Rajasthan Court December 1971 Judgments
Parasram Vs. Amarchand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj133; 1971(4)WLN601
Beri, J. 1. A learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following question for answer:'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the appeal is barred by res judicata'2. Let us briefly state the facts. The plaintiffs as commission agents advanced Rs. 8,560/- to the defendants on 3-3-51 for obtaining a railway receipt of certain goods from the Punjab National Bank, Jodhpur. The plaintiffs also gave on 8-3-51 Rs. 836/14/9 by way of payment to a broker. The defendants' goods covered by the railway receipt when sold by the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendants fetched Rs. 6501/15/6 and after deduction of expenses a balance of Rs. 3077/10/3 remained due to the plaintiffs and claiming interest and cost of notice the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants which eventually was transferred to the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, (being Suit No. 135/1955) for recovery of Rs. 3146/7/-. We shall call it Suit No. 135 hereinafter. The defendants instituted a counter suit...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Soap Stone Distributing Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-23-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC699(Raj); 1971(4)WLN702
J.P. Jain, J. 1. This is a sales tax reference under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The applicant is a private limited concern and deals in sale of soap-stone. For the year 1st January, 1962, to 31st December, 1962, the assessee filed the quarterly returns late. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jaipur, made the assessment of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act by his order dated 15th September, 1964. One C. L. Pandya, accountant of the assessee-company, and Shri V. K. Singhal, counsel for the assessee, were present on the date of the assessment. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jaipur, who dealt with the case, asked the accountant, Shri Pandya to adduce reasons for late submission of returns. According to the assessing authority, he could not offer any satisfactory explanation for the delay. He, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 on the assessee under Section 16(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act read with Section 9(3) of the Cent...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh Vs. Somendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Raj37
ORDERJagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is a revision application by the plaintiff against an order of the District Judge Bhilwara, passed in proceedings for the preparation of a final decree in a suit for dissolution of Partnership and rendition, of accounts.2. Under the preliminary decree a commissioner was appointed to take accounts and the defendant was directed to produce the accounts of the partnership firm before him. No appeal was filed against the preliminary decree. The defendant however did not produce the account books of the partnership firm before the commissioner despite several opportunities. The commissioner then submitted a report to the learned District Judge. At the instance of the plaintiff the learned District Judge did not send the case to the commissioner. A date was fixed for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. On 14-8-1969 the plaintiff examined one witness Shankar Lal and closed his evidence. The defendant sought an opportunity of producing his evidence and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Singh and ors. Vs. Tejsingh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj137; 1971(4)WLN674
ORDERJagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is a revision application by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 against an appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Ganganagar, holding that the Civil Judge, Ganganagar has jurisdiction to try the present suit.2. The suit was instituted by Tej Singh, and Gurucharan Singh sons or Narendra Singh in 1967 for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 18-7-57 by which their father Narendra Singh transferred 2 squares of agricultural land in Chack 51 GG for Rs. 24,000/- to the defendants is not binding on them and for possession over the land sold under the sale-deed. Mesne profits were also claimed. The rent of the agricultural land over which possession was claimed is Rs. 1.62 per Bigha and the area is 50 Bighas. The suit for possession was valued at Rs. 2,031.25 under Section 7(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. A sum of Rs. 430/- was claimed as mesne profits. The valuation of the suit was thus Rs. 2,461.25. It was instituted in the court...
Tag this Judgment!Bajranglal Vs. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN681
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. As this writ petition fails on a preliminary objection in regard to its maintainability, it is not necessary to state all the facts. It will the sufficient to say that (he petitioner was appointed as a security sepoy of the Khetri Copper Project of the National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. which is the sole respondent in the case. Disciplinary action was taken against him and he was removed from service by order Ex. 11 dated October 19, 5966. An application was made by the Rashtriya Khetri Tamba Project Mazdoor Trade Union for starting conciliation proceedings, but it ended in failure. The petitioner filed an appeal to the General Manager, but it was rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner has therefore challenge the order of his removal by this petition on a number of grounds.2. The respondent has traversed the claim of the petitioner altogether, and it has taken a number of additional pleas, one of which is a plea to the eff...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsingh Vs. Somendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN683
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is a revision application by the Plaintiff against an order of the District Judge Bhilwara, passed in proceedings for thp preparation of a final decree in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts.2. Under the preliminary decree a commissioner was appointed to take accounts and the defendant was directed to produce the accounts of the partnership firm before him. No appeal was filed against the preliminary decree. The defendant however did not produce the account books of the partnership firm before the commissioner despite several opportunities. The commissioner then submitted a report to the learned District Judge. At the instance of the plaintiff the learned District Judge did not send the case to the commissioner. A date was fixed for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. On 14-8-69 the plaintiff examined one witness Shankar Lal and closed his evidence. The defendant sought an opportunity of producing his evidence and the court fi...
Tag this Judgment!Jamal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj209; 1971(4)WLN660
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. Since common questions of law are involved in all these three writ petitions filed by the manufacturers of salt at Didwana and Pachpadra Salt Sources, I propose to dispose them of by one judgment.2. Writ Petition No. 218 of 1969 and No. 1683 of 1970 are the petitions of the manufacturers of salt coming from Didwana who are known as Deshwals while Petition No. 1373 of 1969 is the petition from the manufacturer of salt at Pachpadra known as Kharwal.3. The history of Kharwals and Deshwals is about three to four hundred years old. For the purpose of this judgment, it will be relevant to mention that the Deshwals who are generally Mohammedans by caste are the residents of Didwana. Their main occupation is to manufacture salt from the pans granted to them by His Highness the Maharaja of Jodhpur. These salt pans are also known in that area as salt factories. In these factories Deshwals claim Bapi rights which are both heritable and transferable. The petitioners in Writ P...
Tag this Judgment!Shivashankar Dayal Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Raj139; 1971(4)WLN585
ORDERJagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is a revision application by one of the plaintiffs in a suit for pre-emption against an order of the trial Court refusing to extend time fixed by it under the decree for payment of the purchase price on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to do so. 2. The decree in the suit was passed in the following terms:-- (1) that the defendant No. 1 Smt. Shanti Devi would reconvey the suit property to the plaintiffs on payment of Rupees 5,761/- to them; (2) that the plaintiffs are directed to pay this amount within a month from the date of the decree, i. e. 20-11-69; (3) that the costs of the reconveyance would be borne by the plaintiffs; and (4) that the costs of the suit would be payable by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs. 3. Order 20, Rule 14 (1) C. P. C. runs as follows:-- '14. Decree in pre-emption suit.-- (1) Where the Court decrees a claim to preemption in respect of a particular sale of property and the purchase-money has not been paid into Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Himmat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj218
Jagat Narayan, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred by a learned single Judge of this Court:--'Whehter Section 15-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955, can be declared as unconstitutional or void as being violative of Article 31A(1) or 19(1)(F) and 31B of the Constitution despite the amendment of Schedule 9 of the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act. 1964?'The case of the petitioners is that they were temporary cultivators of land situated in the Rajasthan Canal Area and became Khatedar tenants on the coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. They further assert that their Khatedari rights cannot be extinguished by Section 15-A of the Rajasthan. Tenancy Act, which runs as follows:--'15-A. Khatedari rights not to accrue in Rajasthan Canal Area. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13 or in Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any lease, patta or other document, ...
Tag this Judgment!Nenuram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN678
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff' revision application against an order of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur holding that the arbitrator named in the arbitration agreement should again decide the dispute between the parties.2. The plaintiff is a P.W.D. contractor. He brought the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,241/- against the State. Under Clause 23 of the contract all disputes between the parties were to De referred to the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Buildings & Roads. The State filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration of the Chief Engineer, who gave an award on 26-8 65. This award was set aside on appeal on 18-5-68 on the ground that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct. The appeal court did not pass a specific order superseding the reference as contemplated under Section 19 of the Arbitration Act. The plaintiff then applied to the learned Civil Judge to try his suit. The defendant took several adjournments for filing a written statement and then applied that th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »