Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]67STC90(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This was initially a reference by the Tribunal for decision by this Court of the following question of law :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transaction involving movement of the goods from Jaipur to Calcutta is liable to be treated as an inter-State sale for purposes of levy of sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act ?2. By virtue of the newly substituted Section 16 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, as amended by the Amendment Act of 1984, this reference is now heard and disposed of as a revision.3. The material facts are these :The assessee is a manufacturer of wire cloth having its head office at Calcutta in the State of West Bengal and its factory at Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan. During the relevant period the assessee disclosed its inter-State sales to the extent of Rs. 25,67,633 and in addition it showed transfer of wire cloth valued at Rs. 2,75,800 from its factory in Jaipur to its head office at Calcutta. It claimed th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987WLN(UC)646
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment dated 16th December, 1981, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 916/80, whereby he dismissed the writ petition.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Excise Inspector Gr. II on the basis of selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, on probation. While working as Excise Inspector the appellant had applied for selection to subordinate service through the Excise Department and appeared in the competitive examination held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the year 1978. The appellant was declared successful at this examination on 25th September, 1979 and, on that basis, by an order dated 21st February, 1980, of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer the appellant was appointed as Naib Tehsilder, in the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service, on probation for a peri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]66STC204(Raj)
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the validity of Rule 62-A (introduced by notification dated 31st October, 1986) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955, framed under Section 26 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act). It raises a short question of law. In order to arrive at a proper determination, it is necessary to consider this question in its proper perspective and, therefore, a broad constellation of facts, in which the question arises, may be briefly stated thus:Petitioner No. 1, Miss Alka Agarwal, is not a dealer under the provisions of the State Act. Petitioner No. 2 is M/s. Lohia Machines Ltd., a private limited company, which is manufacturing scooters in the technical collaboration with the foreign firm, namely, Piaggio & CSPA of Italy. The scooters so manufactured are being sold under the brand names-LML Vespa XE, LML Vespa 150 and LML Vespa 150 NV. M/s. Sanghi Traders and Investments Pvt. Ltd....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988CriLJ1188; 1987(1)WLN727; 1989WLN(UC)541
ORDERNaveen Chandra Sharma, J.1. It is the grievance of Mangilal Vyas petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous PetitionsNos. 702 to 709 of 1986 Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. that he is undergoing mental, physical and financial torture for the last 23 years, inasmuch as he has been prosecuted in no less than 11 criminal cases by the Officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, for offences Under Section 408 or 409 IPC, on allegations of misappropriation or embezzlement of amounts which are alleged to have been committed during his short spell of appointment as a Manager of Jhunjhunu Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd., Jhunjhunu (hereinafter, for short as 'the Sahkari Bank') from 17th Feb., 1961 to 3rd June, '63', in respect of which on a complaint made to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, an inquiry was ordered by the Registrar Under Section 41 of the Co-operative Societies Act to be held by the Collector, Jhunjhunu, with the assistance of the Special Auditors of Ajmer Zone and Assistant Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(2)WLN223
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is defendant-tenant's second appeal in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment.2. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant was a tenant in the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. He committed default in payment of rent and, therefore, the suit was filed on 14-9-1973 by the plaintiff being suit No. 55/73 on the ground of default in payment of rent for 25 months. Since the defendant deposited the arrears of rent under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, l950, (here in after to be referred as 'Rent Control Act') the suit was dismissed on 28-6-1978. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant paid rent only upto May, 1978 and did not pay any rent thereafter. The present suit was filed on 24-3-1979 on the ground of default in payment of rent for nine months and also on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity.3. On service of the plaint, the defendant filed an application under Section 13(4) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(2)WLN126
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, by which the following questions of law were referred to this court for its opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the firm was not valid and that the object of the agreement was of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the public policy as contained in the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 ? 2, If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the firm was not valid and, therefore, not entitled to registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The Government of Rajasthan granted a licence for the retail sale of country liquor during the year 1966-67 at Bhilwara including the shops situated at Bhupalganj, Gulmandi and Dhanmandi, in the joint names of Motilal, Chunnilal and Bhanwarlal, son of Motilal. It appears that with a vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988CriLJ1079; (1987)66CTR(Raj)48; 1987(2)WLN155
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. 'Jail' and 'No bail' normally to such alleged heinous economic 'anti Social' offenders and tax dozzers, is the deduction but Revenue's half hearted approach has reversed the 'morale' in this case.2. And now the traditional narration of facts.3. These two criminal miscellaneous applications have been filed by the I.T.O. Central Circle I, Jaipur against the order dt. 10-4-85 of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, By these two orders the non-applicants Gopal Dhamani and Laxminarain Dhamani were granted bail. The bail order was passed under Section 439, Cr.P.C. Both these non-applicants are now sought to be put behind bars by the Income-tax Authorities by their prayer that the bail should be cancelled as the learned Sessions Judge should not have granted bail in these two cases which are serious economic offences.4. In both these cases the offences with which the accused are charged relates to Section 276(c) of the Income-tax Act, for evasion of income tax in additio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(1)WLN304
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. These writ petitions involve common questions of law and almost identical facts and, as such, are being disposed of by this common order.2. For deciding these three writ petitions I shall take into consideration the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1638, Yadu Raj Singh v. The State Raj. and Ors. The controversy lies in a narrow compass and may be stated thus: The petitioner is a holder of one non-temporary stage carriage permit on Bharatpur-Dholpur via Sapau route bearing No. RTA/85/5183 valid upto 11th March, 1990, in respect of Vehicle No. RSD 2551. The petitioner, Beni Singh, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1640/1986, is a holder of one non-temporary stage carriage permit on Bharatpur-Basedi via Ghana, Malah. Sewar, Uchhain, Kheriamod, Rundhawal, Bandbaretha route in respect of Vehicle No. RSD 3729, and the permit of the petitioner in that case is valid upto 20th March, 1987. Petitioner Daudayal in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1641/1986 is also holding on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(1)WLN208
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr. PC against the order dated 22-8-1986 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, No. 2 in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1984 whereby an application filed by the prosecution for amendment of charge has been accepted and a charge under Section 302, I.P.C. has been ordered to be framed against the petitioner.2. For the purposes of this petition it will suffice to state that seven accused persons including the petitioner Prabhu are facing trial on account of murder of deceased Bhanwari and charges under various sections have been framed against them. On 12-10-1984 the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against all the accused persons and accused Chandrabhan was charged to have committed offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 324 and 149 read with Sections 325 and 323, I.P.C. The accused petitioner Prabhu was charged under Sections 147, 148, 302, 324 & 149 read with Sections 325 and 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(1)WLN577
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is plaintiff's first appeal.2. The plaintiff-appellant Rehmat Bai and defendant No. 1 Mst. Safia are two wives of Badruddin who died. After the death of Badruddin his mother Mst. Gulab Bai, plaintiff Rehmat Bai and defendant No. 1 Mst. Safia were his legal heirs. Mst. Gulab Bai also died and thereafter, plaintiff and defendant No. 1 remained the only legal heirs of deceased Badruddin. According to the plaintiff, Mst. Gulab Bai at the time of her death left two properties which were in joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. These properties comprised of two houses, one in Kishorepura Mohalla, and another in Bhatapada, Rampura, Kota. Since the relations between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 became strained, plaintiff filed the suit out of which this appeal arises, for partition and sought a further declaration that defendant No. 1 bad no authority to sell the house situated in, Kishorepura Mohalla to defendant No. 2, Aajak Vil...
Tag this Judgment!