Rajasthan Court November 1973 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.
Mohanlal and ors. Vs. the Jaipur Hosiery Mills Private Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN832
Kan Singh, J.1. The second appeal before me raises the question whether on the death of a tenant whose contractual tenancy had already been terminated during the pendency of a suit for eviction filed by the landlord, the landlord can get a decree for the eviction against the legal representatives of the deceased tenant in the same suit or he will be required to file a separate suit.2. A few facts relevant for the disposal of the question may be recounted. The subject matter of the suit was a shop situated in Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur. It originally belonged to one Mukhia Jainarain and on his death it devolved on his heirs. Defendant Sarwanlal, since deceased, was a tenant of the shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 62/-. After Jainarain's death Sarwanlal continued to pay the rent to his heirs. Sarwanlal's heirs, however, sold the shop to the plaintiff-respondent, the Jaipur Hosiery Mills Private Limited, by a registered sale deed dated 24-12-66. The right to recover the rent in arrears from the ...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Alaram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN828
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, with a recommendation for setting aside the order of the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur, dated 4th July, 1972 and for directing him to comply with the order passed by his predecessor-in-office (i.e. the Additional Sessions Judge No; 2 Jodhpur) on 17th February, 1972, without taking into consideration the statement of Mst. Hira which she had given in some other case.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this reference may be briefly stated as follows. One Khinva Ram son of Salu Ram Jat, resident of Parasla lodged a first information report with the police at police station, Osian, on 18th April, 1971, that the non-petitioner Ala Ram had robbed his wife Mst. Hira of her silver ornaments, i.e. a pair of silver 'Karis', a pair of silver 'Karas', one silver 'Hansali', a pair of 'Karas' worn on hands and one 'Bor', of the value of Rs. 650/-. The incident of robbery was al...
Mst. Gaumati and ors. Vs. Shanker Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj147; 1973()WLN867
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. The plaintiff-respondent Shanker Lal filed the suit out of which this appeal arises against Ramkaran Lal (who died during the Dendeney of this litigation and is represented by his legal representatives Smt. Gaumati and others -- appellants) for declaring that the will Exhibit 3, dated 3-2-1961 made by Smt. Kalawati is ineffective against the plaintiff and further that a decree for possession of the ground-floor of the house and other movable property, ornaments etc. bequeathed by Smt. Kalawati to Ramkaran Lal be granted in his favour. The trial Court decreed the suit for possession of the ground floor of thehouse and its judgment and decree were affirmed by the District Judge, Bharatpur, and consequently the legal representatives of Ramkaran Lal have filed this appeal. 2. A few relevant facts may now he stated. One Jagan Nath had three sons Chaturbhui, Ramkaranlal (defendant) and Shankerlal (plaintiff). Chaturbhui died in St. 1967. i. e. in the year 1910-11 A. D. leav...
Mehtab Chand Golcha and ors. Vs. the Official Liquidator and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN902
Kan Singh, J.1. The appeal before us is by Shri Mehtab Chand Golcha and others, who are standing trial in this Court for offences under Section 454(5) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter to be referred as the Act. They raised an objection before the learned Company Judge that Section 454(5A) of the Act was ultra vires the Constitution being violative of Article 14 thereof By his order dated 25th April, 1973, the learned Company Judge rejected the objections holding that Section 454(5A) of the Act was ultra-vires.2. The present appeal is directed against this order. The question that is confronting the appellants at the very thresh hold is whether the order is appealable and the appeal lies within this Court The learned Counsel bases his right of appeal on Section 483 of the Act, which we may read:Appeals from any order made, or decision given, in the matter of the winding-up of a company by the Court shall lie to the same Court to which, in the same manner in which, and subj...
Kripal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN906
M.L. Joshi, J.1. By these seven writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the validity of the various draft schemes for nationlisation of Motor Transport Service under Section 68C of the Moter Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the M.V Act) has been challenged by the operators of the affected routes on various grounds, I had issued a notice to the respondents to show cause why the petitions be not admitted and in answer to that, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, learned Advocate General, Mr. M D. Purohit, learned Deputy Government Advocate and Mr. R.N. Munshi, appeared for the respondents.2. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 881 of 1973 (S. Kripalsingh v. State of Rajasthan) and 1447 of 1973 (Messrs Gram Transport Service v. State of Rajasthan) pertain to the draft scheme relating to Jaipur Pilani route; Civil Writ Petitions Nos 825 of 1973 (Messrs Green Bus Service Private Limited v. State of Rajasthan) and 1448 of 1973 (Rajasthan Transport Corporation v. State of Rajasthan) relate to the p...
Baboolal Vs. Smt. Prem Lata
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj93; 1973()WLN809
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a husband's appeal directed against an order of the District Judge, Partabgarh, passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', awarding Rs. 25/- as alimony pendents lite to the respondent-wife. The orderbeing a short one, I may read it in ex-tenso : 20&6&72 odqyk, QjhQsu gkftj gS A cgl nj[kkLr ij lquh xbZ AizkFkhZ us viuh bUde 100A&:- ekfld crkbZ gSog vdsyk gS tcfd ukWu &fiVh;'kuj dks vius vykok nks ekbuj cPpksa dks HkhLiksVZ djuk iMrk gS ukWu&fiVh;'kuj dh bUde 175A&ekfld; crkbZ tkrh gS ,SlhifjfLFkfr esa ukWu&fiVh;'k;j dks fiVh'kuj ls 25A&ekfld; crkSj esufVuWUlisUMsUVhykbV fnyk;k tkuk mfpr gS A vr,o vkKk gS fd izkFkhZ ukWu&fiVh;'kuj dks25A&ekfld; vkt ls ml nj[kkLr ds QSlys rd nsr jgs A ,DlisUl vkWQ izksflfMaXtds fy, tc Hkh ukWu fiVh'kuj dh vko';drk gks nj[kkLr is'k djs mlds fy, vyx lsgqDe fn;k tk;xk A fely rk- 30&10&72 dks okLrs tokc is'k gks A lgh] Hkkuq dqekj tSu] fMLVhDV tWt] izrkix...
LaxminaraIn Misra Vs. Kailash NaraIn Gupta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj55; 1973()WLN786
ORDERKan Singh, J.1. Shri Laxmi Narain Mishra, who is opposing certain proceedings instituted against him under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) before the District Judge. Alwar, constituting the Claims Tribunal under the Act, moves this Court for transferring the proceedings to another Claims Tribunal and invokes the powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The transfer was sought principally on two grounds' one on account of his having an apprehension against Shri Sohan Raj Kothari, the District Judge, on the basis of certain orders passed by him from time to time that the petitioner would mot get justice from, Shri Kothari. The other one was of hardship caused to the petitioner as no advocate at Alwar was accepting any brief for him as Shri Kailash Narain Gupta, the the applicant before the Claims Tribunal as also his father were advocates practising at Alwar.3. The first ground is no longer available...
Brij Mohan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1973
Reported in: [1976]103ITR34(Raj); 1973()WLN792
Joshi, J.1. The above four writ petitions have come before us in connection with disposal of two applications in each case, one moved by the petitioner under order 6, Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the writ petition and another on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax, hereinafter referred to as the C.I.T., under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, for dismissing all the four writ petitions as having become infructuous.2. Excepting that the articles recovered from each of the petitioners are different, the facts leading to all the four writ petitions and prayers made therein are substantially similar. In each of the petitions it has been prayed that search and seizure of the goods undertaken by the officers of income-tax department were not under any warrant of authorisation under Rule 112 of the Income-tax Rules and, therefore, the entire seizure of the goods from the petitioner was without the authority of law. It was further prayed that a declaration...
Milkiyat Singh Vs. Kakasingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN821
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiff Milkiyatsingh in a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale of agricultural land or, in the alternative, for damages for breach of contract. On 9-3-67 the defendant-respondent No. 1 Kakasingh son of Narainsingh entered into an agreement with plaintiff-appellant Mililkiyat Singh and the plaintiff-respondent Jag Roop Singh by which the former agreed to sell to the latter 12 bighas of land in Chak No. 37 GG, Tehsil Padampur for a sum of Rs. 13000/- and the vendees paid a sum of Rs. 4000/- by way of earnest money on the same date. The sale was to be completed on Lohri Smt. 2024 when the balance of the purchase money was to be paid by the vendees. It was stipulated between the parties that if the defendant vendor failed to complete the sale, he would be liable to refund the earnest money and in addition to it, pay a sum of Rs. 4000/- as damages for breach of contract, and it was further provided that if the vendees failed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›