Rajasthan Court January 1977 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.
Om Prakash and ors. Vs. Tarachand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)42
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This special appeal by Om Prakash and others is directed against the judgment of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice dated October 23, 1975, whereby he upheld the decree for partition passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Churu in Civil Regular Suit No. 111 of 1968 on the ground that Tarachand was validly adopted son of Bhagirath.2. Tersely put shorn of unnecessary details the facts giving rise to this special appeal are that Khetaram had three sons, namely, Bhera Ram, Khuba Ram and Jairam. Jairam died issueless and Khubaram went in adoption to some other family. Bhera Ram had two sons : Bhagirath and Chhaganmal. Bhagirath died issueless. Chhaganmal had three sons : Tarachand Omprakash and Suryaprakash. It is alleged that Tara Chand went in adoption to Bhagirath in Samwat Year 1999, equivalent to year 1943 A.D. Tarachand filed the present suit against Chhaganmal, Omprakash and others for partition of the ancestral property and claimed one half share in that p...
Arjunlal Madanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)32
Rajindar Sachar, J.1. In pursuance of an order of this Court dated 1-11-72 the Sales Tax Tribunal by its order of 1-2-73 has remitted the following point of law for determination, namely whether 'Suwa' is an oil seed and as such taxable at 2% under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. (hereinafter referred to be the Act).2. The petitioner is a dealer and one of the items he deals in is 'Suwa'. Section 5 of the Act provides that the rate of tax payable by shall be levied at such rates as may be notified by the State Government. The assessment period in the present case related to 1-4-64 to 31-3-66. In exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Act the Government of Rajasthan issued a notification No. F. 5(4)F.D. (R&T;)/63-X dated 2-3-63 providing the rate of sales tax payable by a dealer in respect of the goods specifying the rate at with sales-tax is. payable. Item No. 21 mentions oil seeds, the rate being 2%. Another notification was issued No. F.5(155)FD(CT)/65-II, dated 2-11-65 providing the...
Surajmal and anr. Vs. Mangilal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Raj22; 1977()WLN22
Sen, J.1. The questions for the Division Bench are:-- '(1) Whether the ease reported as AIR 1958 Raj 206 and the view taken in 1971 Raj LW 492 require reconsideration regarding the applicability of Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, on account of the legislative changes brought about by Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963? (2) If so, whether in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property based on title as well as on the assertion of prior possession and subsequent dispossession or discontinuance of possession, Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and not Article 142 thereof applied? The subject-matter in litigation is a house situate at Sardarshahr. It belonged to one Ghanshyamdas who died in 1942, leaving behind his widow Mst Narbada and two minor sons Mangilal and Laduram. The suit is For possession based on dispossession. 2. The plaintiffs sued on the allegation of title in themselves and also alleged that they were in possession but were disposses...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thahrayamal Balchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1977
Reported in: [1980]124ITR111(Raj); 1977WLN(UC)10
R.L. Gupta, J. 1. This application by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, has been made under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), praying that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to state the case and refer the following question to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable in this case ?'2. The relevant facts and circumstances in which the present application has been filed may be stated in brief as follows:The assessee carries on the business of sale of curios and presentation articles of brass, ivory and sandalwood. The assessee declared the income of Rs. 38,370 for the assessment year 1967-68. The ITO, 'A' Ward, Jaipur, found that the books of account maintained by the assessee were unreliable inasmuch as the stock register was not maintained by the asse...
Karim Ali Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)8
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This is a second appeal under Section 100, CPC against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur dated January 30, 1975 reversing the, judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, Udaipur dated January 18, 1974.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff Mohan Lal filed a suit for ejectment against Karim Ali in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Udaipur on the ground of requirement of the premises for his personal use and occupation. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on January 18, 1974. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur on January 30, 1975. The plaintiff's suit for ejectment was decreed. It is against this judgment and decree that the defendant appellant has filed the present second appeal before this Court.3. During the pendency of this appeal, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 was amended by the Rajasthan. Prem...
Liladhar and anr. Vs. Shah Nandlal Mitalal Marwadi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)114
S.N. Modi, J.1. This revision petition by the defendants is directed against an order of the Additional District judge, Udaipur, dated January 17, 1975. The facts giving rise to this revision petition ma) briefly be-stated as follows.2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit against the defendants ft r the recovery of Rs. 22.566/07 on the basis of pro-note dated October 30, 1969. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. On the pleadings of the parties, the court framed as many as 9 issues on July 25, 1974 and adjourned the case to September 13, 1974 for examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses. The parties were also directed to file list of witnesses within 15 days. The plaintiff filed list of witnesses within the time but the defendants failed to do so. They filed the list of witnesses on November 7, 1974, i.e. before the plaintiff closed his evidence. The learned Additional District Judge refused to examine the witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses filed by the ...
Ram Swaroop Modi Vs. S.T.A.T. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)6
A.P. Sen, J.1. This is a special appeal directed against an order of D.P. Gupta, J., dated 6-10-1976 rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant for setting aside the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajas-than, Jaipur dated 9-9-1976.2. The learned Single Judge rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, set aside the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur dated 7-7-75, inasmuch as it had improperly revised the scope of permits on the route in question from 2 permits and 3 services to 3 permits and 4 services and the consequential stage carriage permit granted to the appellant on 2-1-1976 in pursuance thereof.3. There was no error of jurisdiction on the part of the State Transport Appellate Authority. Nor did it act in breach of the rules of natural justice. Under Section 64-A, the Appellate Authority ha...
Lal Chand Goyal Vs. Jeet Raj Tatia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)53
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated September 17, 1968 upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Munsiff-Magistrate No. 1. Jodhpur dated May 8, 1968.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Jeet Raj filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant Lal Chand from a garage which constituted the suit property. The contention of the plaintiff was that he required the garage bonafide for himself and his family's personal use and occupation. The suit was decreed by the learned Additional Munsiff on May 8, 1968. The defendant feeling aggrieve d against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Munsiff tilted an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. This appeal was dismissed on September 17, 1968, and the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was upheld. The defendant-appellant feeling aggrieved has come up in second appeal be...
Chuni Lal and ors. Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)122
S.N. Modi, J.1. This petition in revision is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Sirohi, dated July 30, 1974. where by he upheld the under of the Munsiff, Abu Road, rejecting the application for grant of temporally injunrtion.2. It appears that the respondent Municipal Board, Pindwara, deman ded arrears of house-tax from the plaintiffs and other house-tax payers of Pindwara for the last three years, namely, 1967 68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The plaintiffs thereupon, in their representative capacity, on behalf of all the house-tax payers of Pindwara filed the suit that no house-tax was payable by them. They pleaded a number of grounds in support of their non-liability to-pay the house-tax. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs moved an application for granting temporary injunction restraining the defendant from realising the house-tax during the pendency of the suit. The learned Munsiff issued an ex-parte ad interim injunction order against the defendant but later o...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tarachand Subhkaran
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)46
A.P. Sen, J.1. These are six applications under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by which the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajasthan I, Jaipur, has applied for a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state a case and make a reference of certain questions of law said to arise from its order in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 631, 670, 671, 683, 769 and 770/JP all of 1972-73 dated 7-3-1974 to the High Court for its opinion.2. The facts giving rise to these applications for reference, briefly stated, are as follows :. M/s Tarachand Subhkaran, Sri Ganganagar (herein alter referred to as 'the assessee') is a registered firm which was assessed to tax on income derived from its business in sale of gold and silver ornaments: The original assessments for the years, 1962-63 and 1963-64 were completed on 13-9-1963 and 23-7-1966 respectively. It appears that sometime in the month of March 1970, the Income Tax Department came in possession of a duplicate set of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »