Rajasthan Court July 1971 Judgments
Deen Bandhu Chaudhary Vs. the Authority Under Payment of Wages Act and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN381
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Deen Bandhu Chaudhri, Manager of the Navjyoti Daily challenging the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Jaipur dated 22-11-68 marked Ex. 13 by which the claim of the non-petitioner No. 2 Shyam Anjan for payment of minimum bonus for the years 1965 and 1966 amounting to Rs. 96/- was allowed, and further a sum of Rs. 20/- was granted as compensation for delayed payment. It is the admitted case of the parties that Shyam Anjan was employed by the petitioner a Proof-Reader and his services were terminated with effect from 12-3-1967. Shyam Anjan filed an application under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Acton 26-9-1967 alleging that the minimum bonus payable to him under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 at 4% of the wages earned by him during the years 1965 and 1966 had been wrongly withheld by the employer. It was prayed that the employer may be directed to pay minimum bonus for these...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Abdul Latif Vs. Kundo Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj284; 1971(4)WLN580
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff from the appellate judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 20-3-1970 by which the plaintiff's suit for ejectment from the house in dispute and for recovery of damages was dismissed.2. Briefly stated the plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint is that he leased out the house in question, situated near Tripoliya Gate, Ajmer to the defendant No. 1 Kundomal by a registered lease deed dated 15-12-1950 on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-, though the possession of the house was handed over to the plaintiff on 1-4-1951. The tenancy is said to be a monthly one. It was stated that the defendant No. 1 had not paid rent to the plaintiff for more than six months and hadunauthorisedly and wrongfully removed the tin-shed from the house and had also admitted the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as sub-tenants without the consent of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the efendant No. 1 had made certain material alterations in the house w...
Tag this Judgment!Balmukand Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN373
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Since common question of law is involved in all these 37 writ petitions, I propose to dispose them of by one judgment.2. Petitioners in all these cases were the licensees who obtained licences from the Exercise Department for the sale of country liquor under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the rules of 1956) under the two different systems, namely, 'the guarantee system' as prescribed under Chapter VIIA and the 'exclusive privilege system' as prescribed under Chapter VII-B of the rules.3. In the year 1964 the State Government by introducing Chapter VII-A initiated a new system of granting licence for the retail sale of the country liquor which is commonly known as the 'guarantee system'. Under this system the licensees for retail shops of country liquor had to give guarantee to to the Government to draw liquor from the Government warehouses for the purpose of sale of a specified value during a particular financial year for which a...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Gopal Industries Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN(UC)66
K.S. Hegde, J.1. A common question of law arises for decision in these appeals by special leave and that question is whether the High Court acted illegally in declining to call upon the Rajasthan Board of Revenue to state a case and refer the same to it under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act XXIX of 1954 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellants assessees required the Board of Revenue to refer to the High Court under Section 15(1) of the Act as many as four questions but the Board declined to refer those questions to the High Court. Thereupon the assessee moved the High Court to call upon the Board to state a case and refer to the High Court the questions of law formulated by it. The High Court rejected that reference summarily observing:Heard learned Counsel for the parties. We agree with the view taken by the Board of Revenue. The decisions in State of Gujarat-appellant v. Raipur . Respondent A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1069, State of Madras-appellant v. K.C....
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ratan Devi Moondara Vs. Jawarmal Sultanmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj67; 1971(4)WLN289
Jagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against a decree of District Judge, Bikaner, dismissing her suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P. C. for a declaration that a building which was got attached by firm Jawarmal Sultanmal of Barmer in execution of their decree against Shri Vijay Trading Company, Bikaner, belongs to her and was in her possession and was not liable to be attached and sold in execution of that decree. 2. The facts are these--Firm Jawarmal Sultanmal of Barmer filed a suit against the firm Shri Vijay Trading Company. Bikaner, and its partners Bajranglal and Shivkishan of Bikaner, on 4-1-1961 in the Court of District Judge, Balotra. 3. During the pendency of this suit Bajranglal executed the sale deed of the present building which belongs to him, on 21-4-1961 in favour of his wife Smt. Ratan Devi who is the plaintiff in the present suit. 4. The suit was decreed on 15-9-1962 for Rs. 13,605/- and the building in suit was attached in execution of the decree on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Gajendra Singh and anr. Vs. the Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajastha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Raj42
ORDERR.D. Gattani, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for getting the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur (Hereinafter referred to as the T. A. T.) dated 4-12-1970 (Ex. P-11) and the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) dated 17-2-1970 (Ex. P-7) quashed upon the following allegations;2. That the petitioners are doing the business of Transport in the name of Messrs. Gajendra Singh Hari Ram --theirs being a partnership firm though unregistered; that the petitioners obtained a non-temporary permit on Bharatpur --Kathumar via Kumher, Sinsini and Nagar route valid for three years vide Ex. P-1 that on 2-2-1968 they applied for renewal of that permit; that their application for renewal of the permit was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 25-4-1968, but nobody filed any objection to it; that the said application was considered by circulation and was accepted also wit...
Tag this Judgment!Tansukhlal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN281
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal was preferred by Tansukhlal against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated 31st March, 1967, and the respondent has also filed cross-objections.2. On 14th May, 1973, learned Counsel for the respondent reported that Tansukhlal had died about one year back and as his legal representatives had not been brought on record till then, the appeal had abated. On the request of the counsel for the appellant the case vas adjourned to enable him to ascertain facts about the death of Tansukhlal. On 16th July, 1971, Mr. B.L. Purohit who was representing Tansukhlal filed his power on behalf of Vimal Kumar son of Tansukhlal and also submitted an application that he may be allowed to continue the appeal, at the same time alleging that Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. which bars such application is against the provisions of Section 146 C.P.C and is also unconstitutional. No application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased has be...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Naraini Vs. Pyare Mohan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj25
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff appellant Smt. Naraini against the defendant respondent Fyare Mohan for possession of a 'Kotha' described in para No. 4 of the plaint and also for mesne profits for the same amounting to Rs. 102/-. She also claimed future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 6/-per month. Her case as set out in the plaint was that the house of which the 'Kotha' in question is a part, belonged to one Gopal Lal, who died on 15-6-1956. It was alleged that the plaintiff had been living with Gopal Lal since 10. or 11 years before the latter's death and in lieu of the services rendered by her the deceased Gopal Lal executed a gift deed in respect of the whole house in his (her?) favour. The original gift deed has been put on the record and marked Ex. 1. It was further alleged that after execution of the gift deed the plaintiff was put in possession of the gifted house. The plaintiff went on to state that after the d...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Naraini Vs. Pyaremohan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN488
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff-appellant Smt. Narayani against the defendant-respondent Pyare Mohan for possession of a 'kotha' described in para No. 4 of the plaint and also for mesne profits for the same amounting to Rs. 102/-. She also claimed future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month. Her case as set out in the plaint was that the house of which the 'kotha' in question is a part, belonged to one Gopal Lal, who died on 15.6.1956. It was alleged that the plaintiff had been living with Gopal Lal since 10 or 11 years before the latter's death and in lieu of the services rendered by her the deceased Gopal Lal executed a gift deed in respect of the whole house in her favour. The original gift deed has been put on the record, and marked Ex. 1. It was further alleged that after execution of the gift deed the plaintiff was put in possession of the gifted house. The plaintiff went onto state that after the death of...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiyalal Vs. Jagannath Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj120; 1971(4)WLN263
ORDERJ.P. Jain, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order of the Civil Judge, Udaipur dated 9th October, 1969 by which he held that the defendants-mortgagees' claim for cost of the improvements is a counter claim and is chargeable with court-fees under the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961.2. The facts leading to this revision application are as follows: Daulatsingh and Fatehlal Mehta mortgaged a house and a shop situated in the town of Udaipur for a period of 11 years with possession for Rs. 3,499/- in favour of one Sohanlal by a mortgage-deed dated 29-1-1938. The mortgagors died and their descendants are Jagan-nath Singh (plaintiff No. 1), Shrimati Mangi Bai (Plaintiff No. 2), Smt Nathi Bai (Plaintiff No. 3) and Inderlal (defendant No. 2) and Chhoteylal (defendant No. 3). The mortgagee is also said to have died and his heir is Kanhaiya-lal petitioner. After a notice, the plaintiffs filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage against Kanhaiyalal pet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »