Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(2)WLN193
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Whether we are entering twenty first century via seventeenth century? Whether this shameful stigma of exploitation of a woman employee by payment of Re. 1/- per day as salary and wages in 1987 when the real worth of Re. 1/- is 10 paise only may be less, deserves a shameful mention for beating all record of human exploitation in Giunea's World Book of Records? These are the pivotal questions in this lady peon's tragic tale of woe, suffering, miseries and nerve breaking, society rocking, heart rending, justice shocking long drawn fight of more than three decades for getting the minimum wages and the salary statutorily fixed in the pay scales and the revised pay scales from time to time for a peon. Gendi Devi's case of social economic exploitation is only one out of thousands and lacs who suffer unnoticed and can never enter the doors of Courts of Justice and thereby suffer injustice unlimited.2. At the very outset of hearing when Mr. Paras Kuhad learned Counsel for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988WLN(UC)2
J.S. Chopra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated 23-1-1987 whereby the learned District Judge has dissolved the marriage of the appellant and respondent under Section 13(2)(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').2. The facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the appeal briefly stated are that the wife-respondent filed an application for dissolution of her marriage with the hnsband-appelladt on July 3, 1985 pleading, inter alia that she was married with the husband-appellant Raju or Rajendra before about five years, i.e. at the time of the death of her great-grand mother that after marriage, she has never gone to her matrimonial home meaning thereby that her marriage has not been consumated, that even now, her age is 17 years and the has passed matriculation; that she is in a position to understand what is good for her and what is bad for her and that she does not like to keep her marital relations with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1988]169ITR794(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner for decision of the following questions of law, namely : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the execution of the release deed in question is a unilateral act and as such, it is not a transfer within the meaning of Section 2(xxiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the execution of the release deed in question is not a gift within the meaning of Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the release deed in question is a bonafide one and as such, it is not hit by Section 4(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958?' 2. The relevant assessment year is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987WLN(UC)599
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This is an application for grant of bail moved under Section 439 Cr. PC. A similar application has been rejected by Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City by his order, dated August 24, 1987, without entering into the merits of the case holding that he has no jurisdiction to hear the case. The reasoning assigned by him in the order is that this case arises from Tehsil Hindaun which area falls within the jurisdiction of Dacoits Affected Area and since Special Courts for such areas have been created under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Dacoits Affected Areas Act, 1986 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') hence he has no jurisdiction to hear the matter.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is not a detailed order but it appears that he look this view as the offence under Section 307 IPC has been included in the Schedule appended to the Act and offences enumerated in the Schedule are defined as Schedule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987WLN(UC)530
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. The appellant Subhash has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to four years r.i. and a fine of Rs. 400/- by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara by his judgment dated 13-6-1986. He has come up in appeal.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated here. Smt. Antar aged about 19 years in the second wife on one Nathu. Her husband is employed at Mahi Dam where as she used to live in her village Hariyapada. It is alleged that on 19-4-1985 she came to the village Kutumbi in order to take a bus to Mahi Dam via Banswara. She boarded a bus of which one Lala, co-accused was the cleaner (some time called conductor also) at Kutumbi and reached Banswara. She was made to get down at Banswara in the market and was not taken to the bus stand from where she was to get another bus for Mahi Dam. She however, managed to reach the bus stand at Banswara. There she found that the bus for Mahi Dam had already left. She, therefore, came back to the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1988)IILLJ351Raj
P.C. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the award dated 21st October 1986, annexure 17, passed by the learned Labour Court, whereby the order of termination terminating the services of Bhanwar Singh, respondent No. 2, dated 13th August 1983, annexure 10, was set aside and he was reinstated with back wages.2. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 2, Bhanwar Singh, was employed as a probationer in the Mayo College, Ajmer, as class IV employee to fill the post of Chowkidar, vide order No. 1049 dated 11th December 1981, for a period of two years with effect from 1st January, 1982. Prior to this, Bhanwar Singh was kept on trial for a period of six months in place of his father. The case of the petitioner is that as Bhanwar Singh was not found suitable to be kept in the employment on permanent basis, due to his unsatisfactory work, his services were terminated, vide office order dated 13th August 1983, with effect from 30th September 1983, i....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1988]68STC101(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a revision under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984, wherein the petitioner, namely, Commercial Taxes Officer (Revision), Ajmer, is seeking to challenge the orders passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board of Revenue'). 2. M/s. Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation, non-petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), is a Government company carrying on business as an importer, manufacturer and dealer in various commodities, including coal. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee purchased coal from collieries in Bihar for the purpose of supplying the same to the allottees within the State of Rajasthan. The supplying colliery in Bihar had charged Central sales tax at the rate of 2 per cent on the sales of coal made by it in rakes and sent the railway receipts in favour of the assessee. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1987)64CTR(Raj)241; [1988]169ITR708(Raj)
V.S. Dave, J.1. This reference has been sent by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal along with the statement of the case, dated November 25, 1975, under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Tribunal has referred the following questions to this court for its opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case and on a correct reading and interpretation of the agreement dated October 21, 1957, and the partnership deed dated November 1, 1957, Smt. Vidyawati Rathi was possessed of any property within the meaning of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 2. Whether, on a correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 3(2) and (3) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, XVIII of 1937 (as amended by XI of 1938) and Sections 4 and 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Tribunal was right in holding that on the death of Seth Vithal Das, husband of Smt. Vidyawati Rathi, in the year 1951, the share of Smt. Vidyawati Rathi be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]67STC442(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') wherein the petitioner, namely, the Commercial Taxes Officer (Revisions), Ajmer, is seeking to challenge the correctness of the orders passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board of Revenue').2. This revision relates to the assessment year 1968-69 and the period relevant to the said assessment year is from 1st December, 1967 to 21st October, 1968. M/s. Hari Narain Gyarsi Lal, non-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a partnership firm dealing in pure ghee. On 4th November, 1968, the Commercial Taxes Officer, (Survey & Investigation) (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessing authority') visited the premises of the assessee and during the course of inspection he found a book containing khatas for the sales of pure ghee on 'adat' and loose papers connected with sales of such ghee, during t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1987)65CTR(Raj)38; [1987]168ITR516(Raj)
Agrawal, J.1. In these references relating to the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant-trust could not be granted exemption under Section 11/12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claims of the appellant-trust in respect of exemption under Section 11/12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 were forfeited by virtue of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) read with the Explanation to Section 13(1) and Section 13(2)(a) and Section 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the c...
Tag this Judgment!