Rajasthan Court February 1963 Judgments
NaraIn and anr. Vs. Cantonment Board, Nasirabad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Raj190
Chhangani, J. 1. These two references have been made by the District Magistrate, Ajmer, under Section 84(2) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (Act II of 1924 -hereinafter referred to as the Act). They have arisen in the following circumstances -2. In Reference No. 52 of 1961 Narain imported a New Chassis of Motor Lorry into the Nasirabad Cantonment Area on 3oth November, 1960 and the Cantonment Board (which will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent) charged Rs. 25/- as Terminal Tax for the same. Similarly, in Reference No. 53 of 1961 Ramchandra imported a New Chassis of Motor in Nasirabad Cantonment area on 11-1-1.961 and the respondent charged Rs. 25/- as Terminal Tax. Both Narain and Ramchandra filed appeals before the District Magistrate, Ajmer which were numbered as Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 1961.3. After hearing the appeals, the District Magistrate entertained reasonable doubt on the question as to the liability of the appellants to tax and, therefore, drew up the statement of th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Vs. Chopasni Ice Aerated Water and Oil Mills Ltd., Jodh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Raj187
Dave, J. 1. This is an appeal by one Ramesh Chandra against the orders of the learned Company Judge dated 12-2-1962 and 19-2-1962.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on the 7th of October, 1960, Shri Basti Ram, respondent No. ?., filed an application for winding up the Company known as 'Chopasni Ice, Aerated Water and 'Oil Mills Ltd., jodhpur.' That application came up for hearing on 1st February, 1961, but it could not be disposed of on that date and the hearing was adjourned to 13th March 1961. On that date, an adjournment was again sought by one of the opposite parties.Learned counsel for the Company submitted before the Court that he had no objection to the adjournment being given, provided the Company was permitted to lease out the factory. Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Government Advocate, who appeared for the Rajas-than Electricity Board, Jaipur, (one of the creditors) also expressed no objection to the adjournment and the factory being leased ou...
Tag this Judgment!Mukat Beharilal Bhargava Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1963
Reported in: [1964]53ITR613(Raj)
D. S. DAVE J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'C') under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act.The question which has been referred to us is as follows :'Whether the income from property has been properly included in the assessment of Shri Mukut Beharilal Bhargava for the year 1957-58 ?'In order to appreciate the question of law involved in the reference, it would be proper to set out, in brief, the facts which have given rise to it.Shri Mukat Beharilal Bhargava is the adopted son of Shri Binodilal Bhargava. The said adoption took place about 40 years back. Shri Binodilal expired in the year 1937, leaving behind him, his adopted son, Shri Mukat Beharilal whose wife gave birth to a daughter in 1942. Shri Binodilal had left certain ancestral properties at the time of his death. The income from these properties was assessed as that of an individual, i.e., of Shri Mukat Beharilal, Bhargava up to the assessment year 1955-56. In the returns which were fi...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad Vs. Kaluram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Raj38
Dave, J. 1. This is a reference by the District Judge, Ajmer, under Order 46, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts giving rise to it are that plaintiff Ram Prashad brought a suit against defendants Sohanpal and Kaluram for Rs. 100/- on 11th September, 1956. It was averred by him that defendant No. 1 was a Munim of the plaintiff and used to maintain all his account books and also used to handle the cash of his shop. On 11th September, 1953 (Bhadva Sudi 3, Smt. 2010), defendant No. 1 advanced a sum of Rs. 100/- to defendant No. 2 out of the plaintiffs cash amount which was kept at his shop. An entry to this effect was made by defendant No. 1 in the plaintiffs kachi rokar. The defendants failed to return the said amount and hence it was prayed that a decree should be given against both or any one of the defendant whoever is found liable to pay the said amount. On 15th April, 1958 the plaint was returned by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Ajmer, to be presented in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajablal Vs. Devilal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Raj71
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a civil regular second appeal by defendant Ajablal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Banswara, in a suit for setting aside the decree which was passed against the plaintiff in suit No. 37 of 1956. 2. The material facts leading up to this appeal are briefly these: The defendant-appellant filed suit No. 37 of 1956 against the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of a certain amount of money. This suit was decreed against the latter. The plaintiff then filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, with the prayer that that decree be declared to be inoperative against him. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the decree had been obtained by the defendant-appellant by fraud and this fraud was said to have subsisted in the fact that while the plaintiff was in an unsound mental condition at the time the service of the summons was said to have been effected on him, the defendant-appellant had represented to the court that, although the plaintiff h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›