Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-28-1986
Reported in : 1987(2)WLN671
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The appellant, Navratan Jain, has filed this appeal against the judgment of the trial court where by he has been convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 18(i)(iv) and Section 18(c) 1 years RI with a fine3 of Rs. 1000/-Read with Section 27 of the Drugs and in default, 4 month RI.Cosmetics Acts, 19402. According to the prosecution, on 23-11-1975 noon, A.H. Sarswat (PW 1) Drug Inspector, Kota, inspected the shop of the appellant in village Raipur. The inspection was of M/s Navratan Mal Bachhraj where the appellant was present. Allopathic drugs exhibited for sale were available there. The documents of purchase and sale were demanded by the Inspector but the appellant failed to produce them. He also failed to produce licence. 20 species of medicines of drugs were found in the shop which were sealed.3. A complaint then was filed against the accused in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, who committed the accused to the courts of Sessions for tria...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-09-1986
Reported in : 1987WLN(UC)53
N.C. Sharma, J.1. On June 14, 1976 about 6.30 a.m. the Food Inspector of Gulabpura Town visited the small restaurent of Bansi Luhar PW 2 for whom the petitioner Balu had brought 7 or 8 Kgs. of mixed cow and buffalo's milk for sale. The Food Inspector inspected the milk brought, by the petitioner and the petitioner told the Food Inspector that it was mixed cow and buffalo's milk and he had brought it for sale. Suspecting that the milk was adulterated, the Food Inspector, with a view to take sample of the milk from the petitioner to send the same for analysis to the Public Analyst, gave notice Ex. P 1 in Form VI to the petitioner and bought 660 mlg. of that milk from the petitioner for 90 paise. The statutory formalities under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, here in after 'the P.F.A. Act') were complied with and one of the three sealed bottles were sent to the Public Analyst, Bhilwara from whom the report was received that the sample of mixed milk (buffalo and c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-01-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Raj174; 1987(1)WLN548
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. The short question for decision by us is whether the provision made prescribing the minimum age limit of 17 years to be completed during the calendar year of admission to the First year of the M. B. B. S./B. D. S. course is invalid. This reference to a larger Bench has been made on the ground that there appears to be a conflict in the decisions of this Court on this point. The other questions, which have been referred, do not call for any answer as we shall indicate hereafter. The questions referred to us for our decision are as under : --'(1) Whether the Clause 3(c) of the Rules forthe admission in Medical Colleges in Rajasthan which reads as under is ultra vires or not? 'Provided further that the candidates for admission to the first M. B. B. S./ B. D. S. Course must have completed the age of 17 years on or before 31st Dec. of the admission of the year.' (2) Whether the Division Bench can declare any Rules as ultra vires without assigning any reason? (3) Whether th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-29-1986
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
Decided on : Apr-02-1986
Reported in : [1986]161ITR251(Raj)
P.C. Jain, J. 1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), as fashioned by the Tribunal, reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the use of the words 'service has been terminated' in Clause (ii) of Rule 8 of Part A of Fourth Schedule ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961, does not cover the case of termination of service by resignation by an employee ?' 2. Shortly put, the necessary facts leading up to the present reference by the Tribunal are that the assessee was employed with Oriental Power Cables Ltd., Kota, from the month of July, 1962, as Chief Engineer of the said company. In the year 1965, the management of the said company was changed and the new management appointed three more persons in a position superior to that of the assessee. Therefore, he was relegated to the fourth positi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-29-1986
Reported in : [1987]168ITR715(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, Actg. C.J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, by its order dated November 7, 1974, and the following question of law arisingout of the order of the Appellate Tribunal has been referred for thedecision of this court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs 16,250 levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 'The facts giving rise to this reference may be shortly stated. M/s. Kejriwal Iron Stores, Neem-Ka-Thana, was a firm registered under Section 185 of the Act. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1970-71 and while examining the same and scrutinising the accounts of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer, Sikar, found that the assessee had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-29-1986
Reported in : (1987)62CTR(Raj)227; [1988]169ITR12(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, Actg. C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has by its order dated December 27, 1974, referred the following three questions of law arising out of its order to this court for decision :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could confirm the addition of Rs. 16,250 on a new ground not mentioned by the Income-tax Officer in his order ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the purchases of the goods were covered by the word 'expenditure' used in Sub-section (3) of Section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (in) Was the Tribunal right, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, to hold that the payments made by the assessee firm to M/s. Amar Singh & Sons were payments made in respect of the purchase of the goods and as such were covered by the word 'expenditure' as used in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-06-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Raj143; 1987(1)WLN58
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, granting an injunction against the defendant appellants, restraining them from selling the land of Khasra Nos. 1111 and 1112 and from making any constructions, and further directing to maintain the status quo.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement by the appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The first agreement was dt. 12-7-75 by which the defendants agreed to sell land measuring 6 Bighas and 12 Biswas out of Khasra No. 1111 for a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- and a sum of Rs. 100/- was given in advance. It was further agreed that as soon as the respondent Society paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, the possession of the property would be handed over to the Society. The time given in the agreement was of six months. Since the respondent Society could not pay the amount, the time was extended initially up to 31-12-76 and again up to 31-12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-11-1986
Reported in : 1986(2)WLN201
M.C. Jain, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has made this reference on Reference Applications Nos. 85 and 86/JP/1974-75, arising out of ITA Nos. 719 and 720/JP/1972-73, in respect of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, on the following questions of law :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee corporation was an authority constituted under any law for the marketing of commodities ; and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of the corporation from letting of godowns and/or warehousing was exempt from tax under Section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ' 2. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, therefore he added the income from letting of godowns and/or warehouses, in respect of the assessment years ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-02-1986
Reported in : [1988]64CompCas613(Raj)
Kasliwal, J. 1. The learned Single judge has referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench :' Whether, after the decision of the Supreme Court in Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi [1982] 52 Comp Cas 454 ; [1983] ACJ 507, the liability of the insurance company for the purpose of Sub-clause (4) of Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, continues to be limited to the extent of Rs. 10,000 in the case of passengers travelling in cab and Rs. 5,000 in the case of passenger travelling in other vehicles or, Sub-clause (4) would give way to the above judgment and the liability would be governed by Sub-clauses (1), (2) and (3) depending upon the number of passengers for which the vehicle is registered '.2. Brief facts of the case are that on May 27, 1971, taxi No. RJT 226 was coming from Ajmeer to Jaipur and Fiat car No. RJR 138 was going in the opposite direction from Jaipur to Ajmeer. When the Fiat car reached about 9 kms. ahead of Dudu ne...
Tag this Judgment!