Rajasthan Court April 1973 Judgments
Lachhamandas Vs. Deep Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj79; 1973()WLN281
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from a short situated at Dargah Bazar. Aimer and which bears No. A. M. C. VII/421. The shop was rented out by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- per month. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the 'plaintiff required the suit shop for his bona fide personal necessity, as the plaintiff's son Gheesulal was to be settled in business of fancy stores in that shop. The tenancy was determined by a notice dated 7-6-1967.2. The defendant admitted the tenancy. He also admitted the receipt of the notice terminating the tenancy, but he disputed that the plaintiff had any bona fide need for the suit shop. He asserted that the plaintiff was desirous to increase the rent and has consequently filed the suit with this oblique motive.3. The learned Munsif, Aimer, before whom the suit was filed set down only one issue for trial about bona fide reasonable necessity ...
Tag this Judgment!Surajmal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj116; 1973()WLN598
Beri, C.J.1. These 17 appeals are directed against an order of the learned Single Judge who had dismissed the writ petitions wherein the validity of the LandAcquisition Act and the acquisitions made thereunder were challenged.2. Within the Municipal limits of Jaipur there are two villages named Bhojpura and Chak Sudarshanpura. Lands belonging tp the appellants were notified for acquisition by the State of Rajasthan for the planned development of the city of Jaipur t the behest of the Urban Improvement Board (abbreviated as 'U. I. B.') Jaipur. On 29-7-1959 the Chairman of the U. I. B. visited the site accompanied by the Land Acquisition Officer Mr. K. C. Gupta and passed verbal orders that steps be taken for its acquisition. On December 8. 1959 the Secretary. Local Self Government, was requested to issue a notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Acquisition Act'). A notice under Section 4 of the Acquisition Act was issued On May ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshwar Dayal Vs. Dhan Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj345; 1973()WLN278
Kan Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises was sought on the ground of his having builta suitable residence in Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. The issue that was tried was whether the defendant had constructed his own house in Adarsh Nagar and started living in the same and that the house was suitable for his residence. Both the parties produced their evidence. The learned Munsif held that the newly constructed house by the defendant was not suitable. The lower appellate court came to a contrary conclusion. He observed that the newly constructed house consisted of 6 rooms, one garage, kitchen, store room, latrine, bath room and a chowk. He further found that the defendant-tenant had started living in this house from 23-1-67 on which date the house warming ceremony was performed. Ex. 1 was the invitation card for this ceremony and Ex. 2 and Ex. 3 were the photos of the house. Further the marriage of defendant's son Munish was also per...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) and anr. Vs. Official Liquidator, ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1973
Reported in: [1974]44CompCas445(Raj); [1974]95ITR488(Raj); 1973()WLN567
Tyagi, J. 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), New Delhi, and the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Jaipur, have filed this special appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the order of the learned company judge dated 22nd March, 1972., [1974] 94 I.T.R. 11; [1974] 44 Comp. Cas. 144 (Raj.)2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are, in a nutshell, as follows : After Messrs. Golcha Properties (Private) Ltd. (hereinafter called ' the company ') was ordered on 10th May, 1968, to be wound up, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-I, Jaipur (who was then the assessing authority for the said company), sent a letter on 29th August, 1961, to the official liquidator, notifying to the company that Rs. 41 lakhs were payable or likely to be payable as income-tax by the company to the department and, therefore, he was specifically directed to set apart this amount under Section 178 of the Income-tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Sethia Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1973
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ318Raj; 1973()WLN389
ORDERP.N. Shinghal, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the service of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board', by order document No. 1 dated September 17. 1969. It was a probationary appointment. He joined service on September 27, 1969 and was posted as Assistant Engineer after some training. He has stated that he received a letter dated July 28, 1971 from the Chief Engineer in regard to certain complaints against him, and that he sent a reply stating that the complaints were false and frivolous. The period of his two years' probation expired on September 26, 1971. The Chief Engineer, according to the petitioner, asked him certain questions, which were replied by him, and he was placed under suspension by an order dated October 4, 1971 of the Chief Engineer. He made a representation to the Chairman of the Board on May 6, 1972, praying for reinstatement. The Board thereafter passed an order (document No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Umrao Mal Vs. Heera Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj337; 1973()WLN357
Kan Singh, J. 1. This Is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from certain premises known as a 'Nohra' situated in the town of Alwar.2. According to the plaintiff-respondent the suit Nohra including the constructions thereon originally belonged to the State of Rajasthan. The premises were let out to the defendant-appellant for residence for a period of ten years, on a monthly rent of Rs. 14.50.On 15th April, 1964 the suit premises were purchased by the plaintiff. Thereafter he served the tenant with a notice on 6th June. 1966 and terminated the tenancy. The plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment, inter alia, on the ground of bona fide reasonable necessity. He averred that he wanted to construct a so-down and also was desirous of putting up a mill for the manufacture of sugar, oil and 'dal'. It was also averred that the defendant tenant had cut certain trees standing on the premises and thus had damaged the property. The decree of arrears of rent amounting to ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Karna and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1871; 1973()WLN365
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. The respondents Karna, Jora and Navla were tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhinmal, for an offence under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with the Rajasthan Foodgrains (Restrictions on Border Movement) Order, 1959 and each of them was convicted under the said offence and sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 100/-. in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The subject-matter of the offence, namely, wheat, seized from them was also ordered to be confiscated.2. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentences, the accused filed an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore, by his judgment dated 20-9-68 set aside their conviction and sentences and acquitted them. Consequently, the State has filed this appeal from the said order of acquittal.3. After having gone through the relevant record, we are satisfied that it is proved beyond all manner of reasonable doubt that t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rao Raja Kalyansingh.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR690(Raj); 1973()WLN299
B. P. BERI C. J., - At the instance of the Commissioner Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, this court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', to refer the following question under section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for answer by this court, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 62,204 received by the assessee in 1958 was a capital receipt not liable to tax? 'Because the learned counsel for the parties in the course of their addresses often disagreed on the questions of facts we can do no better than relate the facts as agreed upon between the parties before the Tribunal and extract them from the statement of the case.The assessee is an individual, a thikanedar of the State of Sikar, now in the State of Rajasthan. He had the paramount right to levy excise duty within the limits of his thikana. After the formation of the States and their integration w...
Tag this Judgment!Mannalal Vs. Radhey Shyam and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj16; 1973()WLN264
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a typical case where the landlord and the tenant have tried to out-run each other, the former to get possession over the rented premises by means fair or foul, and the latter trying to take an undue advantage of the law in his favour and it appears that ultimately the landlord had the under hand.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation are these; Avni Kumar respondent (defendant No. 21 at one time owned a number of shops in Jaipur, one of which had been rented out to the appellant (defendant No. 1) Mannalal at a monthly rent of Rs. 4/-. This has been described as shop No. 1, in the course of this litigation. Some time in August 1950 AvniKumar was able to persuade Mannalal to vacate shop No. 1 on the assurance that he would give another equally suitable shop to him, which was under construction and meanwhile he may shift to shop No. 18 for which he would riot charge any rent. Mannalal accepted this proposal and vacated shop No. 1 and shifted to shop No. 18 in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›