Rajasthan Court November 1962 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Chhoga Lal Vs. Khet Mal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj144
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. The sole question which arises in this revision application is, whether the executing Court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim purporting to be under Order 21 Rule 58(1) C.P.C., after the execution sale has taken place, but before it is confirmed. On this question there Is a conflict of judicial opinion. The High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Lahore, Madhya Bharat, Patna and Rangoon have taken the view that the Court has no such Jurisdiction. The reasons for this view are contained in the followingdecisions:Gopal Chandra Mukherji v. Notobar Kundu, 15 Ind Cas 53 (Cal); Maung Po Pe v. Maung Kwa, AIR 1928 Rang 80; Sasthi Charan v. Gopal Chandra, AIR 1937 Cal 390;2. A contrary view was taken in the following decisions:Jagannadham v. Pydayya, AIR 1931 Mad 782; Mukhi v.Allahbux, AIR 1933 Sind 198; Ramchandra v. Kayam Hussain,AIR 1938 Nag 475; Ramiah v. Cowdiah, AIR 1958 Mys 140. Having fully considered the above decisions and the arguments advanced by the learned co...
Rajshri Pictures, Private Ltd., Jaipur Vs. the Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj251
Dave, J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act No. XI of 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for answering the following two questions:(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the action under Section 34(1)(b) of the Act is valid in law?(2) Whether the apportionment of the asses-see's total income between Part A and Part B States on the basis of purchase operations carried out in the taxable territories is valid in law?2. The facts which are not in dispute and which have given rise to the said questions, are that Messrs. Rajshri Pictures Private Ltd., Jaipur, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, is a private limited company, having its registered office at Jaipur. It carried on business as a film distributor and an exhibitor. For the assessment year 1951-52, the income pf the assessee was assessed according to Section 23(3) of the Act on the 30th May, 1952. During the said assessment...
Parmatma Sharan and Anr. Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice Rajasthan High ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Raj13
Bhandari, J. 1. These two Writ petitions have facts which are mostly common and the points of law that arise for decision are also the same. We, therefore, dispose of these Writ petitions together by this Judgment.2. Both the petitioners, Shri Sukan Ma! and Shri Parmatma Sharan are on the staff of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. Their grievance is that when the posts of the Assistant Registrar and the Secretary to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice fell vacant their claims for promotion were not properly considered and Shri Nathu Lal and Shri Jai Dayal who are Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in bom the Writ Petitions were appointed, the former as the Assistant Registrar and the latter as the Secretary to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice by orders dated the 22nd of April 1961 mentioned in Documents Nos. II and III.In the opening part of their respective Writ petitions the petitioners have mentioned their educational qualifications and record of services in the High Court. Then they have al...
Maharana Shri Bhagwatsinghji of Udaipur and ors. Vs. Keshulal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj113
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a plaintiffs landlords' second appeal in a suit for ejectment, which was decreed by the trial Court but on appeal dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge Udaipur by his judgment dated the 30th April, 1957, on the ground of the notice to quit having been waived.2. The only question for determination therefore in this appeal is whether the finding of the Court of first appeal that the notice to quit had been waived by a subsequent notice is well-founded. In order to be able to properly decide this question, it is necessary to mention a few facts. It is admitted that the tenancy commenced in this case on the 23rd March, 1948, by a rent-note (Ex. 1) bearing that dale and that the tenancy was for a fixed term of one year from Maha Vadi 1, Smt. 2004 to Posh Sudi 15 Smt. 2005. The defendant tenant had expressly agreed in this rent-note that he would vacate the premises let out to him at the cud of the period of the tenancy without any objection, whatsoever. It ...
Bachh Raj Vs. Sunder Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj119
Chhangani, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Pali, dated 31st March, 1955. The plaintiff-respondents have also filed cross-objections. They initially came up before a Single Judge of this Court who after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, considered that an important point called for determination in the appeal, namely, whether under the facts and circumstances of this case the patta Ex. P-l was required to be registered under the provisions of the Marwar Patta Ordinance. He consequently referred this point to a larger Bench. The matter having come before a Division Bench of this Court it was ordered on 25th of August, 1961 that the whole case may be referred to the larger Bench. The Single Judge thereafter, on 18th November, 1961, referred the whole case to the Division Bench and this is how the matter has come before us. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly stated as follows: Achaldas, who is no...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›