Rajasthan Court January 1969 Judgments
Bhonrilal Vs. Mst. Kaushaliya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj83; 1969()WLN55
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. The petitioner having been found guilty of disobedience of order of injunction restraining him from entering into second marriage, has been ordered to be detained in the civil prison for one month, by the Munsif, Gangapur City, by his order dated 24-3-1967. The said order has also been confirmed in appeal by the Senior Civil Judge, No. 1 Gangapur City.2. Non-petitioner Mst. Kashaliya filed a suit against the petitioner with tbe allegation that she was bis legally wedded wife and had been living with him till four months before the filing of the suit. As tbe petitioner severely beat her, she came to her father's house. Thereupon the petitioner informed her father that he would marry again and bad in fact arranged a second marriage with the daughter of Bhonrilal of Malarnadoongar. She, therefore, prayed for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining tbe petitioner from marrying the daughter of Bhonrilal of Malarnadoongar or any other girl. On the application...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottamdass Bangur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj70; [1969]74ITR378(Raj); 1969()WLN83
1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act) made by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' and it arises out of the following circumstances : 2. The assessee in this case has been. assessed as an individual. The assessment year concerned is 1957-58 for which the relevant previous year is the financial year ending on 31st of March, 1957. The assessee had various sources of income out of which one source was the income from dividends. The Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, Jaipur, while assessing the income of the assessee increased the income-tax on dividend income which was undoubtedly included in the unearned income by 15 per cent to compute the amount of special surcharge as per the Finance Act, 1957. The assessee challenged the assessment order by filing an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, 'A' range, Jaipur, on various grounds, but this question that special su...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Aziz Vs. Manmath Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN52
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. The short question for determination in this appeal against the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Sikar (Election Tribunal) dated 28-2-1967, is whether the nomination paper of the respondent for election to the Municipal Board Sikar was rightly rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that he was employed as a legal practitioner against the Board at that time. The decision of the above question depends upon the interpretation of the second part of Clause 13 of Section 26 of the Rajaslhan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The respondent had filed his nomination paper for election to Ward No. 10 of the Minicipal Board, Sikar. At the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper on 7th May, 1966, objection was raised that the respondent was disqualified from being chosen as a member of the Board because he was employed as legal practitioner I against the Board. The returning Officer accepted the objection and rejected the nomination paper of ...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Basu Vs. Ratan Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN163
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a decree-holder's execution second appeal against an appellate order of the District Judge, Bhilwara holding that the decree cannot be executed by the attachment and sale of ancestral properties in the bands of the sons of the deceased surety Hirachand on the basis of a decision of the Privy Council in Kesar Chand v. Uttam Chand AIR 1945 Privy Council 91. 72 I.A. 165.2. The decree which is now being executed was obtained by the firm Kamalnain Hamirsingh against Ghisu Lal principal debtor and Hirachand surety. It provided for the payment of the decretal amount in six monthly instalments of Rs. 700/- each The present execution application was filed on 8-5-59 against the sons of Hira Chand surety, as he had died. A prater was made for the attachment and sale of some immovable properties belonging to the sons which have been found to be ancestral by the learned District Judge on appeal. The question which arises for decision in this case is whether the ancestral...
Tag this Judgment!Surajmal and ors. Vs. Chandmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN68
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by the vendors against an order of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, holding that the agreement Ex. A/6 dated 14-5-1956 is compulsorily registrable and is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.2. The material facts are these. The applications sold a portion of their house by means of a sale-deed executed on 2-5-56 and registered on 14-6-56. It was presented for registration on 14-5-56. Respondent No. 1 filed the present suit for pre-emption on 18-4-57. The applicants filed an agreement Ex. A./6 dated 14-5-56 under which the vendees respondents No. 2 and 3 agreed to reconvey the property. They also filed a registerted sale-deed dated 25-3-1957 under which the property was reconveyed by rspondents No. 2 and 3 to the applicants.3. The case of the applicants is that on the date on which the sale-deed dated 2-5-56 was executed they had entered into an oral agreement for reconveying the property with respondents No. 2 and 3 which was...
Tag this Judgment!Umia Shankar Vs. Firm Jani Khusalji Jethji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN69
Jagat Narain, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's execution second appeal against an order of the appllate court holding that the execution appelication was within limitation.2. An instalment decree was passed in this case on 24-2-56. The decretal amount was payable in instalment of Rs. 75/- per month. The first instalment fell due on 12-5-56. There was a default Clause entitling the decree-holder to recover the balance of the amount in lump-sum if there was default before 14-7-60 and on 14-7-60 the decree-holder filed an execution application for recovering the balance due taking advantage of the default clause. Nothing was realised from the judgment-debtor in this execution application. The present execution application was filed on 1-4-64. The judgment-debtor filed an objection that it was barred by limitation. His objection was dismissed by both the courts below.The present execution application has been filed for the recovery of the balance of amount and not for instalments falling d...
Tag this Judgment!Mamraj and anr. Vs. Rameshwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN165
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. The property in respect of which the controvercy in this case has arisen admittedly belonged to Sinja who died some time in Samvat 1950, leaving behind his widow Smt. Amri. Smt. Ram Kanwari (defendant No. 3) is their daughter. There is a dispute whether she was first married to Khata and defendant Mamraj was born of that union and then went in 'nata' to Kheta's brother Kama, after his death, or whether she was married to Hema from the very beginning. But it is not in dispute that Mamraj (defendant No. 1), Magna, Chuna and Hanuman are her four sons. Smt. Bhani (defendant No. 2) is the daughter of Manraj who has no other surviving issue, and plaintiff Rameshwar is the natural son of Magna.2. Plaintiff Rameshwar raised the suit on November 30, 1955 with the allegation that after the death of his wife and son, Mamraj took him in adoption on phalgun sud 2, S. 2001, executed a document (Ex. 1) to that effect and kept him as his son. He claimed that he lived jointly with M...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaveer Metal Manufacturing Company Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commi ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN148
D.M. Bhandari, C.J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on its business at Falna of manufacturing umbrella ribs handles, sticks & accessories and it also owns a factory for that purpose. This concern was established on 1st January, 1955 after the coming into force of the Employees', Provident Funds Act,1952(here in after called the Act,) A question arose whether the provisions of the Act & the scheme framed under Section 5 thereof by the Central Government were applicable to the petitioner or not. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide his letter No. PF/f1/Miscellaneous/1/4 Fact/60/10603 dated 16th November,1961 (Ex. 1) wrote to the labour officer Jodhpur, in reply to his letter No. 6276 dated 3-11-61 that the petitioner was not coverd by the provisions of the Act and the scheme framed there under. It is alleged that subsequently the Regional Provid...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram and ors. Vs. Govind
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj68; 1969()WLN108
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants against an order of the District Judge, Bharatpur, remanding the suit under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P, C. after reversing the finding of the trial Court on the question of limitation. 2. Govind plaintiff filed the present suit on 8-4-63 against the 4 defendants tor the recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction on the grounds of default and personal necessity in respect of a building containing two shops and an upper storey. The building was originally owned by Ram Gopal father of Sitaram and Radhey Shyam defendants and grand-father of Kishori Shyam and Ram Babu defendants. Ram Gopal executed a sale-deed of this property in favour of Ratanlal on 30-1-1933. On the same date Ram Gopal executed a rent-note in favour of Ratanlal taking the property on lease for a period of 3 years. This rent-note was not registered. On 19-9-38 Ratanlal sold the building to Gyasi Ram father of the present plaintiff. The case in the plaint is that R...
Tag this Judgment!Chhela Vs. Smt. Sohani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1969
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1328; 1969()WLN15
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This reference has been made by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1 Jodhpur. It arises out of an application for grant of maintenance filed by Mat. Sohani against her husband Chhelaram under Section 488, Cri. P.C.2. Chhelaram has three eons Pusaram aged 12 years. Hardeo aged 5 years, and Kalu aged 1 year, all of whom are living with Mst. Sohani. It has been held by both the lower Courts that Mat. Sohani had been beaten and ill-treated by her husband Chhelaram. In agreement with the trial Court the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also found that Smt. Sohani was entitled to get maintenance for herself and for her youngest son Kalu, who was one year old. But he was of the view that the learned Magistrate should not have awarded any maintenance for Pusaram aged 12 years, and Hardeo aged 5 years, in view of the fact that Chhelaram had offered to keep them with him and to maintain them but Smt. Sobani was not prepared to hand them over to her husband. The learned...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »