Rajasthan Court August 1973 Judgments
Pakharsingh Vs. Kishansingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj112; 1973()WLN630
S.N. Modi, J. 1. This first appeal bythe defendant Pakharsingh is directedagainst the judgment pf the AdditionalDistrict Judge, Sri Ganganagar, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for specific Performance of the contract. The defendant-appellant Pakharsingh was the owner of the agricultural land measuring 91/2 bighas situate in village Chak No. 1-KK fully described in para, No. 1 of the plaint. By agreement dated 9-4-1966 Pakharsingh agreed to sell the said land to the plaintiff for Rs. 13,300/-On the same day, the defendant received from the plaintiff Rs. 8,000/- as earnest money. The salient terms of the agreement are as follows:-- 1. That the sale will be completed and registered on or before 25-11-1966. 2. That a further sum of Rs. 1,000/-will be paid to the defendant on 25-6-1966. 3. That the registration charges shall be borne by the vendee, 4. that the remaining sale-price will be paid at the time of the registration of the sale-deed and 5. that in case of the defendant's failure...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwarlal and anr. Vs. Balabux Tamra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj158; 1973()WLN677
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants Rameshwarlal and Gopikishan in a suit for damages.2. On 16-3-1962 the defendants had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff Balabux by which the former agreed to sell to the latter plots Nos. 1 to 12 measuring 3158 sq. yds. and a bungalow situated in Aimer. The bungalow was agreed to be sold for Rs. 13,000 and the plots at the rate of Rs. 11.75 per sq. yd. The plaintiff paid Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money. The agreement was executed by the defendants on their own behalf and on behalf of their brother's widow Mst. Ajodhia Bai, who was at Indore. The sale was to be completed within one month when the remaining purchase money was to be paid by the vendee. It was agreed between the parties that if the vendors failed to complete the sale they would be liable to refund the earnest money and further pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as damages forthe breach of contract. It was also agreed that in case the vendee failed to complete the sale,...
Tag this Judgment!Dalpat Rai Vs. Manohar Lal and Sons and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj61; 1973()WLN770
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a revision application by one of the defendants against the judgment and decree by the Additional Civil Judge. Jodhpur dated 21-10-1970 whereby the learned Judge upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court awarding Rs. 540/- to the plaintiff on account of hire charges of a sewing machine. The relevant facts are these:The plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 M/s Manoharlal & Sons entered into an agreement described as one of Hire-purchase, with Prakash Chand non-petitioner No 2 as principal party and the petitioner Dalpat Raj and the non-petitioner No. 3 Kushal Raj as guarantors, according to which the plaintiff agreed to let to Prakash Chand (who will hereinafter be described as the hirer) a sewing machine valued at Rs. 225/-. The hirer agreed to pay the plaintiff (who has been described as owner in the agreement) Rs. 15/- every month in advance as rent. The agreement is dated 7-10-1960. The guarantors gave guarantee for the due performance and observance ...
Tag this Judgment!Asharam and anr. Vs. Bhanwarlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj188
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs Asharam and Kishanlal in a suit for redemption. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit.2. The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass and they are stated as follows: The property in suit was owned by plaintiff No. 1 Asharam. In Smt. year 2003 he borrowed a sum of Rs. 300/- from the defendant-respondent and executed a usufructuary mortgage of the suit property in security thereof. Subsequently, by a deed dated 9-5-1949 the suit property was sold by Asharam to plaintiff No. 2 Kishanlal. On 24-8-1964 the plaintiff-appellants brought a suit for redemption of the mortgage alleging that the defendant had declined to redeem the mortgage. The defendant-respondent resisted the suit and alleged that subsequent to the mortgage, by agreement dated 18-6-1948 (Jeth Sudi 12, Smt. year 2004), plaintiff No. 1 Asharam agreed to sell the said propetty to him for Rs. 850/- and after adjusting the mortgage amount of Rs. 300/-, he (defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. Rameshwaram Bhadada Vs. the University of Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN613
J.P. Jain, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a professor and head of the department of Mining in the Faculty of Engineering, University of Jodhpur. He has come to this Court for the issue of a writ of quo-warranto, challenging the appointment of the third respondent Prof. S.C. Goyal as Dean of the Faculty of Engineering being contrary to Statute 14 of the Statutes of the University. He has also asked for a mandamus that this Court should direct the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint him as a Dean, Faculty of Engineering in place of Prof. S.C. Goyal. 2. The University of Jodhpur was created on 12-6-1962 by the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 (Act No. 17 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The University started with as many as seven Faculties including the Faculty of Engineering. The Departments of studies assigned to the Faculty of Engineering consist of (i) Civil, (ii) Structural, (iii) Mechanical, (iv) Electrical, (v) Mining, and (vi) Metallurgy. Each Faculty has to be h...
Tag this Judgment!Roop NaraIn Vs. Premchand T. Nathani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj29; 1973()WLN537
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a revision application by the plaintiff (in Civil Original Suit No. 136 of 1969 pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur) from the order dated 2-3-1971 by which the learned Judge disallowed the plaintiff's prayer to amend the plaint so as to plead in the alternative that the defendant No. 3 was acting as an agent of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. M/s Prem Chand T. Nathani and Premchand respectively.2. The suit was originally filed against all the three defendants on the ground that the defendants Nos. 2, and 3 were partners and were dealing in sanitary-ware and pipe fittings in the name and style M/s Premchand T. Nathani. The defendants denied partnership between the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and thereupon the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint.3. The learned Additional Civil Judge has held that, the entire case would be changed by allowing the Proposed amendment.4. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the non...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mukanddas Vishnukumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1973
Reported in: [1976]102ITR613(Raj)
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', by its order dated March 21, 1969, has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question for answer, namely:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no penalty could be imposed under Section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for default under Section 18A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 '2. The circumstances, which it is necessary to notice for the disposal of this reference, briefly stated are these: Gokuldas Pradeepkumar and Mukanddas Vishnukumar, the two Hindu undivided families, came into existence as a result of partial partition of the bigger Hindu undivided family of Seth Thakurdas Khivraj. The business of Seth Thakurdas Khivraj was taken over by a partnership firm of M/s. Thakurdas Khivraj. The first assessment in the hands of the two undivided Hindu families after partial partition was to be made for the assessment yea...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Vs. Municipal Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN699
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated February 21, 1966, whereby he dismissed the petition of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. In the town of Sardanahar two roads each 18' wide intersect at a particular point which is called a Chopad'. One of the residents of the town Shri Shivpratap Tantia, since deceased, approached the Municipal Board to construct a clock tower at the 'Chopad'. The proposed construction in luded four pillars 20' high & 18'' x 18' square on the tour corners of the 'Chopad', The pillars were proposed to be constructed on the north western unpaved foot path measuring 96' wide and on the north-east foot path measuring 8' wide and south-west foot path measuring 9' wide and on the south east foot path measuring 7.4' wide. These pillars were to be later covered by beams and thereon a clock tower of the height of approximately 48' was to be constructed as per design given in Ex. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheodan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ234; 1973()WLN582
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 10-9-1971 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, whereby he convicted accused Sheodan under Section 324, I.P.C. and accused Kishanlal and Amilal under Sections 324/34, I.P.C. Each of the accused was sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo further three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case is that the accused-petitioners, hereinafter to be referred as the accused, were inimical to Roopram, the injured. It is said that on 14-4-1968 at about sunset injured Roopram was returning to his house on camel's back from his field carrying a load of green grass. When the injured . reached near the house of Kaniram Jat, Sheodan accused challenged him and fired a gun shot at him which injured him on the left hand as a result of which he fell down on the ground. The remaining two accused Kishanlal and Amilal were standing in the lane with Sheod...
Tag this Judgment!Daleepsingh (Deceased) Through Sukhdevsingh and ors. Vs. Sukhdev Singh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN577
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a first appeal by the legal representatives of the deceased Daleepsingh against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Ganganagar, dated 5. 6. 70 in a suit for pre emption.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the deceased-pl aintiff Daleepsingh instituted a suit for possession by pre-emption of certain agricultural land situated in CbakNo.9FF, tehsil Karanpur, which had been sold by Gurdayalsingh and Mst. Kartarkaur to Sukhdeosingh and Baldeosingh by a deed dated 20. 1. 67, The pre emption was claimed on the ground that the plaintiff was a co-sharer or a partner in the property transferred while the vendees were strangers Various pleas were raised in defence by vendees, one of which was that the land in dispute being a khatedari land and was sold under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the sale of such land was not pre-emptibie under the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966 (Act No. 1 of 1966), hereinafter call...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »