Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-19-1987
Reported in : (1987)65CTR(Raj)38; 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 circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that any part of the income or property of the appellant-trust was during the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 used or applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in section 13(3) of the income-tax act, 1961 ? 4. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the firm of sobhagmal gokulchand, jaipur, and/ .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-14-1987
Reported in : 1988CriLJ614; 1987(1)WLN538
ordern.c. sharma, j.1. bounded by main road and bal niketan on its front side, hack of reserve police lines on the other, ratanda area on its one corner and the main road and circuit house, jodhpur on the other, there lies a sufficiently big area of land which it appears, belonged to former ruler of the erstwhile princely state of jodhpur named maharaja ajit singh and which has now been named after him as ajit colony, this big area of land was an open land. it appears that in and after the years 1974 or so, non-petitioners started their trade of cutting cattle-fodder bought to their 'tals' and selling them on commission basis on different portions of this land. non-petitioners 1 and 5 have deposed the they had taken land of their 'tals' on rent. process of colonisation over this land seems to have started from the year 1980 or so. residential plots had been carved out on this land as appears from the two plans produced by the petitioners which are at page a3/15 and a3/24 of the case file of the court of city magistrate, jodhpur. plan at page a3/15 reveals that about 300 residential plots had been carved out. it might be that maharaja ajit singh had been, or was disposing of these plots to various persons. near about 200 residential houses have already been constructed and the colony named ajit colony very much appears to have become a residential colony.2. as already stated 'tals' of fodder run by non-petitioners still occupy sufficient area of the land. fodder is brought .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-02-1987
Reported in : 1987(1)WLN367
navin chandra sharma, j.1. undisputed and admitted fact is that cartilaginous part of the nose of kishna ram pw 1 was completely chopped off from his face by kanwara ram accused at about 2.00 p m. of august 27, 1976 along with a part of the medium nasal septum by a sharp edged cutting instrument. facts disputed, however, are that while according to kishna ram pw 1, when he was returning with his son beerbal aged 4 years and the herd of his cattle after making the herd drink water in a 'nadi' (water pond) adjoining the public way leading from village benan to village rama bas in tehsil bilara, district jodhpur, the accused persons kanwara ram, bhaga ram and kheeya ram, all sons of lixman ram, came following each other, started beating him, dragged him to their field which is at a distance of about 40 foot steps from the public way, bhaga ram straightway asked the remaining accused persons to cut his nose, bhagaram sat on his chest, kheeyaram and shamboora on his shoulders and the two ladies misrai and uchki on his both legs, kanwararam played the leading role of cutting his nose by a knife, his hands had been tied with a leather string, bhagaram brought 'akra' flowers, kanwararam dropped the milk of 'akra' flowers in his both eyes and made him naked by untying the 'dhoti' which he was wearing and challenged baboo lal bhambi pw 2 who had raised an alarm and who happened to see the incident from a distance of about 50 foot-steps while going from village benan to village ramra .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-13-1987
Reported in : 1987(1)WLN500
ashok kumar mathur, j.1. this is an appeal against the judgment of the learned additional sessions judge, no. 2, jodhpur dated 26-8-1976 where by he has convicted the accused under sections 302, 307 and 324 i.p.c. and sentenced him to life imprisonment, 4 years rigorous imprisonment and 1 years's rigorous imprisonment respectively. all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. the facts giving rise to this case are that om prakash pw 1 complainant used to drive the taxi of accused lal singh. in the early january, 1976 an accident with his taxi took by om prakash. om prakash got the taxi repaired and delivered it to accused lal singh and also handed over the accounts of this taxi to the father of the accused lal singh. he stopped driving tie taxi of accused lal singh. on january 17, 1976 at about 7.30 a.m. om prakash along with deceased tijendra singh was sitting at the shop of pw 2 madan lal's hair dresser shop at chopasani road. at that time accused lal singh came there and picked up quarrel with om prakash on account of the taxi. the accused and om prakash came out from the shop of madanlal. soon after coming from the shop the accused wiped out a knife from his pocket and assaulted om prakash. om prakash received injuries on his neck and he fell down on the ground. accused lal singh wanted to assault him second time at that time tijeddra singh came out from the shop and intervened in between, at that time the assault of lal singh with the knife struck in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-25-1987
Reported in : 1987(2)WLN42
shyam sunder byas, j.1. amiya and mst. madi the appellants, were convicted under sections 302 and 201, ipc and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first count and three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo four month' rigorous imprisonment on the second count by the learned additional sessions judge (1), jodhpur by his judgment dated november 8, 1976. they have come-up in appeal and challenged their conviction.2. briefly recounted, the facts and circumstances leading to the prosecution and conviction of the appellants may be summed-up as under: baldeo bhat had two wives smt. madi and smt. magni. he was residing with them in village gajsinghpura, he passed away two or three years before august, 1975. his widows continued to live together in the same house, but the mutation of his fields was entered separately in favour of each. smt. magni, aged about 35 years at the time of her murder, had no issue while smt. madi (the appellant) has two daughters. smt. sayri and smt. jetabai by name. smt. sayri is married to the appellant amiya while jetabai is married to one banshi. accused amiya has a son by name gopiya. smt. madi, aged about 70 years in 1975, wanted to adopt gopiya as the son. smt. magni, however, opposed this proposed adoption. smt. madi and amiya therefore, took smt. magni as a hurdle in the proposed adoption and hatched a plan to finish her for ever.3. on august 25, 1975, some persons of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-15-1987
Reported in : 1987(2)WLN799
navin chandra sharma, j.1. dispute relates to a plot of land marked v c l n in the site plan annexed to the plaint which admeasures 80' east-west and 49.6' north-south and which is situated in mohalla sardarpura of banner on the north of the pol of joshi khimraj. undoubtedly by a registered sale deed executed on june 7, 1987 and registered on july 15, 1987, suleman khan son anwar khan and usman and habib sons of suleman khan pathan musalmans of barmer had for a consideration of rs. 499/-, sold a plot of two houses measuring 30 cubits east-west and 40 cubits north-south with boundaries specified therein to usman son of gheesa and his son alladeen. cubit is an old measurement, the length of the arm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger and is from 18 to 22'. the boundaries of this plot were specified in the sale-deed ex. 1 as follows:east-'parat' land of shri sardaro and pancho;west-way and gate of the plot sold opening on the way;north-gali;south-house of khatik mirabux and ismail.2. usman son of gheesa was father of alladeen defendant no. 6 of the civil original suit no. 184 of 1968 (old), (13 of 1970 (new) instituted by ranchhoddas respondent no. 1, mira prakash defendant no. 1 in this suit claimed himself to be son-in law of usman son of gheesa and according to him, usman had two children, namely, alladeen defendant no. 6 (son) and mst. jahura (daughter). deen mohammed defendant no. 4 is son of meerabux from mst. jahura. ismail defendant no. 2 was brother of mira .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-17-1987
Reported in : AIR1988Raj191
inder sen israni, j.1. these two appeals arise out of the same award dt. aug. 24, 1985 passed by the motor accident claims tribunal, jaipur, therefore, they are decided by this one judgment.2. it will suffice for the purposes of these appeals to state that on may 29, 1978, the claimants-respondents 1 to 3 filed a claim petition for sum of rs. 9,10,000/- against the appellant and the respondents nos. 4 to 7, before the motor accident claims tribunal, jaipur. on dec. 27, 1977 at about 3.00 p.m. deceased uma shanker, deceased kumari meghna along with smt. tulsi devi one of the claimants, were going to ludhiana from jaipur via delhi in a ambassador car no. wmc 7749 of m/s. gold spot agencies. the car was driven by deceased girdhari lal. when the car reached near chandwaji village, a truck bearing no. hrr 8215 driven by madanlal, respondent 2 dashed against the car which resulted in death of the above 5 persons. the tribunal, after recording evidence and hearing all the parties, passed an award for the amount mentioned above and appellant and respondents nos. 3,4 and 5 to be liable for payment of compensation amount jointly and severally.3. the contention of shri b. p. gupta, learned counsel for the appellant national insurance company is that in the claim petitions, it was mentioned by the claimants that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by driver madan lal. it is, therefore, submitted that no liability could be fixed on the appellant .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-20-1987
Reported in : 1988(1)WLN272
k.s. lodha, j.1. these two sales-tax revisions involve common question of law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. the relevant periods for the assessments in the two cases are-(1) 25-10-1976 to 10-11-1977; and (2) 12-11-1977 to 31-10-1978. the; precise question which arises for consideration is whether palm oil and r.b d. palm oil is one, and the same commodity or they are two different commercial commodities. the question arises in the following, circumstances: petitioners shyam sunder & bros. are dealers in edible oils, vegetable oils, soaps, etc., amongst others, they had sold r.b.d. palm oil and on these sales, they charged 5% sales-tax from the customers. however, when the matter came up for assessment for the aforesaid two periods, the assessing authority, viz., the commercial taxes officer, special circle, jodhpur (here in after referred to as 'the c.t.o.') was of the opinion that r.b.d. palm oil was covered under the term 'palm oil' and the sale thereof was liable to tax @ 10% in accordance with item no. 32 of the notification no. f (16)fdct/69 ii dated 8-3-1969, which reads--'palm oil and refined coconut oil--taxable @ 10%', and it did not fall under item 31 of that notification, which reads-' edible oils excluding palm oil and refined coconut oil -taxable @ 5%.' however, before coming to this conclusion, on the request of the assessee, he had examined the evidence in order to find out whether, palm oil and r.b.d. palm oil were one and the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-15-1987
Reported in : AIR1988Raj164; 1988(1)WLN247; 1988(1)WLN663
m.c. jain, j.1. this is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13th dec. 1972 whereby the plaintiffs suit was dismissed with costs holding that the suit is barred by time as the period taken in litigation at delhi cannot be excluded under section 14 of the limitation act.2. i may state a few relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal.3. the plaintiff surajbhan instituted the suit against the defendants on 13th march,1958 in the court of senior sub-judge at delhi which was registered as no. 95 of 1958. the suit was for the recovery of damages amounting to rs. 11,880.10 annas. before the filing of that suit a suit for permanent injunction was filed in the court of sub-judge delhi but the same was allowed to be withdrawn by the order dated 27th dec. 1957 with the permission to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. according to the plaintiff the cause of action arose at delhi in july 1956 when the agreement took place subsequently on 1st june, 1957 and later on when the loss took place.4. it appears that the suit at delhi was resisted on the ground of want of jurisdiction. the objection of the defendant was upheld by the senior sub-judge delhi on 31st march,1959 and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. appeal against that order was dismissed by the high court, delhi on 26th sept. 1969 and the letters patent appeal was dismissed on 9th dec. 1969 in limine. the plaintiff .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-20-1987
Reported in : 65CompCas404(Raj)
d.l. mehta, j.1. all these three appeals arise against the award dated july 31, 1985, passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal, jaipur.2. avinash, a young child of 7 years, was travelling in an autorickshaw no. 5442. tempo no. rrl 6097 was coming from the opposite, direction. the autorickshaw and tempo collided and avinash sustained multiple acerated 'wounds on his face and skull. he was operated on and had to remain in the hospital for a fortnight and, thereafter he was advised rest and treatment at his residence. he remained in bed for a period of 1 1/2 months thereafter at his house. it will not be out of place here to mention that new india insurance company is the insurer of both the vehicles, i.e., the tempo and the rickshaw.3. in appeal no. 293 of 1985 (new india insurance company v. avinash), it was submitted by the appellant that the liability of the insurance company cannot exceed rs. 10,000. the maximum liability of the insurance company has been fixed under section 95(2)(b)(ii) as rs. 10,000 in the case of an autorickshaw. this appeal succeeds and it is hereby directed that the liability in the case of autorickshaw cannot exceed rs. 10,000 as far as the insurance company is concerned and the rest of the amount can be recovered from the owner and driver of the autorickshaw. it will not make any difference as tempo rrl 6097 was also insured with the new india insurance company. in the case of a tempo, the liability has been limited only up to rs. 50,000. .....Tag this Judgment!