Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1987 Page 6 of about 61 results (0.038 seconds)

Feb 12 1987 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shah theatres (P.) Ltd.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-12-1987

Reported in : (1987)67CTR(Raj)120; [1988]169ITR499(Raj)

1. in this reference, 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 law in allowing a sum of rs. 34,072 being the amount of interest paid by the assessee on moneys borrowed for the purpose of constructing a new cinema building called mayank which was not brought into use in the accounting year under reference (2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of rs. 2,740 beingthe amount of travelling expenses incurred for procuring loan for construction of mayank cinema is allowable as a deduction ' 2. this reference relates to the assessment year 1976-77. 3. m/s. shah theatres private limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a private limited company incorporated in 1962. it carries on the business of exhibition of motion pictures. during the relevant previous year, the assessee started construction of a cinema building known as 'mayank' cinema at jaipur and for that purpose, it borrowed money. a sum of rs. 34,072 was paid by the assessee as interest on the said loan and it was claimed as business expense by the assessee. in addition to the said sum, the assessee claimed rs. 1,748 and rs. 922 as travelling expenses incurred by gauri shanker, advocate, and sah anil kumar, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1987 (HC)

Pesticides India and anr. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise an ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-06-1987

Reported in : 1987(30)ELT651(Raj); 1987(1)WLN370

k.s. lodha, j.1. these two writ petitions involve a common questian of law and arise out of similar facts and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. the petitioners in both the cases are licencees of private bonded warehouses under section 58 of the customs act, 1962 (no. lii of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and now their licences have been threatened to be cancelled/or renewal refused by the assistant collector, central excise, udaipur on the ground that now public bonded warehouses have already been constructed by the warehousing corporation of india and, therefore, the private bonded warehouses should not be allowed to continue. it is on account of this invasion of their rights to hold the private bonded warehouses, that the petitioners have come up before this court. the private bonded warehouses of petitioner no. 1 is situated at udaisagar road and that of petitioner no. 2 at fatehpura crossing, nathdwara road, at udaipur, which have been declared as warehousing stations. the licences granted to the petitioners since march, 1978 had been renewed upto 1983. the petitioner applied for renewal of their licences for the year 1984. in the mean time, by order dated 14.11.83, the assistant collector, central excise division, udaipur has appointed a public warehouse at shreeji industries, pratap nagar, udaipur and on this ground in december, 1983, show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners as to why their licences may not be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1987 (HC)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tulsi Devi and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-17-1987

Reported in : 2(1988)ACC173

inder sen israni, j.1. these two appeals arise out of the same award dated august 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 no. 1 to 3 filed a claim petition for sum of rs. 9,10,000/- against the appellant and the respondents no. 4 to 7, before the motor accident claims tribunal, jaipur. on december 27, 1977 at about 3-00 p.m. deceased uma shanker, deceased kumari meghna alongwith 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 no. 2 dashed against the car, which resulted in death of the above 3 persons. the tribunal, after recording evidence and bearing all the parties, passed an award for the amount mentioned above and two appellant and respondents no. 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1987 (HC)

Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-04-1987

Reported in : 1987WLN(UC)279

ashok kumar mathur, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned sessions judge sri ganganagar dated 22-9-1976 whereby the learned sessions judge has convicted the accused appellant under sections 302 ipc and 27 of the arms act and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and three years rigorous imprisonment respectively. both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. the facts giving rise to this case are that the accused appellant mukhtiar singh fired a gun shot at dayal singh and caused his death on 24-12-1974 in village butra in front of the house of gurditia singh pw 1. a first information report of this incident was riled by gurditia singh pw 1 at 2 p.m. at police station ghamur wali. it is alleged that when he came to his house from his field he saw hakam singh standing in the main door of his house with a gun and saw that a dead body was lying in front of his house behind kakam singh. the dead body was bleeding from the chest and abdomen. he asked hakam singh as to what happened to dayal singh. hakam singh informed him that perhaps some body has murdered dayal singh deceased by gun shot injury. after saying this hakam singh ran away towards the house of inder singh. thereafter he went to the house of megharam panch and brought him to the scene of occurrence and after that both of them went to the police station ghamurwali and filed the first information report. the police reached at the scene of occurrence, prepared the site plan and took .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 1987 (HC)

Babulal Vs. Madadeen and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-05-1987

Reported in : AIR1988Raj143; 1988(1)WLN70

orderd.l. mehta, j.1. this case is having a chequred history. suit was instituted for the pre-emption in the year 1967. during the pendency of the suit the permission was granted to construct the building to the present petitioner on the condition that in case the suit is decreed the defendant present petitioner will remove the construction. defendant petitioner also gave an undertaking before the court that he should be permitted to construct and in case the decree is passed in favour of the present non-petitioner he shall remove the construction so made. mr. lodha counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction has been raised by the present petitioner during the pendency of the suit and his client will suffer irreparable loss. undertaking given by the parties will have to be strictly complied with otherwise people will lose faith in judicial system. mr. lodha cannot agitate this point now in the execution particularly when a decree has been passed by this court and the review petition has also been rejected by this court on 10-1-86.2. mr. lodha has first of all submitted that banshidhar died during the pendency of the appeal and the court was not justified in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased banshidhar on record. mr. lodha has relied on the case of nani devi v. komal chand, (1987) 1 raj lr 774).3. it will not be out of place here to mention that in rajasthan law of pre-emption is a codified law. rajasthan pre-emption act came into force in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1987 (HC)

Madan Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-19-1987

Reported in : 1(1988)WLN(Rev)72

s.s. byas, j.1. here is a woeful story of the widow of an ex-jagirdar, who has been deprived of compensation or rehabilitation grant under the rajasthan land reforms and resumption of jagirs act, 1952 (for short 'the act') and the rajasthan jagir decisions and proceedings (validation) act, 1955 (for short 'the validation act') since the enforcement of the acts and her case has been tossed form one end to the other in the revenue courts.2. the facts need not be narrated in details as they have been mentioned in full, in the order ex. 4 passed on may 15, 1961 by the learned members of the board of revenue, rajasthan. ajmer. the petitioner's father-in-law prem singh owned 1/2 share in the jagir of nenau district nagaur. the petitioner's husband padam singh passed away during the life-time of prem singh. in his life-time the petitioner adopted asu singh as his son with the consent of her father-in-law. prem singh also passed away on may 15, 1954. asu singh applied for succession as jagirdar. mean-time, the act came into force. asu singh also passed away on june 17, 1955. asu singh was unmarried. during his life-time, asu singh had applied for succession to the jagir and objections were invited against the claim filed by him. proceedings went on and the collector, nagaur made a recommendation for the payment of maintenance allowance to the petitioner and her mother-in-law, that is, the widow of prem singh. the board of revenue, rajasthan, ajmer, by its judgment ex. 4 dated june 5, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1987 (HC)

Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-05-1987

Reported in : 1987(2)WLN73

mahendra bhushan sharma, j.1. under judgment dated september 12, 1978, learned sessions judge, ajmer has convicted the accused-appellant under section 304, part-i and 448, ipc. under the former count the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous-imprisonment for three years and under the second count he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. there is jadugar mohalla in ajmer and in a house situated in that locality deceased nandkishore used to reside in a part thereof. some part of that house has been purchased from nandkishore by the accused-appellant who was residing in that portion. radhey shyam pw 1 was a tenant of nandkishore in that house. sunil pw 8 is the sister's son of deceased nandkishore. pw 1 nemi chand is brother of accused appellant and was residing with him. on march 31, 1978 at about 6.45 a. m. sunil heard the cries of nandkishore deceased, 'bachao bachao'. he reached the room and he saw that madanlal was armed with a fire-wood and with it he was giving blows to deceased nandkishore he (accused-appellant) was saying that nandkishore was always troubling him. on the hue and cry of nand kishore pw 2, radhey shyam was attracted. he saw the appellant coming out of the room of nandkishore with a fire-wood. nandkishore was taken to the hospital he was profusedly bleeding with his injuries dr. r.k. soni pw 7 examined him. he found the following injuries:(1) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1987 (HC)

Madan Lal Khuteta Vs. Badri Narayan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-28-1987

Reported in : AIR1988Raj61; 1987(2)WLN525

orderinder sen israni, j.1. this revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23-3-1987 passed by the learned additional district judge no. 1, jaipur city, jaipur in misc. petition no. 54/87 confirming the order dated 17-3-87 passed by the additional munsiff and judicial magistrate no. 4, jaipur city, by which the application of the petitioner under order 39 rules 1 and 2, cpc was dismissed.2. the shop in dispute was mortgaged with the non-petitioners nos. 6 and 7 for a sum of rs. 6500/- for a period of 10 years by a registered mortgage deed dated 11-1-1968 and vacant possession of the same was handed over to the mortgagees. the mortgagees by virtue of powers vested in them according to the mortgage deed, gave the shop in dispute on rent to the present petitioner at the rate of rs. 80/- p.m. the mortgagor filed a suit for redemption on 22-5-75 and a preliminary decree in his favour was passed on 11-7-79. on appeal, this preliminary decree was modified vide order dated 15-9-81 and final decree holding that the mortgagor was entitled to take actual possession of the shop in suit, was passed on 29-6-82. on 3-8-82 a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the present petitioner-tenant praying that he should not be dispossessed in this decree, which is passed in favour of the mortgagor. the trial court allowed the application of the petitioner and issued a temporary injunction on 11-8-82 restraining the non-petitioners from dispossessing the petitioner. in appeal by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 1987 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Khan Chand Madan Lal

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-11-1987

Reported in : (1988)68CTR(Raj)60; [1988]173ITR309(Raj)

1. this reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue is to answer the following question of law :' whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c of the income-tax act, 1961, holding that the inspecting assistant commissioner of income-tax had no jurisdiction to levy the said penalty on may 25, 1978 '2. the relevant assessment year is 1973-74. the assessment was completed by the income-tax officer on a total income of rs. 80,070 on march 30, 1976, by making an addition of rs. 10,000 in the trading profit and of rs. 15,500 as income from undisclosed sources. the income-tax officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the act. thereafter, the income-tax officer referred the penalty proceedings to the inspecting assistant commissioner. the inspecting assistant commissioner imposed penalty of rs. 16,000 by his order dated may 25, 1978. the tribunal set aside the penalty holding that the inspecting assistant commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy penalty by an order passed after the deletion of sub-section (2) of section 274 of the act w.e.f. april 1, 1976. hence, this reference at the instance of the revenue.3. as already held by us in several matters following the decision in cit v. shri ram prakash saraf : [1986]160itr860(mp) , the determining factor for deciding the inspecting assistant commissioner's .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 1987 (HC)

Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Ramesh Leather Store

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-27-1987

Reported in : [1987]67STC462(Raj)

j.s. verma, c.j.1. this is a revision by the department against the order of the board of revenue dated 31st july, 1974 passed in favour of the assessee. the only question for decision is, whether the board of revenue has rightly held that the dressed sheets of hides/skins consisting of leather clippings used as soles in footwear were taxable under entry no. 12 and not entry no. 36 of the notification no. f. 5(16)fd(ct)/69-2 dated 8th march, 1969. the contention of the department reiterated in 'this revision is that these goods are exigible to sales tax under entry no. 36 and not entry no. 12. these entries read us under :12. hides and skins, whether raw or dressed.' '36. all kinds of leather goods except footwear.2. a bare perusal of the above entries shows that hides and skins of all kinds, whether raw or dressed, fall within entry no. 12 and entry no. 36 covers only that category of goods which is called leather goods except footwear. it is clear that in order to attract entry no. 36 the goods should be leather goods that is some article made out of leather, but footwear made out of leather is excluded therefrom. on the other hand, entry no. 12 is wide enough to cover hides and skins in whatever form whether raw or dressed. in the present case, the goods comprised of dressed sheets of skins and hides which is said to be used as soles in footwear. even assuming that the goods can be treated as leather goods, which in my opinion it cannot; it would form a part of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //