Rajasthan Court March 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.
Municipal Council Vs. Charandas and 37 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)102
K.D. Sharma, J.1. S.B. Civil Revision No. 59/77 by Municipal council Udaipur against Charandas and Ors. and S B Civil revision No 32/78 by Municipal Council Udaipur against Shri Charandas and others are inter connected with each other and do arise out of one and the same suit filed by Shri Charandas and other 37 persons against the Municipal Council Udaipur and Tej singh for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No 1 from ousting the plaintiffs from possession of their house and land in dispute and from causing any Interference with their ownership and possession of the same.2. The relevant facts giving rise to these two revision petitions may be briefly stated as follows : Shri Charandas & 37 persons instituted a suit against the Municipal Council Udaipur and Shri Tej Singh for grant of perpetual injunction in the court of the learned Munsif Udaipur on 17-4-69. The averments in the plaint were that the plaintiffs owned and possessed 7 Bighas and 15 Biswas of Abadi la...
Smt. Pushpa Vs. Gidumal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)152
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated January 7, 1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 22 of 1979. This order will dispose of the revision petition finally.2. A few facts leading to the filing of this revision petition may briefly be recounted here(sic) The petitioner is a widow daughter in-law of the respondent. She filed a suit under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Ace, (Act No. 78 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for grant of maintenance to her and her minor son. There is no specific provision for the grant of interim maintenance under the Act. But this Court, in Indar Mal v. Babulal , took the view that the Court has inherent power to grant inch interim allowance in suitable cases under the Act The learned District Judge, by his order dated October 18, 1977 fixed Rs. 130/- per month as interim maintenance for the petitioner and her son. It is rele...
Syed Saulat HussaIn Vs. Syed IlmuddIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj29; 1980()WLN141
Lodha, C.J.1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance from the judgment and decree dated August 9, 1974, by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned Judge allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff Syed Hmuddin and set aside the judgment and decree dated December 14, 1970, passed by the Civil Judge, Ajmer, in Civil Suit No. 271 of 1948 and granted 'a declaratory decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant to the effect that so far as nearness in propinquity to tha last Sajjadanashin is concerned, the plaintiff is the rightful person entitled to hold the office of the Sajjadanashin of the Durgah Khwajah Sahib of Ajmer and that Hakim Inayat Hussain had no right or title to hold the said office as against the plaintiff'.2. The case has a chequered history Inasmuch as the suit was filed as far back as May 18, 1948, in the Court of the Sub-Judge, First Class, Ajmer. It was dismissed on May 9, 1951, on the preliminary ground that the su...
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ambaviya Dahiya Adivasi Mazoor Sa ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1980
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Raj)108
N. M. Kasliwal, J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has made this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has referred the following question of law having arisen out of the consolidated order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 2833 and 2834 of 1970-71 dated May 4, 1972 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under section 271(1)(a) should be computed after taking into account all taxes paid by the assessee before the completion of assessment including taxes paid under section 141 and/or 140-A. ?'M/s. Ambaviya Dahiya Adivasi Mazdoor Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Ambasa (hereinafter referred to as the assessment years 1960-61 and 1963-64, relying on the decision of the Mysore High Court in M. M. Annaiah v. CIT, Mysore : [1970]76ITR582(KAR) and of the Calcutta High Court in CIT West Bengal-I v. Vegetable Ltd., Products (1970) 80 ITR 1...
Ashok Kumar Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN447
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Dowry hungry vultures, having failed, in getting T.V. Frieze, Scootor and coins of Rs. 25,000/- (price for selection as Tehsildar) started teasing, taunting insulting and creating untolerable torture, resulting in severe mental agony, apathy for such disgraceful beastly life and nervous break down of an innocent, beautiful educated yet helpless newly married girl, who was thus forced to commit suicide by burning herself alive such is the tragic' pathetic, hair raising, heart breaking, nerve cracking, conscious shocking and society rocking, one line prosecution story of Urmilla the deceased and crime of abatement of suicide by husband Ashok Kumar and his dowry starving family members. Yet the prayer is for extraordinary, exceptional judicial favour of bail without jail', by the alleged 'dowry devils'. Urmilla's 'death will' is as under: (Reproduced from police Diary):eq>s ugh irk vki yksxks ds tgu es bruk fo'k Hkjk iM+k gS vki ,d ,d djds vkjksi eq> ij yxkrs jgs ysfdu vk...
Mithalal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)262
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This Is an appeal preferred by Mithalal alias Mava against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, dated 13th April, 1979, by which the appellant was convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The incident that led to the arrest and prosecution may be briefly described as follows : Nathji Pagola lodged a verbal report with the Police at Police Station Bhakiya on 20-10-1973 at 4 P.M. about on incident of murder of Smt. Lali. It was alleged in the report that on 20-10-1978 in the noon Nathji Informant was ploughing his field and his elder brother's wife Mst, Lali was cutting crops of pady in her nearby field At that time Chatra son of Joti Pargi resident of T.B. Jimi came in her field having armed himself with an iron 'Kassi' (known as `Ko' in dialect of that locality) and struc...
Jai Shanker Vs. Chandresh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)82
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. The appellant was directed by this court on November 6, 1979 to pay to the respondent Rs. 330/- as lawyer's fee for opposing the appeal and Rs. 120/- as incidental expenses, total Rs. 450/- and one month's time was granted to the appellant for making the payment. The aforesaid amount has not been paid chough the case was adjourned more than once to enable the appellant to comply with the aforesaid order of the court.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal may be heard and the respondent may be directed to take out execution of the order of this court regarding grant of expenses In the alternative it is submitted that further proceedings in the appeal may be ordered to be stayed till the order is complied with. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar , Smt. Anita v. Birendra Chandra : AIR1962Cal88 , Ram Chandra Rao v. Kowsalya AIR 1969 Mysore 76 and Anuradha v. Santosh Nath AIR 1976 Delhi, 246.3. On the ...
Radhey Shyam Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj105; 1980()WLN533
1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'), against the order of the learned single Judge dated 18th December, 1979 made on a Civil Miscellaneous Stay petition filed under Order 41, Rule 5, C. P. C. in a civil first appeal.2. The plaintiff appellant obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 26,277/43 p, on fifth October, 1979 from the court of Additional District No. 4, Jaipur City. Aggrieved against the aforesaid decree the defendant filed a first appeal in this court and filed a stay application under Order 41, Rule 5, C. P. C. along with the appeal for staying the execution of the decree passed by the trial Court. Learned single Judge heard the parties on the stay application and passed the following order:'Heard learned counsel for the parties. Out of the decretal amount, appellant would pay an amount of Rs. 12,000/- to the respondent and for the rest of the amount would submit a solvent surety to t...