village Kishorepura Tehsil Neem-ka-thana. The suit was originally filed against Govinda and appellant No. 4 Jhabar. Govinda however died during the pendency of the suit and appellants Nos. 1 to 3 were substituted as legal representatives of deceased Govinda.3. The case of the plaintiff respondent was that an agreement to sell agricultural land measuring 7 bighas 18 biswas bearing the aforesaid Khasra Nos. in village Kishorepura along with Quwadi situated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-03-1985
Reported in : (1985)46CTR(Raj)264; [1987]165ITR367(Raj); 1985(1)WLN349
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Both the above reference applications are disposed of by one single order as common questions of law arise in both the cases except that the assessment years are different.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), by order dated August 5,1981, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in passing the order under Section 263 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax that the trust was a discretionary trust ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the shares of beneficiaries were indeterminate or unknown and, as such, the provisions of Section 16...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-19-1985
Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Raj)56; [1986]159ITR988(Raj); 1985(1)WLN742
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This reference raises an important question of law with respect to interpretation of the words ' every month' used in Section 18(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (No. XXVII of 1957), (for short 'the Act')'. We may also state that the same words have been used in Section 271(t)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The provisions of Sections 18(1)(i) are in pari materia with Section 271(1)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioner-assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment year involved is 1973-74. The assessee was required to file a return of wealth by August 15, 1973. The return was despatched by the assessee by registered post on September 12, 1973. It was received by the Wealth-tax Officer on September 15, 1973. The Wealth-tax Officer was of the view that there was a delay of 31 days (one month) in filing the return. He issued a show-cause notice to the assessee regarding penalty. He held in his order dated December 5, 1975, that the assessee w...
Tag this Judgment!