Rajasthan Court January 1972 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.
Manak Chand Vs. Ganesh Das Samirmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Raj207; 1972()WLN17
ORDERJagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is a revision application by the defendant against an appellate order of Additional District Judge, Ajmer, holding that the arbitrator was competent to award interest on the principal amount found due in favour of the plaintiff for the period during which the arbitration proceedings remained pending before him and till the realisation of the amount. 2. The defendant entered into forward transactions in maize with the plaintiff through the Tijarti Chamber Sarafa, Beawar, One of the terms of the contract between the parties was that the question or dispute which arises relating to taking or giving money in respect of the transactions will be referred to the arbitration of the Tijarti Chamber Sarafa, Beawar under its rules. The defendant having failed to pay the amount the plaintiff filed a claim before the Tijarti Chamber Sarafa for being decided by arbitration. In this claim he asked for interest from the date the amount became due against the defendant ...
Hanuman and ors. Vs. Shakru and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Raj176; 1972()WLN22
ORDERJagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is a revision application by the defendant-respondents against an order of the appellate Court impleading Fattu, plaintiff, as a respondent under Order 41, Rule 20, C. P. C. 2. Shakru and Fattu filed the present suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from opening doors on a piece of land of which Shakru and Fattu claimed to be co-owners. The suit was dismissed on 3-8-68 by the Munsif on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their ownership of the land. Shakru alone filed an appeal on 2-9-68. He did not join Fattu even as a respondent. The defendants filed an objection that the appeal was incompetent as Fattu had not been impleaded either as an appellant or as a respondent. This objection was filed on 29-10-68. Long after the expiry of the period of limitation Shakru filed an application on 2-5-69 that Fattu was a necessary party and should be impleaded as a respondent under Order 41, Rule 20, C. P. C. read with Secti...
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Usmanbhai Islambhai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1972
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN76
B.P. Beri, J.1 These two applications under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1901 at the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur relate to the same assessee and raise an identical question and can be disposed of by one order.D.B. Civil Income-Tax Case No. 83 of 1971:2. M/s Usmanbhai Islambhai, Tonk, is a registered partnership firm which derives income from the manufacture and sale of 'Beedies'. For the assessment year 1965-66 the assessee returned an income of Rs. 12,345/-, At the time of the scrutiny of the accounts the Income Tax Officer noticed cash credit entries in the name of five persons totalling Rs. 21,300/-. Further, another cash credit entry in the sum of Rs. 4,000/- in the name of Abdul Karim was also noticed although the account had stood squared up. The assessee was asked to explain these entries and it produced confirmatory letters purporting to be signed by the five creditors in the sum of Rs. 21,300/-. The Income Tax Officer order...
Madan Gopal Gupta Vs. Dr. Leelaram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Raj177; 1972()WLN3
B.P. Beri, J. 1. By his order dated the 9th of March, 1971, the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer, has rejected the Municipal Election Petition of Madan Gopal Gupta because it was not presented to the District Judge himself but to the Munsarim of that Court. Madan Gopal Gupta, the petitioner, appeals. 2. The facts, which it is necessary to notice for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated are these: Dr. Leela Ram, respondent No. 1, was elected as a member from Ward No. 17 to the Ajmer Municipal Council and the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were defeated. The election took place on 25-10-70 and the counting was made on 26-10-70 and on the same day the result was declared. A petition challenging the election was submitted on 25-11-70 before the Munsarim of the District Judge, Aimer. By his order dated 19-1-1971 the petition was transferred to the Civil Judge, Aimer, An application was made by the respondent No. 1 on January 2, 1971, in which the respondent No. 1 raised ...
Chander Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN8
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal brought against the judgment & decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, dated 22-7-68 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 12760 65 based on the ground that the order of his reversion dated 28-12-61 was unconstitutional having been passed in contravention of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.2. The plaintiff who was in the Judicial Service of the former Jodhpur State came to be appointed as a Senior Civil and Additional Sessions Judge in the State of Rajasthan after it was formed. By order Ex. A/1 dated 25-1-68 he was while working as Civil and Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, appointed as officiating District and Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. By the impugned order Ex A/2 he was reverted and posted as Civil and Additional Sessional Judge, Dholpur. The plaintiff challenged the validity of the order of his reversion on the ground that it was passed in breach of the principles of natu...
Santlal Vs. Harbanssingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Raj228; 1972()WLN1
ORDERB.P. Beri, J.1. This is an application by way of revision against the order dated 10-7-70 of the Munsiff, Ganeanasar regarding the correctness of the issues framed.2. Facts it is necessary to notice for the disposal of the application briefly stated are these: The landlord instituted a suit against the tenant for his eviction from a shop No. 52/4 situate in Gol Bazar Sri Ganganagar inter alia on the ground that the tenant has his own shops which he is using for his business. The tenant contested the suit. On 6-2-1970 four issues were framed. The first issue is the only issue which has been challenged. It reads as follows:--'1. Has the defendant acquired vacant possession of another suitable premises?'On 6-5-70 an application was moved by the tenant for the amendment or deletion of issue No. 1 on the ground that the admitted case of the parties in the pleadings related to a shop while the issue employed the word 'premises'. The learned Munsiff observed that the use of the word 'pre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›