Rajasthan Court December 1971 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.
Dr. R.P. Goala Vs. Amarpal Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj142; 1971(4)WLN673
ORDERJagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is a revision application by the defendant against an order of the trial Court holding that it has jurisdiction to try the suit.2. The defendant is a resident of Dehradun. He filed a criminal complaint Against the plaintiff who is an officer in the Indian Air Force. When the summons of the criminal complaint was served the plaintiff was posted at Jodhpur. The summons was served at Jodhpur and the plaintiff had to attend the Court at Dehradun on numerous dates of hearing. On every date he bad to go from Jodhpur. At that time the plaintiff was undergoing a course of instruction in Control and Reporting School of the Air Force there. This course was necessary for his future promotion in accordance with the allegations made in the plaint. Further on account of the service of the summons and the pendency of the criminal case against him the plaintiff had to undergo mental agony at Jodhpur and also to undergo physical discomfort of travelling from Jodhpur to ...
Brandaban Das Vs. Gulab Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj140; 1971(4)WLN649
ORDERJagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is a revision application by the defendant against an appellate order of the District Judge, Jaipur City. 2. The defendant is admittedly a tenant of the plaintiff with effect from 23-1-63 on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. It is also not disputed that no rent was actually received by the plaintiff till the date on which he instituted the present suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction on the ground of default. 3. The case of the defendant is that although a registered lease deed was executed on 2-2-63 for a period of 11 years the plaintiff refused to accept the rent for the very first month and he sent it by money order which was refused. According to the defendant rent for future 3 months was also sent by money order every month, but these money orders were all refused. The defendant then sent a registered notice on the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to pay the rent in any form the plaintiff desired. After the amendment of the Rajast...
Vaidya Rudra Dutt Vs. Smt. Teeja
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj141; 1971(4)WLN676
ORDERJagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is a revision application by the plaintiff against an appellate order of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, framing an issue to the effect whether the defendant was not a defaulter in the payment of rent as the same was offered and tendered by her to the plaintiff, and remitting it for trial to the lower Court under Order 41, Rule 25, C. P. C. 2. The plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment inter alia on the ground of default. The defence of the defendant on the ground of default was struck off by the trial Court as in its opinion there was default in making payments in accordance with Section 13 (4). The suit for eviction was accordingly decreed. On appeal the appellate Court framed the above issue following the decision in Vishwanath Singh v. Gopilal, 1970 Raj LW 223. That decision has since been overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Saligram v. Narot-tamlal, 1971 WLN 118 = (AIR 1972 Raj 127) with the result that the above issue no longer arises. 3....
Bhanwarsingh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN593
B.P. Beri, J.1. This is an application by 7 accused persons, who have been committed by the Munsiff Magistrate, Desuri. for facing their trial under Sections 120B, 307, 392, 398, 458, 324, 148 and 149 I.P.C. in the Court of the Additions Sessions Judge, Sirohi. The grounds for the transfer urged before me are that it will be convenient for the defence to engage eminent lawyers from Jodhpur for defending the accused at Pali and also because the learned Munsiff Magistrate could not commit the case directly to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, in view of the provisions of Sections 9 and 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. It will be proper to first dispose of the legal question raised before me. Mr. Bhimraj, learned Counsel for the applicants, argued that under the Criminal Procedure Code there is only one Sessions court in one Sessions division, who takes cognizance of sessions cases on commitment, and an Additional Sessions Judge only works as a Sessions Judge when any...
Udaipur Distillery Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR516(Raj); 1971(4)WLN607
B.P. Beri, J. 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 'C ', at the instance of the assessee. 2. Facts relevant for answering the question referred to us are these: Messrs. Udaipur Distillery Company (hereinafter called ' the assessee ') was a firm constituted by two partners, viz., (1) Sohan Lal Golcha, acting as 'karta ' of the Hindu undivided family, and (2) F.B. Elavia. The firm owned and operated a distillery at Udaipur. During the assessment year 1945-46, relevant to the previous year of the firm ending on October 16, 1944, it sold some of its products in areas then included in British India. In the relevant period in the erstwhile State of Mewar, of which Udaipur was the capital, there was no income-tax. The Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, issued a notice to the firm under Section 34 of the Act on January 27, 1953. The assessee received it on January 31, 1953. ...
Rao Raja Tej Singh and ors. Vs. Hastimal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj191
Kan Singh, J.1. The two appeals before me arise out of the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in a suit under Order 21, Rule 103, Civil Procedure Code.2. Plaintiff Hastimal and others were the sons of late Shri Mukanchand Balia. Eao Raja Panney Singh had mortgaged one 'Haveli' known as Haveli of Thikana Sanwrad situated at Jodhpur and fully described in para 4 of the plaint, as also some other property for Rs. 28,000/-with Shri Mukanchand Balia by a registered mortgage deed on 14-9-1943. On 21-1-1946, Rao Rafa Panney Singh took a fresh loan of Rs. 7,000/- and executed a second mortgage in favour of Shri Mukanchand. According to the plaintiffs, this Haveli belonged to Rao Raja Panney Singh and for it he had a patta dated 9-7-1934 in his name as also in the names of his sons Rao Raja Ranveer Singh, Rao Raja Chain Singh, Rao Raja Sukh Singh and Rao Raja Tej Singh, the defendants in the case.Shri Mukanchand obtained a decree for the sale of the mortgaged p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›