Rajasthan Court April 1973 Judgments
Municipal Board, Bharatpur Vs. Ramji Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj343; 1973()WLN416
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this second appeal by the defendant-Municipal Board, Bharatpur are these :2. The plaintiff-respondent Ramjilal is a resident of Bharatpur. He filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for refund of Rs. 1,136.69 paise against 'the appellant on the ground that the said amount had been illegally recovered as 'Gaushala Tax' from him, on ac-count of import of 'Bidies'. and cigarettes into Bharatpur where he is carry-ing on his business. The tax pertains to the period from 17-4-1966 to 1-10-1966. The Municipal Board. Bharatpur resisted the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the impugned levy was valid under the Bharatpur Municipal Act of 1925 (which will hereinafter be called 'The Bharatpur Act' read with Rajasthan Municipal Validating Act, 1956 (Act No. 37 of 1956)) (which will hereinafter be called the Validating Act of 1956), and the Rajas-than Municipal Taxes (Validating) Act. 1961 (Act No. 8 of 1961) (which will hereinafter be referred to...
Tag this Judgment!Kusum Chand and anr. Vs. Kanhaiyalal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj73; 1973()WLN408
B.P. Beri C.J.1. This is a defendants' special appeal directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated July 25. 1967, whore-by he accepted the plaintiffs' case and granted a decree.2. The brief facts which deserve to be recalled for the disposal of this appeal are that Gulab Chand carried on business in the name and style of Gulab chand Malpani at Mumbadevi. Bombay, which locality is reputed as a business centre for jewellery. Gulab Chand was a tenant of two rooms owned by Amba Laxmi Narain Gundeli on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/- apart from Municipal tax of Rs. 65/- for every half year. In St. year 2001. Gulab Chand says, he sublet these rooms to the defendants' firm carrying on business in the name of Chhaganlal Kantilal. It was agreed that besides the payment of rent to the landlord Chhaganlal would pay a sum of. Rs 700/- perannum to the plaintiff on account of goodwill. Up to the St. year 2004 and a part of St. year 2005 Chhagan Lal kept his promise and paid...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpatia Vs. Smt. Chhoti and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj77; 1973()WLN413
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant-mortgagee's second appeal arising out of a suit for redemption of mortgage in respect of a house described in para No. 1 of the plaint and situated in the town of Dholpur.2. The facts not now in dispute are that the house in question was jointly owned by the plaintiff-respondent Smt. Chhoti and respondent-defendant No. 2 Smt Devalia, whose husbands Loka and Chhitariya respectively were brothers. After their husbands had died Smt. Chhoti and Smt. Devalia, mortgaged the house for a sum of Rs. 1000/-in favour of the appellant-defendant No. 1 Ganpatia by a registered deed dated 5-6-1962. The mortgagee rented out the mortgaged house to the mortgagors and the rent agreed was' equal to the interest on the mortgage money. It further appears that Smt. Devalia sold her undivided half share in the property to the mortgagee Ganpatia. On 23-3-1963 plaintiff Smt. Chhoti filed suit for redemption of the whole house against Ganpatia and impleaded Smt. Devalia also ...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan Vs. Noor Mohd and Co. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR705(Raj); 1973()WLN669
B. P. BERI C J. - These six applications under section 256(2) of the income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), have been presented by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, against the consolidated order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, dated 24th February, 1972, praying that the Tribunal be directed to refer to this court some questions of law which arise in these cases. An identical question, which is framed in D. B. Income-tax References Nos. 142/72, 143/72 and 144/72, reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not guilty of fraud or gross or willful neglect within the meaning of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act?'The question which has been raised in D. B. Income-tax Cases Nos. 145 and 146 of 1972 reads :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that non-mainte...
Tag this Judgment!MartIn and Harris Private Ltd. Vs. Premchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN352
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's revision application and arises out of an order of the Munsif, Jaipur West dated 29.8.72 striking out the defence of the defendant in a suit for eviction from certain premises.2. The suit premises are a portion of a house known as Khinduka Bhawan which comprised of two portions on the ground floor. One portion was taken by the defendant-appellant on a monthly rent of Rs 200/- by a registered lease by deed dated 1.8.63 Subsequently on 1.6.66 the other portion was taken on rent by the defendant at Rs. 180/- per month. This was exclusive of house tax, water and electricity charges. The plaintiff filed a suit for arrears of rent and aviction in respect of the portion taken on tent on 1.8.63 in the court of the learned Munsif if on 26.5.71. Subsequently on 6.7.72 the present suit was filed for the second portion It was averred that the defendant had paid the rent upto 31.7.69 but had thereafter made an application under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Prem...
Tag this Judgment!Kishna Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN303
P.N. Shinghal, J. 1. The petitioner has stated that he was employed by the Director of the Defence Laboratory at Jodhpur as a mechanic-mate on February 1, 1963, in the Defence Laboratory, Central Workshop, Jodhpur. He was promoted as a mechanic on January 27, 1965, and he claims that he was senior to respondents Nos 3, 4 and 5. There were two sections in the Defence Laboratory, namely, the Central Workshop and the Training Aids Cell Centre, and the petitioner has stated that due to amalgamation of these two sections, some staff was retrenched and was declared surplus. This led to the issue of order Ex. 2 dated February 21, 1968 by which the petitioner among others, was given notice that his services would not be needed with effect from the afternoon of April 1, 1968. Individual notices were also issued to the same effect. It was intimated that those who were desirous of alternative appointment should fill | up the prescribed form before February 24, 1968. The petitioner protested again...
Tag this Judgment!Dayashanker and anr. Vs. Khubchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj304; 1973()WLN369
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a house sold in execution of a money decree obtained by the plaintiff-respondent auction purchaser. The decree was obtained on 31-8-1945 and in the course of the execution of the decree the house in question belonging to the judgment-debtor defendant situated in village Vasa, District Sirohi was attached and sold. The final bid of the decree-holder for Rs. 581/- received on 17-7-1958 was accepted by the Executing Court. The sale was confirmed on 30-8-1958 and the sale certificate Ex. 1 was issued on 20-1-1960. On 7-1-1967 the plaintiff filed the present suit for possession of the property sold to him by the sale certificate dated 20-1-1960. The suit was resisted by the defendant-appellants (judgment-debtors) on the ground that it was not maintainable as the auction purchaser had failed to make an application under Order XXI, Rule 95, Civil Procedure Code. It was also pleaded that since no notic...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Dhanna Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1123; 1973()WLN463
L.S. Mehta, J.1. Succinctly put the prosecution story is that Mst. Chhagni, daughter of accused Dhanna Ram's brother Rama Ram. a resident of Kanwla raised an outcry at about 11 a.m. on March 10. 1972. that her uncle Dhanna Ram had killed his daughter Mst. Shanti and that he had been standing near the dead body with a blood stained hatchet in his hand. On hearing her scream and shriek Thana Ram. P.W. 3, Ganga Ram P.W. 5 and Jagga P.W. 6 reached the spot with hurry and rush. They entered Dhanna Ram's house. They first saw Mst. Shanti (aged about 6 years) lying injured and dead in the courtyard of the accused's house and Dhanna Ram standing close at hand clutching a blood-stained axe tenaciously. Ganga Ram caught hold of Dhanna Ram and Jagga snatched away his axe abruptly with, a sudden jerk. On their query the accused told them that he had killed not only his daughter but also his four sons. The witnesses then saw the dead bodies of Phulia (aged 10 years) and Chhoga (12 years of age) in ...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Shri Mahesh Metal Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj33; 1973()WLN420
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff, whose suit for recovery of Rs. 2322.44 paisa on account of short delivery of goods by the Railway was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. Kishengarh. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in the first appeal also and consequently he has filed this second appeal from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Aimer dated 16-3-1966.2. The plaintiff-appellant carries on business of manufacture and sale of brass and copper wares at Madanganj-Kishengarh. It imported 2037 ineots of electrolytic copper from Canada and entrusted them to the defendant No. 2, the Trustees of the Port of Bombay (which expression will hereinafter be referred to as BPT) for transmission and delivery to the plaintiff at Kishengarh. At the time of delivery the consignment was found to be short by 26 ingots, that is only 2011 pieces were delivered. It was alleged that the short delivery was due to misconduct or negligence on the part of either the Western Railw...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoop Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN298
L.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a reference submitted by Mr. T.R. Sharma, Sessions judge, Bharatpur, recommending that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bharatpur, passed on October 27, 1971, whereby he commenced proceedings under Section 107/117, Cr.P.C., against party No. 2 Bhoop Singh and others, residents of Dayawali, police station, Nadbai, be quashed and set aside.2. It appears that on the aforesaid date Circle Inspector (Halka Girdawar) had submitted a report that Bhoop Singh and others had wrongfully brought under the plough pasture and 'Ghair Mumkin' passage land (Khasra No. 782), situate in village Dayawali and that they were likely to commit breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, On receipt of the above report the Sub-divisional Magistrate ordered the registration of the case under Section 107/117, Cr. PC, and directed that warrants of arrest should be issued against Bhoop Singh and others for compelling their attendance before the Court. Aggrieved by tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »