Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1986)56CTR(Raj)341; [1987]164ITR274(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J. 1. In this reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no appeal lay to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against an order under Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. M/s. Beharilal Ishwardass (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a partnership firm. It was registered for the purpose of the Act for the assessment year 1969-70 and was assessed as a registered firm. For the assessment year 19 70-71, the assessee filed a return on October 19, 1970, but along with the said return, the assessee did not submit the required declaration for continuation of registration of the firm in Form No. 12. The assessee filed a revised retur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987CriLJ610
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J.1. Arjun Singh has moved this application Under Section 439, Cr. P.C. The case relates to the death of Kamla. The allegation is that Kamla was murdered by her husband applicant Arjun Singh alias Bhanwar Singh.2. The investigation of the case has got a chequered history because earlier, the police gave final report. The parents of Kamla approached the High Court. On directions from the High Court, the C.B.I, started investigation and arrested the accused.3. Mr. K. E. Soni, learned Counsel for the accused, submitted that there is no direct evidence connecting the applicant with the crime and the circumstantial evidence so far as disclosed by Mr. Tyagi during arguments, collected by the investigating agency fails to make out any case, against the accused Under Section 302, I.P.C.4. Mr. Soni also read over certain letters of the sisters-in-law of the accused showing that the relations between the husband and wife were very cordial. According to Mr. Soni the death wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(1)WLN191
ORDER AGAINST TN 3010 FOR SUPPLY OF ACSR PANTHER CONDUCTOR (.) DEPUTE YOUR FULLY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISCUSSION ON DECEMBER 29, 1982.3. It was followed by another telegram, dated January 3, 1983, thereafter another telegram on January 17, 1983, fixing January 24, 1983, but instead of sending a representative, the petitioner's case is that respondent sent a notice, dated February 22, 1983, through their counsel re-pudiating the contract calling upon to refer all disputes and differences to arbitrators and further informed about nominating Shri S. Rangarajan, Sr. Advocate, Supreme Court, as their arbitrator and requested to nominate the arbitrator by the Board. On March 8, 1983, the petitioner wrote to respondent No. 1 inter alia stating that the delivery schedule for supply needs revision and re-fixation by mutual negotiations and that the reference to arbitration and appointment of Shri S. Rangarajan is premature. It was further mentioned that if the petitioners were not agre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(2)WLN284
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24th January, 1976, passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in first appeal No. 176 of 1975 by which the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 21st March, 1975, was modified dismissing the plaintiff's claim for ejectment from the suit premises and decreeing the suit for use and occupation.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the owner of a bungalow known as Kalyan Villa, situated at Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. The said premises was let out by the plaintiff appellant to the British India General Insurance Co., Ltd., for a period of one year at Rs. 350/- per month with effect from 1st July, 1965. In addition to the rent, the defendant was also required to pay house tax amounting to Rs. 21.88P. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for eviction and recovery ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]64STC36(Raj); 1987(1)WLN65
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jodhpur, determined the tax liability of the assessee-non-petitioner under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act'), in respect of the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 by the assessment orders dated August 13, 1963, May 28, 1963, August 11, 1966, March 6, 1967 and April 14, 1967, respectively. This is borne out from the following tabular statement :____________________________________________________________________Assessment year Gross turnover Taxable Total amountturnover due_____________________________________________________________________1961-62 (October to Rs. 10,93,533 Rs. 4,19,614 Rs. 19,321.86September, 1961)1962-63 (1-10-1961 to Rs. 14,57,492 Rs. 6,88,621 Rs. 34,436.0530-9-1962)1963-64 (1-10-1962 to Rs. 19,08,525.22 Rs. 8,29,154.96 Rs. 41,009.9330-9-1963)1964-65 (1-10-1963 to Rs. 19,85,195.45 Rs. 8,30,420.21 Rs. 36,210.6030-9-1964)1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986WLN(UC)88
Shri Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment dated November 29, 1978, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, by which the writ petition was allowed in part holding as under:(1) that assignment of seniority of Shri P.N. Midha over petitioner Surendrapal Singh Verma is correct whereby negativing the claim of the petitioner Surendra Pal Singh regarding the seniority over Shri P.N. Midha in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector Grade If, as well as in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector, Grade-I;(2) that the Prosecuting Inspectors in the Railway Protection Force are eligible for selection to all the posts of Assistant Security Officer in the Railway Protection Force and the petitioner Surendrapal Singh was eligible for being considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Security Officer at the time when appointments were made on that post on February 3, 1976 and the Union of India; the Railway Board, New Delhi; the Inspector General, Railway Pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : I(1987)ACC152
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, has been filed against the judgment dated February 7, 1985 of the learned single Judge, which he passed in an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act')2. It is not necessary to re-state the facts in detail, for, they have elaborately been stated in the judgment under appeal. Suffice it to state that respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a claim against appellants No. 1 and 2 and Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) under Section 110-A of the Act. Their claim was for Rs. 1,22,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Tribunal') by its award dated March 10, 1978, allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 4000/- each set of the claimants with proportionate costs. Aggrieved, the claimants filed an appeal under Section 110-D against the respondents. The learned single Judge allowed the appeal and ordered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(2)WLN53
Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, has been filed against the judgment dated February 7, 1985 of the learned Single Judge, which he passed in an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act').2. It is not necessary to re-state the facts in detail, for, they have elaborately been stated in the judgment under appeal. Suffice it to state that respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a claim against appellants No. 1 and 2 and Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) under Section 110-A of the Act. Their claim was for Rs. 1,22,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Tribunal') by its award dated March 10, 1975, allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 4000/- each set of the claimants with proportionate costs. Aggrieved, the claimants filed an appeal under Section 110-D against the respondents. The learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(2)WLN10
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. The case of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, whose election was held on 26-12-81. The respondent No. 5 Shri Ram Roop Mishra was declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, defeating the petitioner by a margin of 10 votes.2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dt. 14-12-81 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary dated 15th December, 1981, notified the programme for the election to the office of Pradhan of various Panchayat Samilies in the State of Rajasthan. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government vested in it under 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred to as the rules). According to the above notification, the election programme for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Lalsot, District Jaipur wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1986)57CTR(Raj)79; [1986]162ITR742(Raj); 1986(2)WLN756
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' herein), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no contravention of the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act and that the assessee-firm was validly constituted and was entitled to registration '2. The assessment year involved is 1973-74. The assessee is a partnership concern which during the relevant assessment year derived income from sale of country liquor. In the relevant previous year it had three partners, Svs. Rooplal Danchand, Ladharam Murandmal and Khemchand Tekchand. The licences of the three main shops of the assessee-firm were in the names of all the three partners. Besides these three shops, there were, however,two other shops of which the licences were not in the names of all the three partners. The Income-tax Officer h...
Tag this Judgment!