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.
Chimandas and ors. Vs. Ehanwarlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)556
M.L. Joshi, J.1. This is a Civil Revision directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Ajmer, dated 11th of March, 1976 by which she dismissed the appeal of the respondent and affirmed the judgment of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer, in Civil Miscellaneous' Application No. 1 of 1976.2. The facts out of which this revision arises may be stated in brief as follows : The respondent Bhanwarlal filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in respect of a house against one Natharmal in the Court of Munsif, Ajmer City West amongst others on the ground of default in payment of rent. The tenant Natharmal contested the suit and denied that he had committed any default so as to warrant a decree of ejectment against him. He also contested the other grounds of ejectment. The learned Additional Civil Judge in whose court the case came to be transferred, decreed the suit holding, that-'Natharmal tenant had committed default in payment of, rent. Being aggrieved by the decre...
Moolchand and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)592
V.P. Tyagi, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal of Moolchand and Manohar is directed against the order of conviction recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on 23-12-1970, whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 325 IPC and each one of them is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 100/-, or in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.2. The incident out of which these criminal proceedings started had taken place in the year 1966, Two cross criminal cases were tried in the court of the learned Sessions Judge. Jaipur District, Jaipur. In the case in which the appellants were the accused, conviction was recorded, while in the other case, the accused persons facing the trial there in were acquitted However, it has been brought to our notice by learned Counsel for the appellants that before the cases were decided by the trial court, the parties had entered into a compromise, but ...
Sri Ram Vs. Ram Swaroop and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)436
D.P. Gupta, J.1. In this revision application notice was issued to the opposite parties and Mr. Goyal appears on behalf of the defendant-opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2.2. I have heard both the learned counsel.3. The trial Court had framed issue No. 1 as to whether the 'gall' lying towards the east of the plaintiff's house and the vacant plot of land lying towards the west of the plaintiff's house belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC praying that issue No. 1 was unnecessary and should be deleted. The trial Court by/its order dated November 10. 1975, however, disused the application of the plaintiff The present revision application has been directed egaipst that part of the order of the trial Court dated November 10, 1975 by which the application of the plaintiff dated February 11, 1974 has been rejected and issue No. 1 has been maintained. Certified copies of the plaint and the written statement have been placed on record by the earn...
Umakant and Co. Vs. the C.i.T.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN636
V.P. Tyagi, Actg. C.J.1. In both these petitions for reference, common questions of law arise and, therefore, we propose to dispose them of by one common order.2. The aseessee in these two cases is a private limited company carrying on its business at Alwar. The years of assessmeat for which the questions have been raised are 1981-62 and 1982-63. D.B. Income-tax Case No. 142 of 1671 relates to the assessment year 1961-62 while D.B. Income-tax Case No. 150 of 1971 relates to the assessment year 1962-63. The assessee-company had its commercial dealings with M/s Makhan Lal and Company Ltd., Penang, which was carrying on its business in the State of Singapore, The asseasee company exported at the order received from the Non-Resident Company of M/s Makhan Lal and Company Ltd., gunnies, jute twine, shellac, mustard oil and other similar commodities. At the end of the financial year i.e. the year ending Deewali 8-11-61, the assessee-company credited to the account of the Non Resident Company ...
Khetri Tamba Shramik Sangh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN708
D.P. Gupta, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge a notification dated March 27, 1976 issued by the Hindustan Copper Ltd. relating to payment of Dearness Allowance. Although the Union of India has been added as a party to the writ petition, but no relief has been claimed against the same and the only relief claimed in the writ petition pertains to the respondents Nos. 2 a ad 3, namely the Hindusthan Copper and its Chief Personnel Manager.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Bhargava on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 & 3 that the Hindusthan Copper is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and that no writ of mandamus could be issued to the aforesaid Company or Its officers in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the said Company does not perform any public of statutory duty. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, contested this submission and argued that the Hindustan Copper, although incorporated as a C...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)438
A.P. Sen, J.1. These three reference applications filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle-I, Jaipur for requiring the Board of Revenue to state a case, raise common question and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The following facts are taken from the order of the Board of Revenue : M/s Assam Roller Flour Mills, Jaipur, which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the assessee', is a registered dealer for purposes of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1951 and is engaged in milling wheat into flour, maida and suji Toe assessee was required to supply flour, maida and suji and bran under the orders of the D strict Supply Officer, Jaipur, purported to have been issued under the provisions of the Rajasthan Food Grains Licensing Order, 1964 to the permit holders in, whose favour permit was granted by the District Supply Officer. The assessee could not supply its milled products to any-body who did not hold a permit from the District Supply Officer, Jaipur and it w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›