Rajasthan Court July 1969 Judgments
Bhanwarlal Vs. Chandra Kanta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN331
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by the defendant against an appellate order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, holding that the provision 13(4) is applicable to the present suit so far as the eviction on the ground of default is concerned and the provision of Section 13A is not applicable because it was open to the defendant to get benefit under Section 13(4). The trial court held that Section 13A was applicable.2. The suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction was filed on 8-3-65. Summons on the defendant-applicant was served on 26-3-65 and the first date of hearing was 16-7-65. On 9-6-65 the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Amendment Act 12 of 1965 came into force in which two provisions were incorporated relating to a suit for eviction based on the ground, of default. One was contained in Section 13(4) and the other was contained in Section 13-A. The provision in Section 13(4) was general and was to apply to all suits. The provision unde...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Das and ors. Vs. Kishanlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Raj42; 1969()WLN282
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is an execution second appeal by the minor sons of one Daulal against an order of the appellate court.2. The relevant facts are these. Sundarlal and Daulal were real brothers who were members of a ioint Hindu family. Sundarlal mortgaged his half share in a Bada to Kishanlal on 30-1-49. Kishanlal brought a suit for sale which was decreed arid in execution of it he purchased the undivided share of Sundarlal in the Bada at the auction sale. On 1-7-63 Kishanlal filed a partition suit in which a preliminary decree was passed on 15-1-65. A commissioner was appointed and on receipt of his report Kishanlal made an application under Section 2 of the Partition Act for the sale of the Bada instead of dividing it. On this application the court fixed Rs. 3,000/- as the reserved price and ordered public sale under Section 2 of the Partition Act. No bid was offered by any one. Kisnanlal then applied for reducing the reserved price to Rs. 1500/-and ordering re-sale. At this th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amber Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1969
Reported in: [1974]95ITR178(Raj)
Bhandaki, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi (hereinafter called ' the Tribunal '), for the opinion of this court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act').' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the building known as Rambagh Palace '2. In paragraph 3 of the statement of the case, it has been stated that Messrs. Amber Corporation, Jaipur, the assessee, was a partnership firm which carried on a hotel business at Rambagh Palace (at Jaipur) and land appurtenant thereto was valued at Rs. 25,00,000. The four sons of Maharaja Man Singh brought in the building (Rambagh Palace) as their contribution of capital along with a cash of Rs. 25,000 each. The Maharaja contributed his share in the form of furniture and cash amounting to Rs. 1,71,...
Tag this Judgment!Tewari Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Smt. Lilawati Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN286
Jagat Narayan, J.1. These are two connected execution first appeals by the decree-holder against two orders of the Senior Civil Judge No. 2 Jaipur city, upholding the objection of Smt. Lilawati Devi, respondent, that she has become the absolute owner of the attached properties and that these properties cannot be proceeded against in execution without impleading her. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the orders are erroneous.2. The decree-holder obtained a decree against Samrath Gopinath on 24. 6. 39, and ever since he has been trying to realise the decretal amount. First the decree was executed under the Bachat Rules. In 1945 Samrath Gopinath died leaving a son Samrath Pran Nath. In 1946 Samrat Pran Nath died leaving a widow Smt. Lilawati Devi, respondent and a minor son Samrat Anand Nath. Samrat Anand Nath died in 1957 and Smt. Lilawati Devi, respondent, is his legal representative.3. Samrat Gopi Nath was a Jagirdar. His Thikana was known as 'Samrath...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Hardevi and ors. Vs. Ghanshyam and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN333
C.M. Lodha, J.1. Vallabh Das, husband of defendant-appellant No. 1. Smt. Hardevi, and father of other appellants agreed to sell the house in dispute which is situated in Nagaur to the respondent-plaintiffs Ghanshyam and Bhanwari Lal for a sum of Rs. 2000/ and paid apart of the purchase money i.e. Rs. 500/- on 24-1-1961. He also executed an agreement the same day in favour of the plaintiff and promised to execute a sale deed in their favour and get it registered after a week or so. The agreement has been produced in original and is marked Ex. 1 Since Vallabhdas did not execute the sale deed as promised by him, the plaintiffs gave a notice dated 8-2-1961 to Vallabhdas calling upon him to execute the ale deed and get it registered and also receive the payment of Rs. 1500/- being the balance of sale price within three days of the receipt of the notice lest the plaintiffs would be compelled to file a suit against him. Inspite of this notice Vallabhdas did not execute the sale deed and there...
Tag this Judgment!Mazhar HussaIn Vs. Shafi Mohammed and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN316
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is an application by Mazhar Hussain plaintiff; against an order of the Munsiff, Merta under Order 1, Rule 10(2) C.P.C. directing him to implead Mohammed Farooq as a defendant in the present suit.2. According to the plaint, the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of plot No. ABCDEF. In support of this claim he has filed a patta issued in Sambat 1941 in favour of Nabi Karim Bux and Khudabux, sons and grand-son of one, Ahmed Bux. He asserts that they were his ancestors and subsequently in reply, to an application under Order, 6 Rule 5 C.P.C. he has filed a pedgree table connecting himself with them.3. His further case is that out of this plot, the red-coloured portion was given by him to Shan Mohammed and his wife Smt. Ayesha, who has since died, about three years before the filing of the suit and that Smt. Ayesha executed a, pale-deed of the red coulored land & houses standing thereon in favour of one Qim-ruddin. He brought the present suit for possession ov...
Tag this Judgment!Lalchand Vs. Mahabir Prasad and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj236; 1969()WLN413
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a revision application against an order of the Additional District Judge, Bundi, holding that he has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act in respect of the award which was filed before him.2. Lalchand and Mahabir Prasad entered into a partnership the object of which was to carry on cultivation after purchasing land. Lalchand was residing in Champaran District in Bihar and was the financing partner. Mahabir Prasad was the working partner. Lalchand advanced money to Mahabir Prasad from time to time for purchase of land, agricultural implements, carts etc. for carrying on the work of cultivation and for constructing necessary building for this purpose. Mahabir Prasad purchased some land in the name of Lalchand and some in his own name. The partnership commenced in 1961. Disputes arose between the partners. Mahabir Prasad left the farm and took up service in 1963. In 1964 Lalchand and' Mahabir Prasad decided t...
Tag this Judgment!Bulidan Singh Vs. Pitar Emmenual and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN472
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Bulidan Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, of India and it arises out of the following circumstances:2. Two children Kanhaiyalal and Sushila, who were sleeping on their cots near Sanisharji Ka Mandir, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. were hit by the truck No. Rjq. 2513 which was being driven by respondent Mayaram and this accident caused instantaneous death of Kanhaiyalal and Sushila. Petitioner Bulidan Singh, the guardian of the deceased, instituted a suit in forma pauperis against respondents in the court of Senior Civil Judge No. 1, Jodhpur for a claim of Rs. 90,500/- as compensation for the death of Kanhaiyalal and Sushila. The suit was filed on October 26, 1960. The suit was contested by the defendants respondents. During the pendency of the suit, the State Government by a notification issued in the Official Gazette constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act a Tribunal for the area of Jodhpur to entertain the claims for c...
Tag this Judgment!Shital Dass and anr. Vs. Deohans
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj170; 1969()WLN308
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is an appeal by the creditors under Section 75(1) of the Insolvency Act against an order of the District Judge, Bharatpur, holding that the provision contained in Section 9(1)(c) that the act of insolvency on which the petition is grounded should have occurred within 3 months before the presentation of the petition is not a period of limitation but is a condition precedent and that Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act are not applicable.2. The act of insolvency was committed on 2-5-1961. The creditors filed a petition under Section 9 before the Agra Court as the agricultural land which the debtor had transferred to defeat them, was situate in the district of Agra. It was finally held by the District Judge, Agra on 10-7-63 that since the debtor was not residing in Agra that Court had no jurisdiction. The petition was returned for presentation to proper Court on 27-7-63. It was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Bharatpur on 9-8-63. If Section 14 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjbehari Lal Vs. the Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jaipur ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj265; 1969()WLN326
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. Petitioner Kunjbehari Lal, aquarry-holder, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jaipur, who was working as an Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter called the Act) for Alwar area.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation are as follows:Respondent No. 2 Labour Enforcement Officer, Jaipur, who was incharge of the office of Inspector under the Act, moved an application under Section 15 of the Act before respondent No. 1, the Authority appointed under the Act, that the petitioner illegally deducted Rs. 2929.54 Paise from the wages of the employees employed by him at his quarries. This claim was raised by the Labour Enforcement Officer for a period from May, 1965 to September, 1965. The ground on the basis of which this claim was made by the said officer was that the State Government had fixed the wages under the Minimum Wages Act but th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »