Rajasthan Court February 1980 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.
Ghisu Lal Vs. Hazi Mohammed and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN96
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is a civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sirohi, dated 19-4-1969 by which the decree and judgment of the Munsif Bali dated 12-10-1968 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 760/- with costs and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rs. 6/- percent per annum was confirmed.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this second appeal may be briefly described as follows: H Mohd. plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit against the partners of Mahendra Boot House, namely, Sonaram, Bagaram & Gisulal in the court of Munsif Bali for recovery of a sum of Rs. 760/-. The averments in the plaint were that the defendants were partners in a firm under the name and style Mahendra Boot House situated at Bali. The firm used to deal in leather, shoes and hardware. On 23-1-1964 Somaram partner of the firm secured a loan of Rs. 658/- from the plaintiff for business of the firm i. e. payment of the price...
Padmaram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)34
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. Appellant Padmaram has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated March 18, 1975 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur convicting him under Sections 325 and 323 IPG respectively.2. Briefly stated the facts according to the prosecution were these. On 20-10- 1967 at about 8 a.m. Kishanpuri was going to his field through the field of Padmaram. Appellant Padmaram and the other co-accused were threshing their 'bajra' crop rear the 'pagdandi' on which Kishanpuri was proceeding to his field All the accused persons seven in number armed with lathis, all of a sudden encircled Kishanpuri and give him a severe beting. Padmaram inflected a la(sic)hi blow on the left leg of Kishanpuri resulting in a fracture. The lady accused were having 'dantalis' in their hards. Kishanpuri raised an alarm which attracted Bania, Anchi and Sunder at the scene of the incident. They were also given a beating Padmaram also caused some injuries to the eyes of Kishanpuri. Aft...
Kamji and ors. Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)90
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These three writ petitions, under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution, raise common questions for determination and are, therefore, disposed of by a common order.2. It will be convenient lo notice the facts leading to the filing of S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 469/19/9.3. Ten petitioners have filed this joint writ petition. The State of Rajasthan, Chairman, Rajasthan Gramdan Board, the Collector, Banswara and the Chairman Gramsabha, Padola, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara have been impleaded as respondents No. 1,2 3 and 4 respectvely The petitioners have tought that the declaration (Annexure-1), the order Annexure-2) of conformation of the Chairman of the Rajasthan Gramdan Board and the declaration (Annexure B) of the Collector, Banswira may be quashed. The case of the petitioners is that the objection was filed before the Chairman of the Rajasthan Gramdan Board. Rajasthan relating to village Padola under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Gramdan Act (Act No XII of...
Sukhdeo Singh and ors. Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN212
Lodha, C.J.1. These three appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a single order as the only question involved in all the three appeals is the same namely, whether the right of preemption accrues on the sale of Khatedari rights in agricultural land under the provisions of the Rajasthan Preemption Act, 1966 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act of 1966') The suits instituted by the preemptors in all the three case were dismissed by the trial court. When First Appeal No. 104 of 1970 came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, he noticed that there were two Single Bench decisions of this court taking conflicting views in the matter. In Prabhu Dayal v. Mahadeo Math 1972 WLN 455, It was held by Gattani J., as he then was, that a suit for preemption In respect of sale of Khatedari rights is maintainable. However, in civil revision petition No. 53 of 1959 Kishan Gopal v. Shivjiram and Ors., decided on January 20, 1969, Jagat Narayan J. as he then was dismissed summarily the a...
Kailash Industrial Mills Vs. Shanti Swarup and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj61; 1980()WLN45
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the order dated 16-10-1979 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, whereby the defendant's defence against his eviction was struck out under Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts leading to the present appeal, may briefly be stated as follows:The plaintiff-respondents instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, in the court of Additional District Judge, No. 1, Hanumangarh. On 23-4-1979 the Court determined the arrears of rent and interest thereon under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. A sum of Rs. 9,000/- as rent and Rs. 832.50 p. as interest thereon, total Rs. 9,832.50 p was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff Shanti Swarup. The rent paid was up to 31-3-1979. The defendant was further directed to make payment of monthly rent of Rs. 250/- by the fifteenth of every succeeding mon...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Hans Raj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC19(Raj); 1980()WLN61
P.D. Kudal, J.1. These 11 reference petitions involving a common question of law are being disposed of by this single order.2. The brief facts giving rise to these reference petitions are that the non-petitioner-assessees in all these cases carried on the business of old motor parts in Jaipur. The assessing authorities found that these assessees were dealing in old automobile parts and accessories which were items of casual trade as defined in Section 2(ccc) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act read with Notification No. F. 5 (51) E & T/62 dated 24th July, 1962. The assessing authorities held that the assessees were liable to pay sales tax on the sale of these old automobile parts and accessories by virtue of Section 3(3)(ii) of the Act, and that they were also liable to registration under Section 6 of the said Act.3. Though the orders passed by the assessing authorities were, appealable, yet the assessees directly filed revision petitions before the Board of Revenue. These revision petition...
Gandharb SaIn Vs. Additional District Development Officer, Sriganganag ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Raj229; 1980()WLN226
Lodha, J.1. By order dated September 7, 1979, learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following question :--'Whether after coming into force of Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, disqualification under Section 17(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (No. XXI of 1953) is not automatic and the seat of a particular Panch becomes vacant when a declaration is made under Rule 12 (4) of the aforesaid Rules'? On the above reference having been made, the Hon'ble Chief Justice by order dated 19th October, 1979, has directed that it should be considered and decided by this Bench.2. The facts leading to this reference have been given in detail in the order of reference and, therefore, need not be repeated. It would be sufficient to mention that Gandharb Sain, a Panch of village Panchayat 16BB district Ganganagar, has filed the writ application for getting the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat D/- 28-7-78, 14-8-78. 28-8-78 and the order of Addl. D...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Rajasthan Chemical Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC399(Raj); 1980()WLN342
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. These are two connected applications under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The parties are the same, so also the points arising therein. Only the assessment periods are different. The period in case No. 42 of 1979 is from 27th October, 1973, to 13th November, 1974, and in case No. 43 of 1979 from 8th November, 1972, to 26th October, 1973.2. The assessee deals in 'neel' (ultramarine blue) and chemicals. The assessee-firm is a registered dealer under the Act. For the periods in question the assessing authority assessed the sale of 'neel' by the assessee to sales tax at the rate of 12 per cent by holding that it is a kind of pigment under item No. 18 of the notification dated 9th March, 1970. Aggrieved by the assessing authority's order, the assessee filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, contending that 'neel' was not a pigment and, consequently, the sale thereof was not taxable at th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thakur Sajjan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1980
Reported in: [1980]123ITR881(Raj); 1980()WLN224
C.M. Lodha, C.J. 1. This is an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'), requiring the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following two questions of law for the decision of this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the right to receive interest had accrued to the assessee earlier than the year of account ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,410 being the interest for delayed payment of jagirdar's compensation amount? ' 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the reference are these : The assessee is an erstwhile jagirdar of Jagir Village, Raipur, in the former State of Jodhpur. His jagir was resumed on November 24, 1955, under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, and the compensation was d...
Mehta Motilal and Co. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN361
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in which the petitioner has sought issuance of writ of mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the letter/order (Anx. 4), Annexure 4, amongst others, contains wireless message from the Relief Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur to all the Collectors, which is as under:In View Of Acute Fodder Scarcity In The State It Has Been Decided That Movement Of Fodder Including Corma And Gawar Churi May Not Be Allowed From Rajasthan To (Areas) Outside The State ( ) Please Ensure Compliance And Apprise Revenue Officers, Commercial Taxes Check Posts All Gram Panchayats With These Instructions(.)2. The petitioner is a licencee and deals in food grains at Jodhpur. The Rajasthan Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stock & Prohibition of Export) Order, 1979 (for short'the Order) was promulgated vide notification No. COM/ Fodder/Rajasthan, P.s (1) RC/Fodder/79-80/2722 dated October...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »