Rajasthan Court December 1969 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.
Smt. Gulab Sundari Bapna Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1969
Reported in: 1969()WLN615
Bhargava, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred for decision by the Division Bench to the Full Bench.'Whether the amount of annual maintenance allowance payable to persons entitled to such allowance under Section 27 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, should be determined after taking into account the amount of money payable by the Jagirdar to his creditors under the provisions of the Rajasthan Jagirdars' Debt Reduction Act, 1956, or not?'2. The Board of Revenue which is one of the respondents in the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in its order dated 25-10-1962 held that 'in fixing the amount for maintenance the question of the Jagirdar's debt does not find any place under the law' and, therefore, directed the Additional Jagir Commissioner to determine afresh the amount of maintenance which they are entitled to receive in accordance with law.3. The petitioner who holds a decree against the Jagirdar i.e....
Hardeva Vs. Ismail and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj167; 1969()WLN611
Bhandari, C.J.1. This revision application arises out of a suit filed by Ismail and three others against Noora and Hardeva, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively alleging that in field Khasra No. 204 measuring 19 Bighas 7 Biswas in village Nuhand, Tahsil Rajgarh, the plaintiffs had 1/2 share and the other half belonged to Noora defendant No. 1. The field had not been partitioned and the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 were in joint possession thereof. Defendant No. 1 sold the entire field to defendant No. 2 on 17th October, 1962, under a sale-deed showing a fictitious amountof Rs. 2000 as consideration and got it registered on 26th October 1962. The plaintiffs further alleged that they were prepared to purchase share of defendant No. 1 and that they had asked defendant No. 1 to sell the field to them after taking Rs. 1000 but the said defendant refused to do so. The plaintiffs claimed for a declaration that they were owners of half share in the said field and also a decree for pre-emptio...
Harakchand and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN457
D.M. Bhandari, C.J.1. In the suit filed by Harakchand and others plaintiffs the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jalore refused to admit in evidence a document produced by the plaintiffs on the ground that the document was not registered. The plaintiffs have filed a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order passed by the trial court. This revision application was placed for hearing before one of us sitting as a single Judge. A preliminary objection was raised that the order passed by the trial court cannot be revised under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge referred the case to the Division Bench after noticing the conflict of judicial opinion in this respect. The Division Bench has referred the matter to the Full Bench. In this way thit; case has come before us.Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as follows:115. The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any C...
Gem Palace, Jaipur and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj225; 1969()WLN540
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. This is a group of 150 Writ petitions whereby the petitioners have challenged the validity of Sections 4, 5, 6, '8, 16, 18, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 44, 47, 50, 52, 53, 67, 68, 71 to 77, 85 to 98, 100, 101, 103, 108, 110 and 118 of the Gold (Control) Act, (No. 45 of 1968) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that they are violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution o India as these provisions put unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade of the petitioners.2. The petitioners are licensed dealers in gold under Chapter 3 of Part 12A of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, and were authorised thereunder to carry on their business as a dealer in gold. After the Act came into force, the Superintendent of Excise in charge of the Gold Cell for the places where the petitioners reside sent form Ex. 1 to file the returns under Section 16 (1) read with Section 16 (7) of the Act. Petitioners' allegation is that the respondent No. 4 has called...
H.H. Maharaja Rana Hemant Singhji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1969
Reported in: [1971]79ITR83(Raj); 1969()WLN589
D.M. Bhandari, C.J.1. These two references have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ' A ' (hereinafter called ' the Tribunal '). Income-tax Reference No. 7 of 1966 is under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Income-tax Act'). Wealth-tax Reference No.8 of 1966 is under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called ' the Wealth-tax Act '). The facts and points of law in both the references are similar and, therefore, they are disposed of by this judgment.2. We first take the income-tax reference. There is a palatial building known as 'Dholpur House' at New Delhi. It belonged to Maharaja Udai Bhan Singhji, Ruler of the erstwhile Dholpur State. On the merger of the Dholpur State the question arose whether the ' Dholpur House' should be treated as private property of the ruler or the property of the State of Rajasthan. By letter dated 20th October, 1951, the Government of India informed the said Maharaja that the...
Rana Hemant Singhji, Dholpur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj270
Bhandari, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'A' (hereinafter called the Tribunal) has made this reference to this Court under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act). His Highness Maharaja Udai Bhan Singhji, Ruler of Dholpur died issueless on 22nd October, 1954. After his death, the movable property possessed by the deceased Maharaja Udai Bhan Singhji was sealed by the Government of India. Maharaja Rana Hemant Singhji (hereinafter called the assessee) was thereafter recognised as the successor to the deceased Maharaja and the assets which the Government of India had sealed were released and handed over to Rajmata, the guardian of the assessee. Part of the assets consisting of gold sovereigns, old silver rupee coins and silver bars were sold for Rs. 20,94,785/-. The Income-tax Officer, Bharatpur while assessing the assessee for the assessment year 1.958-59 computed Rs. 3, 44,303 as capital gains on these sales taking into account...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›