Rajasthan Court November 1976 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.
Narayan Lal and ors. Vs. the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhilwara and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj65; 1976(9)WLN649
ORDERD.P. Gupta, J. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions before me. His first contention is that the proceedings regarding the determination of the ceiling area applicable to late Shri Hari Singh, the transferor of the petitioners, could not have been decided under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act after the promulgation of the New Ceiling Act of 1973. This question has been considered in all its aspects and concluded by the decision of a Special Bench of this Court in Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan, Special Appeal No. 8 of 1976 decided on 21-10-1976 = (AIR 1977 Raj 46) (FB) and it has been held therein that pending matters will have to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. This contention of the learned counsel, therefore, deserves to be repelled now in accordance with the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench.3. The second contention raised by the ...
The Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Magniram Hariram Beawar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)554
A.P. Sen, J1. This is an application under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Beawar, requiring the Board of Revenue to refer the following question of law:Whether under the facts and circumstances of the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that there was no implied sale of packing material even though snuff was sold as packed and the value of the container had also been taken into account for fixing the sales price2. M/s. Magniram Hariram, Beawar, hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee', is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of snuff. For the year 1968-69, the assessing authority found that the assessee sold snuff packed in the containers by way of inter-State sale to the extent of Rs. 3,38,871.56 P. The snuff (tobacco) was exempt from sales tax. The account books revealed that the containers in which the snuff was packed were worth Rs. 48,264.93 i.e., 15% of the sale price. The assessing authority held that the ...
Dr. Om Prakash Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN688
Rajindar Sachar, J.1. This is a petition challenging the action of the Rajas thin Public Service Commision respondent 3 in declining to approve the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the action of the State respondent No. 1 in not appointing him by promotion as a Reader under the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1952 (hereinafter to be called 'the 1962 Rules').2. 'Service' is defined in the 1982 Rules by Rule 3(sic) to mean the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch), Recruitment as per Rule 7 to the Service is to be by one of the methods : (a) direct recruitment in accordance with Part IV of these Part IV of these Rules, (b) by promotion of (substantive member of service in accordance with Part V. of these Rules.3. Rule 12 deals with academic and technical qualifications to be possessed by a candidate in case of direct recruitment and lays down that the candidate for direct recruitment to the posts specified in Part A, B, and C of the ...
Nathu Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN681
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. The petitioner Nathu Lal and one Man Mohan were tried before the Assistant Collector and Magistrate, First Class, Ajmer, under Section 64 of the Rajasthan Excise Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The third accused Kanhaiya Lal was also tried along with them under Section 54/66 of the Act, but he was acquitted.2. The gist of the offences charged was that they transported 30 bottles of liquor without any licence or permit. The prosecution case was mainly supported by PW 8 Hari Singh, whose statement was corroborated by ocular and other documentary evidence. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner Nathulal and co-accused Man Mohan under Section 64 of the Act and sentenced each of them to one month's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/. in default of payment of which to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. The third coaccused, namely, Kanhaiy Lal, father of Manmohan and father in-law of the accus...
Anand Wood Industries Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)495
A.P. Sen, J.1. This is an application for reference under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.2. Anand Wood Industries, Jaipur - hereinafter referred to as the aaseseee, is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of wooden planks and 'payas' for cots. During the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, the assessee purchased as firewood logs and branches of felled trees in lots. Out of there, it utilised the logs for manufacture of planks and 'payas' for cots. The planks and 'payas' were sold within the State as well as in the course of inter-state trade and commerce and outside the State. The assessee has paid sales tax on sales in the course of inter-state trade as well as on sales out side the State.3. The assessing authority, however, subjected that part of the purchase of firewood which had been used in the manufacture of planks and 'payas' of cots, though purchased along with other logs which were, in fact, sold as firewood, to purchase tax. The break up of...
Automobile Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dewalal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN783
M.L. Jain, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two appeals namely, D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 14/ 1970 and D.B Civi1 Misc. Appeal No. 105/1969. These appeals arise out of an order made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer on September 12, 1969.2. A bus RJZ 202 was travelling from Bandarwara to Ajmer on May 31, 1966 When it was about six miles and two furlongs from Ajmer, it found the road blocked near Makhupura by a tree fallen on the road While other vehicles were passing on the right side of the road, the driver of this vehicle instead chose to pass his vehicle by the left side of the tree where it la alleged, there was not much space for the vehicle to pass wish the result that the vehicle must dashed against the aids wail which gave way and the vehicle then over-turned and fell down.3. Ore of the consequences of the accident was that one Dharam Chand a passenger sustained fatal injuries & died instantaneously on the spot. His widow, three minor children and his parents fil...
Bhopal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN639
Rajindar Sachar, J.1. Whether a Care Taker Mechanic in the Locust Warning Organsiation of Government of India is a Workman employed in an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Fundamental Rule 56(b) is a question that calls for determination in the present case.2. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 12-2-71 by which he has been retired with effect from 15-2-71 on his attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner's claim in the writ petition is that he is entitled to continue upto 60 years. He invokes Fundamental Rule 56(b) which says that a workman who is governed by these Rules shall be retained in service till the day he attains the age of sixty years. Note under the said sub-clause makes it clear that a workman means a highly skilled, skilled, semi skilled, or unskilled artisan employed on a monthly fate of pay in an industrial or a work charged establishment.3. Respondent No. 1 Union of India does not seriously dispute that the petitioner is workman. There i...
Narainsingh and ors. Vs. the Superintending Irrigation Officer and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1976
Reported in: 1977WLN254
D.P. Gupta, J.1.This writ petition raises a question relating to the interpretation of Section 53 of the Rajasthan Irrigation & Drainage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The facts which give rise to the present writ petition are a few & simple. The petitioners as well as the respondents No. 4 to 30 are agriculturists owning agricultural land situated in Chak 3b in Tehsil Sri Ganganagar and there were irrigating their fields according to turns fixed by common consent. This system is known as 'Panchayati Bari'. However, as disputes arose between the parties, the petitioners submitted an application to the Divisional Irrigation Officer, Gang Canal, North Division, Sri Ganganagar requesting him to resolve the dispute by fixing the turns of all persons in Chak 3b regarding the supply of water from the common water-course. The Divisional Irrigation Officer by his order dated October 17, 1973 directed that Gili Sukhi Khatewar Bari' would govern the distribution of the parties...
Kirorilal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj101; 1976(9)WLN652
Sen, J.1. This appeal filed by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Gangapur dated 15th September, 1965, disallowing his claim against State Governments of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh for recovery of Rs. 1,73,165/- as price of 20,80,000 c. ft. sand alleged to have been supplied to the State Government of Madhya Pradesh.2. Three questions arise for consideration in the appeal, The first is,whether the mining lease dated 20-3-1957, Ex. 6, executed by the Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, for the extraction of sand (Bajri) from Rameshwar Ghat, was a contract in conformity with Article 299(1) of the Constitution and, therefore, a valid and binding contract came into existence; secondly, if the mining lease was not valid or enforceable on the ground of non-compliance of Article 299(1) the Mining Engineer was not a person duly authorised to enter into a contract in the name of the Governor, the pla...
Barkat Singh Vs. Kuldeep Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)466
Rajindar Sachar, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Baran, dated January 31, 1998 whereby he accepted the defendant's appeal and rejected the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on the allegation that the defendant was his subtenant end bad not raid arrears of rent from July 1, 1958 to October 31,1960 and that the plaintiff respondent required the suit premises bonafide for his own need, and praying that a decree for eviction be passed against the defendant. These pleas were countered by the defendant who maintained that the defendant had been put in possession of the shop by the plaintiff with the specific understanding that he will get the tenancy transferred in the defendant's name from the lane lord but that he changed his mind later on & wanted to resume possession. He also pleaded that be had been paying the rent to the landlord and further that a new t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »