Rajasthan Court January 1964 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramlal and Sons, Barmer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj152; [1965]57ITR742(Raj)
Modi, J.1. This is a reference by a Division Bench in what was a reference to that Bench under Section 66-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922.(2) The material facts leading up to this Reference may be shortly stated as follows :-3. The assessee is a firm called 'Ramlal Kachhawa and Sons, Banner', otherwise also known as 'Ramlal and Sons'. It was assessed for income-tax for the year 1952-53, the corresponding accounting year having ended on 31st of March, 1952. The question before us arises Out of the firm's new business of mica mining in Mandol in Udaipur Division. The State Government invited tender for fresh leases of a certain area of mica-bearing tract in Udaipur and Bhilwara Districts as per notice No. 9453 dated 29th March, 1950 (Annexure 'A') in accordance with the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, subject to certain modifications mentioned therein. Prospective applicants were advised that the mines, quarries and prospective pits had acquired a value which can be determined by the princ...
Tag this Judgment!Nandkishore and anr. Vs. Shrinath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj124
C.B. Bhargava, J. 1. This civil second appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption.2. The suit property was sold by Naraindas on his own behalf and as guardian of his minor sons Nandkishore and Satnarain for a sum of Rs. 600/- on 19th December, 1956 by means of a registered sale-deed in favour of Madanmohan respondent No. 3. Shrinarain and Samrathmal filed a suit for pre-emption on the ground that they were co-sharers in the chowk, staircase and entrance of the suit house. Naraindas and his minor son Nandkishore were also impleaded as defendants to the suit. 3. The suit was contested by all the defendants. One of the pleas raised by Nandkishore in his written statement was that the sale of the suit property by his father Naraindas was without any legal necessity and was not binding on his share. Madanmohan vendee stated that after purchasing the property he had spent Rs. 656/11/- in its improvement which he was entitled to get in case the plaintiffs were allowed to pre-empt the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj270
Dave, C.J.1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. It is common ground between the parties that the petitioners Gopal Singh and Surat Singh are Khatedars of Khasra Nos. 41 and 36 respectively, situated in village Redi, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu. In 1955, Panchayat Gajoowas, which also exercised jurisdiction over village Redi, came to the conclusion that the abadi area of village Redi should be extended by acquiring some agricultural land adjoining the inhabited area in order to convert it for purposes of habitation. It, therefore, wrote to the Tehsildar, Taranagar for acquiring land for the said purpose. The matter was how ever dropped after about four years by order of the Collector, Churu dt. 15th January, 1959. Thereafter in December, 1959, the Tehsildar, Taranagar again recommended to the Collector for acquiring the land for the said purpose. The Collector, in turn, wrote to the Government and the Government issued a notification (Ex. A...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Kisan Vs. Ramu and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj147
B. P. Beri, J.1. This is a reference by a learned single Judge of this Court to resolve a conflict relating to the interpretation and consequent applicability of Rules 2 and 3 of Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure which arises for certain decisions of this Court.2. Before we formulate the question for answer it would be convenient to briefly notice the facts of the case before us. A suit for recovery of money was instituted before the Munsiff, Bikaner by a plaint dated 23rd May, 1955, on the basis of a deed of agreement concerning the sale and delivery of a lorry. The defendants filed a written statement dated 22nd February, 1956, denying the execution of the deed and the liability arising therefrom. The Munsiff Bikaner on 9th August, 1957. framed issues relating to (a) the execution of the deed and want of consideration; (b) the fac-tum of delivery of lorry; (c) the penal character of the rate of interest claimed and (d) the relief. The suit stood fixed for the plaintiff's evid...
Tag this Judgment!Vastulal Pareek Vs. Pareek Commercial Bank Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj202
Modi, J.1. The only question which has been raised for our decision in this appeal at this stage is whether the court-fee of Rs. 2/- paid by the appellant Vastulal on the memorandum of appeal is proper, or, as contended by the office, an ad valorem court-fee on the claim decreed should have been paid.2. A few facts may be stated in order to bring out the point in controversy. The respondent Pareek Commercial Bank Limited was a public banking company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, as applied to the State of Bikaner as it then was. The appellant Vastulal was the Chairman of the Company till it was wound up by an order of the learned Company Judge dated the 31st July, 1952, in company petition No. 2 of 1952. A claim for a sum of Rs. 22,000/- including principal and interest was instituted by the Pareek Commercial Bank Limited through the Official Liquidator against Vastulal under Section 456 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (Act No. X of 1949, hereinafter called the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Gopal and ors. Vs. Suraj Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj218
Modi, J.1. This is a miscellaneous appeal by Kishan Gopal and four others against an order of adjudication passed by the District Judge, Kotah, dated the 20th August, 1960, in an insolvency matter, and raised an interesting question of law as to whether all the members of a joint Hindu trading family can be adjudicated as insolvents irrespective of the consideration whether their liability to discharge the family debts is personal or not.2. The material facts may be shortly stated as follows : Appellants Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons of one Bhanwarlal, and the letter's remaining son Kunwar Lal has been impleaded as respondent No. 18 in this appeal. Appellants Nos. 4 and 5 are the sons of Kunwar Lal. Bhanwarlal died during the pendency of this litigation in the trial Court. Respondent Surajmal and certain others moved an application against the appellants and Kunwar Lal and Bhanwarlal in the Court of the District Judge, Kotah, alleging that the latter carried on a joint Hindu family business...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kalawati Bai Vs. Shitaldas and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj220
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment and recovery of damages. The subject matter of the suit is a shop situated in a house in Ajmer which the plaintiff purchased at an auction sale on 27th April, 1954.2. Plaintiff's case was that the defendants were mere trespassers and were liable to be evicted from the premises.3. The defence of both the defendants was that they were in occupation of the premises as tenants.4. The suit was decreed by the trial court but on appeal the learned Senior Civil Judge reversed that decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.5. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the decree of the first appellate court on the ground that the appeal in that court was preferredafter the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. It is urged that the trial court decided the suit on 8th August, 1957. The defendants applied for copy of the judgment and decree on 13th August, 1957 which were ready for delivery on 27th August,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›