Rajasthan Court January 1982 Judgments
inder Lal and ors. Vs. Abdul Salam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj57
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for injunction dismissed by both the lower courts. The controversy now left to be determined in this second appeal relates to a ravish existing in-front of the house of the defendant on the first floor towards thenorth stretching from west to east as shown with letters 'X-Y' in the site plan Ex. 1 annexed with the plaint. The plaintiff had come forward with a case in the plaint that the ravish was joint one of the parties. The plaintiffs entered the ravish through a door and passed and repassed through it by passage to the staircase facing east, which leads to the chowk. The alternative case set up by the plaintiffs was that if this ravish was not held jointly owned and possessed by the parties then the plaintiffs had acquired a right of casement to pass and re-pass through the ravish as they had acquired this right continuously without interruption for the last 30 years. The case of the contesting defendants -- responde...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj265; 1982()WLN1
Dwarka Prasad, Actg. C.J. 1. These six writ petitions have been filed by owners of hotels and restaurants who have been served with notices for assessment to sales tax.2. The case of the petitioners is that they have been serving eatable, and drinks to their customers and the same does not constitute sale and as such they are not liable to assessment or payment of sales tax. On the other hand, it has been contended by Mr. Sumer Chand Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the Department, that it would be a question of fact in each case as to whether the transactions entered into by the petitioners would amount to 'sale' within the meaning of Section 2 (o) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the Department that the petitioners are making sales across the counter and are supplying eatables and drinks outside the hotels or restaurants also at the same rate and an enquiry by the assessing authority i...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1982
Reported in: [1982]50STC269(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, Ag. C.J.1. These six writ petitions have been filed by owners of hotels and restaurants who have been served with notices for assessment to sales tax.2. The case of the petitioners is that they have been serving eatables and drinks to their customers and the same does not constitute sales and as such they are not liable to assessment or payment of sales tax. On the other hand, it has been contended by Mr. Sumer Chand Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the department, that it would be a question of fact in each case as to whether the transactions entered into by the petitioners would amount to 'sale' within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the department that the petitioners are making sales across the counter and are supplying eatables and drinks outside the hotels or restaurants also at the same rate and an enquiry by the assessing authority ...
Tag this Judgment!Arya Samaj Vs. Nathar Mal S/O Jashanmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)498
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a civil second appeal against the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer. The matter relates to a suit for eviction under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The plaintiff's suit was decree by the trial court but dismissed by the first appellant Court. The defendant-respondent was a tenant of the plaintiff appellant, in respect of a shop, the construction of which was completed in the year 1963. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy by a notice dated 18th May, 1967. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction on 3rd July, 1967 al a time when a period of seven years from the date of comoletion of the construction of suit premises had not expired and in view of Section 2(e) of the Act, the other provisions of the Act did not apply. Therefore, the suit was decreed on 31st May, 1969.3. The appeal was filed on 30th July, 1969. During the pendency of the appeal, th...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Birmiwal and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj187; 1982()WLN127
Agrawal, J.1. The petitioners in both these writ petitions are Advocates who had applied for grant of telephone connections. They wanted their applications to be registered in special category on the ground that they are public workers. The said applications have however, been registered by the District Manager, Telephones. Jaipur under the general category. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. The said writ petitions were hoard by a learned single Judge of this Court, who by his order dated May 6, 1981, has referred the same to a larger Bench, preferably by three Judges of this Court, for deciding the important Constitutional questions which arise for determination in these writ petitions. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the learned single Judge the writ petitions have been heard by this Bench. Since both the writ petitions raise common questions for determination they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Sujan Kaur Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)16
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition arises out of proceedings Under Section 488 Cr.PC (old), Smt. Sujan Kaur is the wife of Awtar Singh non-petitioner No. 2 and petitioners No. 2 & 3 Jeet Singh and Gurmeet Singh are the two minor sons, born out of the wedlock of Sujan Kaur with Awtarsingh. Smt. Sujan Kaur filed an application under Section 488 Cr.PC (old) for the grant of maintenance for herself and her two minor children against Awtar Singh. In the application, a case was set up that about five years prior to the filing of the application, which was filed on May 24, 1973 her husband Awtarsingh gave beating to her and she and her two minor children were turned out of the house. Since then she was living with her parents and inspite of efforts Awtarsingh did not take her and the minor children. It was further mentioned in the petition that Awtarsingh was living jointly with his father and both were jointly cultivating 45 bighas of land and the annual income is Rs. 20.000/-. The app...
Tag this Judgment!Mewar Textiles Mills Ltd., Bhilwara Vs. Sita Ram Basanti Lal Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj215
Kasliwal, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 14th April, 1971, affirming the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Bhil-wara dated 5th Oct. 1966.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the defendant-appellant M/s. Mewar Textile Mills Ltd., Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Textile Mills') was altotted wagons of coal for its use by the Deputy Coal Controller, Government of India. The Textile Mills used to send permits of coal to the plaintiff-respondent and the plaintiff then used to obtain priority sanctions in the name of the Textile Mills. After obtaining such sanctions the plaintiff then used to approach the collieries, pay the money for the coal, and get the coal toadied in Railway wagons, The railway receipts were got prepared by the collieries as consignors in the name of the Textile Mills as consignee. The case of the plaintiff was that between ...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturbhuj Das Gupta Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN4
D.P. Gupta, Acting C.J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') was entitled to relax the qualification in respect of experience in case of candidates for the post of Junior Specialist.2. The schedule annexed to the Rajasthan Medical and Health Services Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') prescribes the following qualifications for appointment to the post of Junior Specialist by direct recruitment:5 Years experience in the speciality after post-graduate degree.3. The schedule aforesaid prescribes the qualifications for the various posts included in the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service and a note given at the end of the schedule provides that the Commission may relax the prescribed number of years of experience, in case candidates with required experience are not available.4. In the advertisement which was issued by the Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Yusuf Vs. Hamidulla
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN172
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. By this appeal under Order XLIII, Rule l(s) C.P.C., the plaintiff questions the correctness of the order dated March 31, 1980 of the Additional District Judge ho. 2, Jodhpur by which his application under Order XL, Rule 1 C.P.C. was dismissed.2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for rendition of accounts etc. against Hamidulla s/o Mohammed (defendant No. 1), Abdul Rahim s/o Mohammed (defendant No. 2), Inayatulla s/o Mohammed (defendant No. 3), Abdul Hakim S/o Mahammed (defendant No. 4), Abdul Wahid Abdul Aziz (defendant No. 5) and Mohammed Rafiq s/o Yusuf (defendant No. 6) in the court of District Judge, Jodhpur on March 27, 1978. The plaintiff and defendants No, 1 to 4 are brothers and they are sons of Mohammed. It was alleged that Mohammed used to carry on business in Kaddi (gypsum) in the name of Mohammed & Sons at Jodhpur, Bhadwasia and other places. The said business was converted into a partnership business by Mahmmed on March 1, 1949. The partnership consisted...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›