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 : Jan-01-1985
Reported in : 1985WLN(UC)44
G.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal in a suit which has been decreed by the trial court.2. The plaintiffs have instituted this suit on 29-3-67 with the allegations that the defendant No. 1 along with his brother Gurdayal defendant No 5 had 28 bighas 16 biswas land situated at Chak 28GB, Tehsil Annopgarh comprised in square No. 22 to 22 and 26 and 27 measuring 12 bighas 3 biswas, 1 bigha 9 biswas, 1 bigha, 9 bighas 6 biswas and 4 bighas and 18 biswas respectively and 8 bighas 13 biswas situated at Chak 31GB comprised of square No. 60/29 and 61/30 measuring 5 bighas and 3 bighas and 3 bighas 13 biswas respectively. The defendant No. 1 was the Mukhtiyaraam of defendant No. 5 through a registered Mukhtyarnama dated 3-7-54 and under the said Mukhtyarnma the defendant No. 1 had rights of mortgage, sale and management of the land for cultivation. The defendant No. 1 had let out the aforesaid land to the plaintiff No. 1 in Smvt. 2012 and since then the plaintiffs are in possession o...
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 : Jan-04-1985
Reported in : 1985(1)WLN656
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. These three appeals have been filed against the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 30-9-1978 disposing of 4 writ petition filed by the appellant, Maharaja Gaj Singh of Jodhpur. As common questions of law have been raised in these three appeals, it would be proper to dispose them of by a common order.2. The undisputed facts are that the father of the appellant was the erstwhile Ruler of former State of Jodhpur. In the year 1949 the then Jodhpur State integrated with other princely States to form the United State of Rajasthan. At the time of merger of the former State of Jodhpur with the other States, a covenant was entered into by the father of the appellant as the Ruler of the covenating State and the Union of India, wherein amongst other things it was provided that the ex-Ruler shall be entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties belonging to him at the time of making over of the administration of the State ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-11-1985
Reported in : 1985WLN(UC)634
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran, dated 23rd Oct., 1978, by which, he confirmed the conviction and the petitioner passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Baran vide his judgment dated 30th Aug., 1977, for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (here in after for short, 'the Act').2. The facts of this case succinctly narrated are that on 3rd April, 74, Kaluram, Food Inspector visited the shop of firm, 'Moolchand Banamal', and purchased 450 gms. of groundnut oil and paid him Rs. 4.40. He then filled that sample of oil in 3 bottles; sealed them at the spot and sent them to public analyst for examination. After examination, the public analyst disclosed that the oil was upto the standard prescribed by the rules as given in Appendix-B, except that it was not free from rancidity, and hence, he described it as adulterated. After taking sanction, the petitioner was challaned. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-15-1985
Reported in : 1985(1)WLN633
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Against the order dated July 19, 1984, the appellant who was petitioner in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and whose writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge, has filed this appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949.2. The petitioner-appellant carries on business in cloth in the name and style of M/s Sonraj Gautam Raj at Jodhpur and he is the employer and respondent No. 1, who was non-petitioner No. 1 in the writ petition, was employed by him on August 10, 1973. The appellant and respondent No. 1 will here in after referred to as 'the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 1' respectively. The case of non-petitioner No. 1 in the complaint that was field Under Section 28 A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (Act No. XXXI of 1958) (for short 'the Act') was that the petitioner had discharged him from employment without any reasonable cause and without notice on June 2, 1974. Acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-16-1985
Reported in : [1986]61STC258(Raj); 1985(1)WLN628
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. In pursuance of the order dated 6th September, 1976, passed by this Court in D. B. Civil Sales Tax Reference No. 216 of 1975, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' herein), has referred the following question for our opinion :Whether the polishing of stones comes within the term 'manufacture' and, therefore, attracts concessional rate under Section 5C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ?2. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward A, Chittorgarh (ACTO), determined the tax liability of M/s. Sitaram Badrilal, Manpura Branch, Station Road, Chittorgarh, under Section 10(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'), for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, vide his assessment order dated 6th May, 1969. The dealer-assessee was dealing in stones during this period and his gross turnover was determined at Rs. 1,59,520.46. After deducting from it, the turnover relating to goods not liable to tax and inter-State sales, the assessing auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-23-1985
Reported in : 1985(2)WLN336
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This an Ex-soldier's tell tale of turmoil and suffering and pitiable plight of victim of injustice in Courts of justice, on account of denial even of the compensation of the canteen which was taken possession by the State and given to third parties.2. The facts as involved and the controversy relates back to the scheme of re-settlement of military ex-servicmen under which he was granted a piece of land on premium of Rs. 60/- per year in the compound of Collector, Bhilwara in December, 1955.3. It would not be worthwile to mention in detail the entire facts as they are contained in the judgment of the first appellate court and mostly they are not in dispute. The controversy has been further shortened by the frank and fair concession of Mr. Hukam Chand Jain, learned counsel for the appellant that he would not like to press for getting any damages or compensation for deprivation from the right of lease and user of the canteen, nor he would now claim that the canteen s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-30-1985
Reported in : [1987]64STC428(Raj)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. On an application filed by the department under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, 'other charges' collected by the assessee for rendering unspecified services can be treated as commission and whether such commission will not form part of sale price as defined in Section 2(p) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.2. The facts of the case in brief are that M/s. Uttumal Gagumal (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') was assessed to tax under Section 10 of the Act for the period March 24, 1966 to April 11, 1967 (1966-67) by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle 'A', Jaipur City by order dated November 5, 1969. By this order an amount of Rs. 24,302.50 shown as, 'other charges' was also subjected to tax. The Commercial Taxes Officer in this regard held that the definition ...
Tag this Judgment!