Rajasthan Court August 1979 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.
Madanlal Purohit Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)288
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by Nandlal praying that writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued, quashing the list (Anx. P/1) and the office order (Anx. P/2).2. The petitioner is employed as LC, CID. Zone Jodhpur and has completed 8 years of service on this post. The Deputy Inspector General of Police CID (Intelligence) Rajasthan vide circular dated September 14, 1978 invited applications for the posts of Head Constables. It was stated by the petitioner that being eligible for the promotion for the post of Held Constable, he applied for the same on September 14, 1978 through proper channel. After scrutiny of various applications, which were received, the petitioner was asked to undertake the written examination to be held for the purpose on December 4, 1978, According; to the petitioner, department has to fill 16 vacancies by promotion and recruitment written examination took place for filling the aforesaid 16 posts on Decemb...
The State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Maharaja Rao Bhim Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj27
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J. 1. The State of Rajasthan us well as the Superintending Engineer, R. P. S. Jawahar Sagar Dams, Chambal Project, Rawatbhata have filed this revision application under Section 115 C. P. C. and Section 18(3) of the Land Aquisition Act, against the order dated 22-7-76 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Chambal Project Kota in case No. 20493/1973 refusing to make a reference against award dated 25-10-75 in that case.2. After integration of the States in Rajasthan, some important irrigation schemes were taken up and dams were constructed for providing irrigation to the vast areas of uncultivated land. In the Kota area taking benefit of the Chambal river a barrage was constructed at Kota which was known as 'Kota barrage'. It is common ground between the parties that this barrage was inaugurated in the year 1959-60 by the then Prime Minister Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru.3. The dispute between the parties relates to the acquisition of the land of the then ruler of Kota, Mahara...
Jagan Singh Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj1
Lodha, C.J. 1. This reference wasmade by one of us for decision of the question whether the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Jai Ramdas v. Regional Transport Authority AIR 1957 Raj 312 is correct in the light of subsequent decisions on the point by a number of other High Courts. It was held in Jai Ramdas's case (supra) that on the interpretation of Section 64(1) (b) read with Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'), the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority varying a condition of the permit, such condition being as respects the route, was appealable to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by the rival permit-holder who was aggrieved by such variation. However, it appears that a contrary view was taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, AIR 1961 Madh Pra 81, Patna HighCourt AIR 1961 Pat 313, Kerala High Court AIR 1960 Ker 18, Andhra Pradesh High Court AIR 1965 Andh Pra 115 and Allahabad High Court AIR 1967 ...
Chandanmal Vs. Rawatmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj139; 1979()WLN530
Cases Referred: Roop Kishore v. Jug Raj, ILR (1953) 3 Raj 988; Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Balaswaraswami Varu v. Mallidi Dorayya, AIR 1972 Andh Pra 250; Kesho Ram v. Board of Revenue, U. P., Allahabad, AIR 1972 all 360; K. Veerabasappa v. Court of District Judge at Chitradurga, AIR 1970 Kant 40; Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Bhopal, AIR 1961 SC 182; Sarju Pershad Ramdeo Sahu v. Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh, AIR, 1951 SC 120; Keshulal v. Ram Dayal, 1960 Raj LW 595; Sumermal v. Hukma, 1964 Raj LW 7; State v. Bhola Singh, AIR 1969 Raj 219Disposition: Appeal accepted...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR929(Raj); 1979()WLN777
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as ' the Act '), the CIT, Jaipur, has prayed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ' B ', may be directed to state a case and submit the following question of law set out in the application :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in reopening and adjudicating on an issue under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which had become final through its earlier orders '2. The Tribunal refused to state the case by its order dated October 25, 1976 (Ex. 4), on the ground that no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.3. We may now turn to the relevant facts of the case out of which this application arises. The assessee (respondent M/s. Jaipur Udyog Ltd., Sawai Madhopur), a limited company, manufactures cement and has its plant and machinery at Sawai Madhopur. In the assessment year 1954-55, the ass...
Chandan Mal Vs. Rawat Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN530
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal the against the judgment & preliminary decree passed by the District Judge, Balotra, Shri B.C. Qjha on 30-9-67 modifying the preliminary decree passed by Shri R.L. Gupta, Civil Judge, Balotra on 30-1-67 in Civil Suit No. 146/1956 for the sale of the mortgage property. The Civil, Judge passed the preliminary decree for Rs. 400/- as principal amount and Rs. 262/- on account of interest, in all for Rs. 661/-, whereas the learned District Judge disbelieving the plea of payment of Rs. 2,100/- towards principal and Rs. 330/- towards interest, decreed the plaintiff's suit in to to for a sum of Rs. 2,500,/- as principal amount & Rs. 800/- as interest total Rs. 3300/-.2. The case has a chequered career or history. In order to appreciate the poinst of controversy arising in this appeal, it would be necessary to state a few facts in chronological order.3. The plaintiff Rawatmal instituted a suit for sale of the mortgage property in the Court of Civil J...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Sita Ram Satishchandra and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN771
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act) fey the Commercial Taxes Officer. Circle E. Jaipur, for directing the Board of Revenue to state a case and refer the question of law arising out of its order dated March 30, 1976, passed in Revision Case No. 112/75.2. The non applicant M/s Sita Ram Satish Chandra & Co. made an application on April 16, 1973, under Section 12A of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for determining the disputed question whether sale of cable-drums amounts to sale of 'packing material' and falls within any one of the items mentioned under serial No. 1 in the Notification No F. (21) FD (CT) 713 dated March 27, 1971, so that the rate of tax mentioned therein viz. 3% may be charged from this non-applicant on the sale of cable drums. The Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes by his order dated December 5, 1974, held that cable-dr...
Darshan Singh Vs. Mst. Daso
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj102; 1979()WLN412
M.C. Jain, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 17-10-1978 passed by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the appellant's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was dismissed and the petitioner-appellant was ordered to pay maintenance to the non-petitioner-respondent for herself and her daughter to the tune of Rs. 300/- per month. 2. The appellant's case was that the parties were married about seven years ago according to Hindu rites. They lived as husband and wife at Chak 3 M.D., Tehsil Anupgarh, and a daughter was born out of the wedlock. About three years ago, the non-petitioner left the company of the petitioner without any reasonable excuse and went to her parents. Despite several efforts, she did not return to her matrimonial home. The non-petitioner admitted the other facts as averred by the petitioner. She, however, denied the allegations made against her with regard to leaving the company of the pet...
Hari Ram Vs. Ratanlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj82
ORDERP.D. Kudal, J.1. Arguments were heard on the application dated 27-7-1979, filed on behalf of the respondent Ratanlal.2. The contention of the respondent is that he had filed caveat on 23-7-1979. The writ petition was filed on 25-7-1979, and listed for admission on 26-7-1979 and was as shown in the cause-list. The names of Sarvashri D.C. Sharma and N.K. Jain, Advocates for the respondent No. 1 'were not shown in the cause-list. The writ petition was heard and admitted for hearing. On hearing the stay petition, the operation of the impugned order Ex. 22 was stayed for a period of two weeks.3. Shri Calla appearing on behalf ofthe petitioner states that, though,caveat had been filed on behalf of therespondent No. 1, yet if the writ petition has been heard and admitted forhearing there is no reason why theorder of admission dated 26-7-1979should be recalled. He further contendsthat the stay order issued on 26-7-1979also should not be recalled for the samereasons. He has further contend...
Hukam Singh and anr. Vs. Shankar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN495
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, CPC by the plaintiffs' against the order of the Additional District Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur, dated September 10, 1973, by which, fee reversed the order of the Additional Munsif. No. 1, Jodhpur, dated January 22, 1973.2. A suit was instituted by Ramlal, Hukamsingh and Prithvisingh against Shankar for arrears of rent and ejectment in the court of Munsif City, Jodhpur on October 24, 1968. Ramlal and Hukamsingh have died and their legal representatives were brought on record. It was averred that certain apartments mentioned in para 2 of the plaint forming a portion of building situate at Station Road. Jodhpur, described in para 1 of the plaint were taken situate defendant. The rate of rent as stated was Rs. 65/- p.m. exclusive Rs. 40/- p.m. as charges for electricity and water. In para 5 of the plaint, it is alleged that the plaintiffs field a suit for ejectment in respect of premises in dispute against the defendant-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›