Rajasthan Court September 1971 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Firm Anand Construction Co., Mandi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj101; 1971(4)WLN481; 1971(4)WLN495
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and decree dated 31st March 1967, of the District Judge Kota by which plaintiff's suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 10940/-.2. The only point which has beencanvassed on behalf of the appellant isthat the suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. Learned Deputy Government Advocate contends that the suit is governed by Article 18 of the Limitation Act of 1963 and having been filed after the expiry of three years from the date of the completion of the work was beyond time.3. Plaintiff respondent was given a contract for terrazzo and cement flooring in the Maharao Bhim Singh Hospital Kota on 25th February. 1957, and for the construction of a road inside the same hospital on 30th March, 1957 at an estimated cost of Rs. 96,119 and Rs. 15,238/- respectively. In terms of the agreement, the plaintiff was required to deposit security and if it was not deposited in advance, it was provided that 10 per cent,...
Tag this Judgment!Pahilaj Rai Vs. the Works Manager (Carriage) W. Rly.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN530
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. These two revision applications are directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ajmer, and arise out of a petition filed by Pahilaj Rai petitioner in S.B. Civil Revision No. 185/71 (Who shall hereinafter be called the 'petitioner') under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act (Act No. IV of 1936) hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Works Manager (Carriage) now as Dy. C.M.E. (C&W;) Western Railway, Aimer (hereinafter referred to as the 'opposite party'). They shall be disposed of by one judgment.2. The petitioner was working as a Head Clerk in Carriage & Works No. 26 Department, Western Railway, Ajmer. He was served with a charge sheet dated 12/15 November, 1955 charging him with an attempt to take away from the shop a pint of varnish, and after an inquiry, he was removed from service with effect from 9/10/56 On 9/4/62 the petitioner filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Ajmer District, Ajmer, for a declaration that the order of his re...
Tag this Judgment!Stoneware Pipe and Sanitary Fitting Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj83
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. Plaintiff Messrs Stoneware Pipe and Sanitary Fittings Manufacturing Company Limited- Jaipur, was under members' voluntary wind-ing-up. Shri Ram Gopal Chokhani was appointed. Its liquidator, but he obtained an order on July, 9. 1964 for the appointment of the Official Liquidator to be the liquidator, and for supervision by Court. The plaintiff has stated that Messrs Madanlal Kishore Sineh of Kishangarh obtained the permission of the former Jaipur State on January 17, 1946 for establishing a factory for the manufacture of stoneware pipes and other sanitary fittings in Jaipur. They and some others promoted a public com-pany under the name and style of M/s. Stone Ware Pipes and Sanitary Fittings Manufacturing Company Limited, and it was incorporated on March 16, 1946, under the Jaipur Companies Act. The permission and the rights and concessions etc- granted to M/s. Madanlal Kishore Singh were transferred to the Company, which appointed M/s. Madanlal Kishore Singh as its...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Pyarelal Satpal and ors. Vs. Santlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1971
Reported in: 1971(4)WLN543
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. These four special appeals have been filed by the leave of a learned Single Judge against his judgment dated April 18, 1966, by which he decided 9 second appeals. These 9 second appeals arose out of 5 suits Nos. 75 of 57, 94 and 157 of 1960 and 20 and 200 of 1962 of the Court of Munsif, Ganganagar. All the 5 suits were decreed by the trial court. In appeal suit No. 75 of 1957 was dismissed by Shri Krishna Nand, the then District Judge of Ganganagar by his judgment dated March 2, 1959. The appeals in the remaining 4 suits were dismissed by Shri Sardar Singh, the then District Judge of Ganganagar by his judgment dated 30-1-1962. The result of the judgment of the learned Single Judge is to decree all the 5 suits.2. Special Appeal No. 21 of 1966 arises out of suit No. 157 of 1960 which was instituted by Santlal. Special appeals Nos. 20 of 1966 and 32 of 1966 arise out of suit No. 75 of 1957 which was filed by Ladu Ram. Special Appeal No. 29 of 1966 arises out of suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Jethmal Vs. Hiralal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj220; 1971(4)WLN472
Chhangani, J.1. This is a special appeal by leave under Section 18 (2) of the Raiasthan High Court Ordinance 1949, against a decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 13th May, 1966 passed in S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 748 of 1960. By this decree the learned single Judge accepted the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent Hiralal and reversed the iudgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court on 27th August 1960 against Himmatram defendant and restored the trial Court's decree against Jethmal defendent. The learned single Judge, however, maintained the dismissal of the suit against the defendant respondent Ratanlal.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be stated at the outset.3. The plaintiff respondent Hiralal instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,215/- in the Court of the District Judge, Jodhpur, against the three defendants, namelv. Ratanlal (respendent No. 2) Jethmal (appellant) and Himmatram (respondent No. 3). The suit was. however, tra...
Tag this Judgment!The Abu Road Elect. and Indst. Comp. Ltd. Vs. the Comns. of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN(UC)100
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The question of law referred to the High Court for its opinion under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 is:whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to set off against its business profits for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 any business loss it had incurred in the accounting periods relevant to the assessment years 1950-51 to 1954-55 (both-inclusive).The High Court has answered this question against the assessee and in favour of the department. The assessee has come up in appeal to this Court by special leave.2. In this court, Mr. S.T. Desai appearing for the assessee does not press the appeal in respect of the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52. So far as the other assessment years are concerned the question of law arising for decision is concluded by the decision, of this Court in Commissioner of Income tax Punjab v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P) Ltd. 77 I.T.R. P. 518. In view of that decision. Soli...
Tag this Judgment!Bogaram Vs. Mohanaram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj116; 1971(4)WLN465
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a defen-dant's second appeal arising out of a declaratory suit under Order 21, Rules 63, Civil Procedure Code, The facts are not in dispute and lie within a narrow compass.2. Bogaram, defendant No. 1 (now appellant) was the decree-holder and defendant No. 2 Isar was the judgment debtor. Bogaram had filed the suit against Isar sometime in the yean 1956 and obtained an order of attachment before judgment against his agricultural land on 19-101956. After the suit was decreed in favour of Bogaram on 23-2-1957. he put the decree in ex-ecution regarding 64 beghas of the agri-cultural land under attachment. Moha-naram, respondent, filed an objection, under Order 21, Rule 58. Civil Procedure Code making grievance of the attachment. He stated that this land had been sold to him by Isar by a register-ed sale deed on 9-6-1956 prior to the attachment before judgment in question. He further asserted that he was in possession of the land. The execution court, however, dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Nanda Vs. the District Judge, Jaipur Dist., Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Raj116
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J. 1. This writ petition of peti-tioner Nanda arises out of the following circumstances:An application under Section 6 of the Raiasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act) was filed by creditor Kanhaiyalal, husband of respondent No. 3 Smt, Gulab Devi, in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur District. Jaipur, alleging that Rs. 4,500/- were advanced by the creditor by way of loan to petitioner Nanda on the basis of a pronote and a receipt executed by the debtor in favour of the creditor and as the debtor was an agriculturist therefore, it was prayed that the loan advanced to Nanda may be determined under the provisions of the Act. Petitioner Nanda denied to have received any loan from Kanhaiyalal and executed any pronote in favour of the creditor. The Debt Relief Court after recording the statements of the creditor Kanhaiyalal and the scribe Shivdayal and also examining the witnesses produced by the debtor came to the con-elusion that d...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Ransi Gaon and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj95
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Fateh Singh and it arises Out of the following circumstances :---The Gram Panchayat, Ransi Gaon, Tehsil Bilara. filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act) against the petitioner for the determination of Pan-chayat's debt which the Panchayat claimed as damages from the petitioner for the breach of contract. The petitioner filed a petition before the Debt Relief Court that the liability which was sought to be fastened on him by the Gram Panchayat did not fall within the definition of the term 'debt' as given in the Act. The Debt Relief Court held that the provisions of the Act were applicable for the debt for which the Gram Panchayat had filed an application underSection 6 of the Act. A revision petition was filed against that order of the Debt Relief Court before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur. who, by his ...
Tag this Judgment!Maliram and ors. Vs. Jagmohan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN632
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14th October, 1967, of the Senior Civil Judge, Sikar.2. Prom the evidence on record, the following pedigree showing the relationship of the defendants with the vendors emerges: -------------------------- | | Raghunath Doongarsidas | | ---------------------- | | | | Ramprasad Ramdeo | | (Deft. 1) | ---------------- | | | | Kedranath Ramkishore (Adopted by Doongardidas) (Vendors) | | -------------------------------------------------- | | | | Maliram Prabhudaya Banshidhar Madanlal (Deft. 2) (Deft. 3) (Deft. 4) (Deft. 5)By a sale-deed dated 18th August, 1953, Kedarnath and Ramkishore said half specified portion of the Haveli and the Nonra described in para 1 of the plaint situated in Shri Madhopur along with their properties namely two shops & their apartments on the old Haveli in consideration of Rs. 20,000/- to the plaintiff Jagmohanlal who is also their brother in-law, that is sister's husband. Jagmoh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »