Rajasthan Court January 1982 Judgments
Laxman Singh and anr. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN14
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. By this appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(a) CPC, the plaintiffs-appellants question the correctness of the order dated March 31, 1981 of the Additional District Judge, Bhilwara, by which he directed for return of the plaint to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted.2. Copies of the original plaint, written statement, amended plaint amended written statement, application under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC and issues were placed for my perusal by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The correctness of these copies was not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent.3. The plaintiff-appellant Laxman Singh instituted a suit for Rs. 10010/- against the defendant-respondent alleging that his unmarried son Mahendra Singh was insured with the defendant for Rs. 10000/- by two life insurance policies of Rs. 5000/- each, that Mahendra Singh died on June 17 1969, and that after the death of Mahendra Singh, demand for the amount of the sum ass...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Behari Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN435
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The Union of India through the General Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, Bombay has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13-3-1971 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer in Civil Appeal No. 489/69 (92/70).2. The plaintiff is an employee of the Railway, who filed the suit against the order of removal from service communicated to him vide letter dated 6-12-65. The plaintiff was removed from service on the ground of charges of misconduct which were held to be proved. It is not necessary to deal with the facts of the case, because the short point which has arisen for considration of this Court is, whether the judgment of the first appellate court in which the decree of the trial court has not been upheld on the ground given by the trial court, but still upheld on the ground that after one witness D. Benjour was examined on 21-7-1965, the employee was not asked to submit bis explanation or defence with regard this evidence, is correct. This witness ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council Vs. Pukhraj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)95
M.B. Sharma J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated March 19, 1971 of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur by which the learned Judge allowed the appeal plaintiff-respondent and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 2770. 36p. along with costs.2. Briefly stated that facts of the case cut of which this appeal arises ase these: The respondent filed a suit for Rs. 2770.36p. against the appellant in the court of Munsif City, Jodhpur and a case was set up that respondent was a licencee of country liquor for the period April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964. The practice was that during the aforesaid period the liquor used to be brought from the Mandore Distillery situated within the Municipal limits of Municipal Council, Jodhpur. That on the basis of price of the country liquor octroi on behalf of the appellant was also charged. During the aforesaid period a sum of Rs. 2770.36. was charged as octroi by the Excise Department under the authority of the appellant. Be...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal Vs. Kailash Chandra Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN78
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City Jaipur, dated 13-10-1981 upholding the order of the learned Munsiff Jaipur East, Jaipur dated 22-9-1981 dismissing the plaintiff's-application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C.2. One Govind Lal obtained an ex parte decree for evidence against Kailash Chand defendant-non-petitioner. Kailash Chand defendant non-petitioner filed an appeal against the decree for eviction and obtained a stay order from the appellate court on 7-9-1978, which was communicated to the trial court on 16-9-1978. Inspite of the above stay order, it appears that Govind Lal obtained possession of the suit shop in execution of the decree on 16-1-1979. Kailash Chand filed an application for restitution of possession. But the same was disallowed by the executing court. Kailash Chand, thereafter, filed a revision in this Court and the revision was contested by Govind Lal. This Court, however, on 6-5-...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN151
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Mr. Purohit was at his best as he usually is with the remarkable marshalling of facts and conspicous ability, lucidity and splendid feats of legal oratory. His only regret was that there was none to challenge him. A 'walk over' could never be relished by a 'gem' amongst Advocates and is too dangerous for a just decision.2. This is an appeal is against the judgment of the Special Criminal case No. 40 of 1974 dated March 25, 1976 of the Special Judge for A.C.B. cases Rajasthan Jaipur, by which, appellant Mahendra Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, under Section 161 IPC and two years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.3 The prosecution case is that Mahendra Singh was an Audit I...
Tag this Judgment!Chagan Lal Vs. Smt Preet Rani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN229
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The respondent Smt. Preet Rani is represented by Mr. Garg.2. On the joint request of both the learned Counsel, the case was heard on merits also, as it involves a very short point.3. The sole question is, whether the determination of the rent for the purposes of Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 by the impugned order, is justified.4. Section 13(3) reads as under:In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) with or without any of the other ground referred to in that sub-Section, the Court shall on the first date of hearing or on any other date as the Court may fix in this behalf which shall not be more than three months after filing of the written statement and shall be before framing of the issue, after hearing the parties and on the basis of material on record provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court or paid to the landlord by the tenant such amount shall be ca...
Tag this Judgment!Shaliendar and anr. Vs. the University of Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)7
M.C. Jain, J.1. These two writ petitions raise common questions as they are based on identical facts, so they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner appeared at the M. Com. (Pre.) examination held in the months of June & July, 1980 add their result was declared on August 29, 1980. They have failed on account of not haying obtained the minimum marks in Paper-I in the subject Advance Business Economics. The petitioner Shailendra Bhandari obtained 21 marks and the other petitioner Gyanmal Mehta obtained 22 marks. Shailendra Bhandari applied on 4-9-1980 and Gyanmal Mehta applied on 17-9-1980 for re-evaluation of their answer books of the said paper. The University took more than 7 months to declare the result of re-evaluation and their revised marks-sheet was, issued on 15-4-1981. On re-evaluation, the marks of the Shailendra Bhandari were increased from 21 to 32 and of Gyanmal Mehta from 22 to 41. Shri Shailendra (Bhandari obtained 71.2% in all whereas, Shri Gyanmal ...
Tag this Judgment!Chauthmal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1403; 1982()WLN396
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. This order will deal with S. B, Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 636 of 1981 and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 136 of 1981. These two applications arise out of case, F.I.R. No. 215 of 1980, Stale v. Dudhia and Ors., under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149,-I.P.C. which was instituted on a police report in the Court of judicial magistrate, Sangod, on December 23, 1980, and is still pending there.2. The facts, in so far as they are necessary for the disposal of these applications, may be shortly stated here. On November 9, 1980, one Ram Bharose carried in a cart the dead body of Gordhan and another person, Gajanand by name, in an injured condition, to police station, Sangod and gave information (F.I.R. No. 215 of 1980) to the police that Shyam Behari, Bhagwati, Kalu, Chauthmal, Gomta Pratap, Chhitter Kalia, Madan, Shrilal and Bhoga had committed rioting and inflicted fatal blows to Gordhan and grievous hurt to Gajanand earlier that morning. The...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maharaja Shri Umed Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: [1984]148ITR72(Raj); 1982()WLN19
Dwarka Prasad, Actg. C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', has referred the following question to us for our decision :'Whether on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 15B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the assessee is entitled to rebate in respect of donations made to Bangur High School, Arogya Bhawan Hospital and Bangur Hospital '2. We have held by our order dated December 22, 1981, that the asses-see is entitled to rebate, in respect of donations made to Bangur High School, Arogya Bhawan Hospital and Bangur Hospital, under the provisions of Section 15B of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and decided the reference in favour of the assessee. We now proceed to record the reasons for our aforesaid decision.3. The facts which have given rise to this reference may be briefly stated:There was an educational institution known as Darbar High School at Pali, which was wholly financ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangi Lal Vs. Kailash Chand Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj269
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's revision against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 13-10-1981 upholding the order of the learned Munsiff, Jaipur East, Jaipur dated 22-9-1981 dismissing the plaintiff's application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. 2. One Govind Lal obtained an ex parte decree for eviction against Kailash Chand defendant non-petitioner. Kailash Chand defendant non-petitioner filed an appeal against the decree for eviction and obtained a stay order from the appellate Court on 7-9-78, which was communicated to tbe trial Court on 16-9-78. In spite of the above stay order, it appears that Govind Lal obtained possession over the suit shop in execution of the decree on 16-1-1979. Kailash Chand filed an application for restitution of possession but the same was disallowed by the executing Court. Kailash Chand thereafter, filed a revision in this Court and the revision was contested by Govind Lal. This Court, howev...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »