Rajasthan Court January 1969 Judgments
Smt. Daya Bai Vs. Badri Narain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj67; 1969()WLN46
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a revision application by the plaintiff against an order of Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur, abating her suit for recovery of money pending before him. 2. During the pendency of the suit the defendant filed an application in the Debt Relief Court under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957. That application was not admitted, but notices were issued to the creditors to show cause why it should not be admitted. The question as to whether or not the defendant is a debtor within the meaning of the Act is pending investigation before the Debt Relief Court. During the pendency of that application the defendant filed an application before the Civil Court purporting to be under Section 21 of the Act in which a prayer was made that the plaintiff be asked to prosecute her remedy before the Debt Relief Court as the Civil Court had ceased to have any jurisdiction. 3. On this application the learned Additional Munsif abated the s...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhagatram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN59
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The Special Judge, Ganganagar by his Judgment dated 12-3-1065 acquitted the respondent Bhagatram under Section 161, 120B, 347, 389 and 218, Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 The other respondent Ramswaroop, who was jointly tried with Bhagatram was also acquitted for offences under Section 165A and 120B, Indian Penal Code. The State find an appeal against both the accused from the order of their acquittal. When we heard this appeal, the learned Deputy Government Advocate conceded that the offence under Section 218, Indian Penal Code was not made out against Bhagatram. Both of us were agreed that the offences under Section 347, 389, 120B and 218, Indian Penal Code were also not proved against Bhagatram. There was however, difference of opinion between us on the question whether Bhagatram was guilty under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. I was of the opinion that Bhagatram...
Tag this Judgment!Udaram Vs. the Addl. Collector and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN62
Kansingh, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Udaram and by it he questions the validity of an order of the Additional Collector, Ganganagar, Ex. 3 on record, whereby the Additional Collector had set-aside an order of the Panchayat Samiti, Mirzewala (now Ganganagar), holding that an appeal decided by the Panchayat Samiti was not maintainable. The circumstances leading to the order under challenge may be outlined as follows:On 8-1-61 respondents Pemaram and Jaimal Singh made an application before that Gram Panchayat of Madera that a plot of abadi land No. 138/2 measuring 300 sq. yards situated in Village Madera be sold to them. The Panchayat held an auction for this plot and eventually it was sold to the applicants Pemaram and Jaimal Singh. The grievance of the petitioner Udaram was that this sale was made by the Panchayat in contravention of the Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Rules'. It was s...
Tag this Judgment!Sobhagmal Vs. Ram Gopal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN51
Jagat Narain, J.1. This is a revision application by the plaintiff against an order of the Civil Judge, Chittorgarh, holding that the documents which he seeks to prove is a promissory note which is inadmissible in evidence as it is not stamped.2. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that he advanced Rs. 1500/-to the defendant on 28-2-64 and Rs. 1500/- on 17-5-64 and the defendant agreed to pay these amount with interest at rupee one percent per month. It is further pleaded that the defendant executed a writing on 17-5 64 by way of security in favour of the plaintiff which was being filed in original as evidence in the suit.3. On hehalf of the defendant it was contended that this document was promissory note. The argument on behalf of the plaintiff however was that the writing was made by way of acknowledgement and there was no intention to create negotiable instrument. Further it was argued that if there had been any such intention then the writing would have been stamped.4. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Phool Chand Babulal and ors. Vs. Harish Chander
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN69a
Jagat Narayan, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The decree was passed on 24-5-62 and the execution application was filed on 22-5-63. On 17-5-65 and 2-8-65 on the application of the Judgment debtor time was granted to him to pay the decretal amount. This time expired on 18-9-65. Thereafter Kesrimal died on 9-10-65 the Judgment debtor filed an application that Keshrimal having died the execution application may be dismissed. On 20-4-66 he moved another application in which he alleged that a compromise had taken place between him and the decree-holder sometime in September 1965 under which the decree holder had agreed to accept Rs. 2100/- in full satisfuction and he executed a promissory note for the amount so that the decree was satisfied. The decree-holder denied this allegation and contended that the application of the Judgment-debtor was under Order 21 Rule 2 CPC and was barred by limitation under Article 125, the limitation under which is only 30 days. This cont...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Industrial Trust Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR385(Raj); 1969()WLN157
Bhandari, C.J.1. These four cases relate to the same assessee, namely, the Industrial Trust Limited, Jaipur, a limited company (hereinafter called 'the company'), and raise similar questions of law and they are, therefore, disposed of by this judgment.2. The first three cases are references made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Income-tax Reference No. 27 of 1964 relates to the assessmentyear 1946-47 while Income-tax Reference No. 25 of 1964 and No. 26 of 1964 relate to the assessment years 1947-48 and 1949-50, respectively. The statement of the cases submitted with these references by the Tribunal are practically the same.3. The company was incorporated in the erstwhile State of Jaipur on 10th March, 1943, under the Jaipur Companies Act. Its registered office was originally at Pilani, but it was transferred to Jaipur on 24th July, 1943. A...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN48
Jagat Narain, J.1. This is a revision application by Madan Lal, defendant, against an order of the trial court deciding one of the issue in the suit brought against him by Ram Narain and Ram Chandra plaintiffs and holding that the suit within limitation.2. The facts are these: Madan Lal, Parasmal and Prakash Chandra were the owners of a plot of a land which was surrounded by a boundary wall. Parasmal and Prakash Chandra mortgaged it in favour of Ram Narain and Ram Chandra plaintiffs under a mortgage-deed 17.10.50 for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. It was recited in the deed that possession had been transferred to the mortgagees, that the mortgagors will pay interest on the sum of Rs. 3,000/- at annas -/10/- per month monthly, that the property will remain in possession of the mortgagees till the principal amount and interest is paid and that if the whole amount due in favour of the mortgagees cannot be recovered by the sale of the mortgaged property the mortgagees will be entitled to recover th...
Tag this Judgment!Udaichand Vs. Surajmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN43
Jagat Narain, J.1. This is a revision application by the defendant against an order of Senior Civil Judge, Churu refusing to frame two issues.2. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for recovery of arrears, of tent and ejectment against the applicant on the allegation that he was the tenant o. one Bhoordas from whom he had purshased the premises by a registered sale-deed dated 17-5-1965. It was alleged that the applicant had executed a rent note on in favour of Bhoordas who was the owner of the property. The suit was inter alia on the ground that Bhoordas had no right to alienate the property firstly because he was not chela of Adooram who was the previous mahant of Dadoo Samaj and secondly because the alienation was not justified by legal necessity. It was prayed on behalf of the applicant that issues should be framed on the question as to whether Bhoordas was the mahant of Dadoo Samaj, and if so whether the was legal necessity for the alienation. The, trial court decided to frame ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan Vs. Ganganagar Sugar M ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Raj310; [1969]73ITR450(Raj); 1969()WLN153
Bhandari, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (Act No. XXVII of 1957) (hereinafter called the Act) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (hereinafter called the Tribunal), referring the following question to this Court for opinion:--'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, adjustment for depreciation due under the Income-tax Act for the preceding years but not debited to the block account in the balance sheet is in law justified for computing the net wealth of the assessee?'2. This reference relates to the assessment years 1957 58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. The statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal shows that the assessee is a limited company carrying on the business of manufacture of sugar. For its business, accounts are maintained by the assessee regularly. In accordance with the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Act, the Wealth Tax Officer determined the net value of the wealth as a whole, having regard to the b...
Tag this Judgment!Magh Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN184
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Maghraj, who was a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Meetari. By it he challenges the validity of the Government order dated 28.7.66, whereby under the provisions of Section 17(4-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), certain findings were recorded against him in respect of certain acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him when he was a Sarpanch of the Panchayat during its previous tenure in the year 1961. He also questions the validity of a consequential order passed by the Government on 28.10.1966, restraining him from functioning as a Sarpanch.2. The relevant facts on which the writ petition is founded are briefly these. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat first in the year 1961, and after the term of the Panchayat came to an end, he was again elected in the year 1965 as a Sarpanch. While he was working as a Sarpanch sec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »