Rajasthan Court April 1980 Judgments
The Board of Muslim Wakfs for Rajasthan, Jaipur Vs. Bhanwar Chand and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj98; 1980()WLN344
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Against the judgment dated December 9, 1969, of a learned single Judge of this Court, the appellant (the Board of Muslim Wakfs for Rajasthan, Jaipur) has filed this appeal under Section 18 (1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, passed in S. B. Civil Misc. Application No. 107 of 1969 refusing to declare the decree dated July 9, 1969, passed in S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 602 of 1963, as void.2. A few facts leading to the filing of this appeal may briefly be recounted here :3. The respondents Bhanwar Chand, Padam Chand and Moolchand as trustees of Khatargach sect instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Nagaur on March 20, 1958, for declaration of title to, and possession of, a 'nohara', described in para No. 3 of the plaint against for Ayub, Hafiz, Kasam and others as managers of Masjid Khari, situated in Mohalla Teliwada, Nagaur alleging that the Nohra belongs to the Khattargach sect of Nagaur, on which the defendants had taken unlawful possession...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Murari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)193
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. The respondents were tried for the offences under Section 302, 307, 147, 440 and 447 Indian Penal Code by the Session Judge, Alwar By his judgment dated 19-7-72 the learned Session Judge acquitted all the respondents for the charges framed against them.2. Being dissatisfied by that judgment of acquittal the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that at village-`Moja Deothana' there was a land with Nos. 77-78 known as 'Jhalra ki-Talai'. That land was sold by Angad Singh and Jitendra Singh uncle of Bhanwarsingh for Rs. 1350/- to the respondents Murari, Shanker, Puniya, Prabhati, Sitaram and Kanahiya. The said sale deed Ex. P. 1 was executed on 15-6-70 and got registered. It is alleged that though there was a recital in the sale deed for handing over the possession of the land to the purchaser. Bhanwar Singh s/o Narain Singh cultivated grain crop on those fields. Bhanwar Singh wanted sale t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajmata Trilok Rajlaxmi Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1980
Reported in: [1981]129ITR401(Raj)
Shrimal, J. 1. On the request of the assessee the following question has been referred by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, under Section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Agrl. I.T, Act, 1953 (to be hereinafter called ' the Act') : ' Whether, the amount of ' agricultural income ' spent on the maintenance of medical, veterinary and educational institutions for the public and exempted under Govt. notification No. F. 52(8) DIVT/55 dated 30-8-1956 shall be included in the ' total agricultural income' for determining the rate of agricultural income-tax under Section 3 read with Section 17 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953 ' 2. The brief facts, necessary for the decision of this reference, are that the assessee was assessed on a total income of Rs. 4,49,685 on which tax was computed at Rs. 1,87,912'19. Subsequently, the Government issued anotification No. F. 52(8) Est./55, dated August 30, 1956, under Section 80 of the Act exempting all the jagirdars f...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Bahadur Shri Chandrases Vs. Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)155
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. This second appeal is against the judgment & decree dated 19-10-1968 passed by the District Judge, Bhilwara by which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.2. The facts were these. A certificate of demand for Rs. 500/- was issued under the Public Demands Recovery Act for the recovery of Rs. 500/- against the father of the appellant. Rs. 500/- were recovered from the appellant. The appellant therefore, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 500/- against the respondent on the ground that to amount of royalty was due against his deceased father Amar Singh as stones and other material were quarried for the construction of a School and a hospital. No notice was given to the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid proceedings of the recovery. The learned District Judge held that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable without a prayer for cancellation or modification of the certificate under Section 20 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 (here-in afte...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Shri Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN469
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The only point which is involved in this revision petition is, as to whether in the facts to be presently stated, amendment in Section 26(b) introduced by the Rajasthan Money Lenders (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) will apply to pending suits2. One Sua, who is now represented by his legal heirs, the non-petitioners, took a Joan of Rs. 1130/ from the plaintiff-petitioner on June 2, 1967, and executed a Khata in favour of the plaintiff-agreeing to pay interest at Re. 1/- percent per month. The plaintiff' filed a suit against the said Sua for recovery of Rs. 1480/- within three years of June 2, 1967. Sua contested the suit on the ground that he did not take any loan from the plaintiff, nor did he execute a Khata. He also raised legal objections that the plaintiff has not obtained a licence under the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 (Act No. 1 of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Act and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable, an...
Tag this Judgment!Navneet Lal Vs. Nathwara Temple Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)148
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. The facts leading to this civil second appeal preferred by Navneet (sic)Navneetlal plaintiff appellant against the judgment dated September 6, 1968 in civil appeal No 76/1968 by Additional District Judge, Unaipur are these.2. Plaintiff Navneetdas was an employes of Thikana Nathdwara from 20-9-1924 till 3-9-1963 and was drawing a salary of Rs. 92.90 per month. The Administration of Thikana Nathdwara was vested in the Nathdwara Temple Board by the Nathdwara Temple Act of 1959 (Act 13.1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the plaintiff continued to serve the Nathdwara Temple Board. Services of the plaintiff were terminated by the defendant with effect from 18-7-1963 by an order dated 3-9-1963 and he was paid a gratuity of Rs. 3040/-. The case at the plaintiff was that the defendant was not entitled to terminate his service because the employees of Nathdwara Thikana were to serve it for their life time. Under Section 21 of the Act, the Board could remove an em...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Chand Kunwar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj23
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 100, C. P. C. is by defendants against the appellate judgment and decree dated March 28, 1969, of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur by which he confirmed the decree for Rs. 4685.33 with proportionate costs passed by the Civil Judge, Jodhpur on April 15, 1966 in a suit for recovery of Rs. 4984.69 on account of loss suffered by the plaintiff-respondent as there was a breach of contract.2. A few facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be recounted here: The defendants-appellants are the legal representatives of late Fauj Raj, who according to the plaintiff-respondent, worked under the name and style 'Faujraj & Company', for the supply of ration commodities. The Authority of the Central Jail, Jodhpur invited tenders for the supply of ration commodities for the period commencing from July 1, 1955 to June 30, 1956. The conditions of the contract are contained in Ex. 2. Material conditions for the disposal of the appeal are as under :^^2- ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Shyam Lal Mathur Vs. University of Udaipur and 3 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)120
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Dr. Shyam Lal Mathur, has challenged the validity of the selection of Shri Vijay Singh Kulhari respondent No 2 and Dr. Orkar Singh Rathore, respondent No 3 for appointment on the post of Reader in the Dopartment of Extension Education in the Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Udaipur and their appointment on the said post. The petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the selection of D R C. Mehta, respondent No. 4, for appointment on the post of Professor in Extension Education and his appointment on the said post.2. The facts, briefly stated, are, as under: The University of Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'), has been constituted under the provisions of the Udaipur University Act, 1962. The Department of Extension Education is one of the Departments in the College of Agriculture of the University The petitioner joined the University in the year 1962 a...
Tag this Judgment!Factory Manager, Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)226
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30th September, 1977, passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority'), in case No. 219 of 1976, arising out of an application filed by Shri M.P. Dave, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent workman'), under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The respondent-workman was employed as a Mechanic with M/s Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Private Limited, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer'). By order dated 26th July, 1966 the employer terminated the services of the respondent-workmen. The aforesaid order of termination of the services of the respondent-workman gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court and the Labour Court in its Award dated 7th February, 1970 held t...
Tag this Judgment!Phool Chand Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)311
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, was employed as a Patwari. While he was posted at Village Goda Hema, Tehsil-Sanchore, he was served with a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as ' the Rules') whereby, the petitioner was informed that it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him under the Rules on seven charges set out in the statement of charges and explained in the statement of allegations appended to the said memorandum The petitioner submitted his reply on July 30, 1976, wherein, he refuted the said charges, and submitted that the charges have been falsely levelled against him at the instance of certain person) who were inimical toward the petitioner. By his order dated 16th April/August, 1976 the Collector, Jalore, appointed the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhinmal, as the Enquiry Officer, to conduct an enquiry into the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »