Rajasthan Court July 1985 Judgments
Pukha Vs. Poonam Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)233
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is a defendant-tenant's second appeal in a rent and ejectment suit filed by plaintiff respondent.2. The plaintiff purchased the property vide Ex. 1 executed by Shri Mishri Lal as special power of attorney holder of Amolakchand. The appellant was occupying the suit premises as a tenant vide Ex. 3 rent-note executed in favour of Amolak Chand and his son Chain Raj. The plaintiff gave a notice terminating the tenancy and filed the present suit. The suit was. contested by the appellant. In the trial court, after recording the evidence decreed the plaintiff's suit. The said decree was confirmed by the first appellate court i.e. the Additional District Judge, Pali and hence this appeal.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Chainraj was a necessary party in the suit and since the notice terminating the tenancy was. only given by the plaintiff who had purchased the property from Amolak Chand only the suit should have been dismissed and he plac...
Tag this Judgment!Nath Mal Vs. the Urban Improvement Trust and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)235
Surrendra Nath Bhargava, J. 1. This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the District judge, Bikaner reversing the judgment and decree passed by Additional Munsif, No. 2, Bikaner.2. The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for injunction against the defendant-respondents claiming that there is a small piece of land 'Khancha' adjacent to his house and infront of the house of defendant Tekchand and the plaintiff has also been exercising his right of ingress and out-gress through this Khancha and since the Urban Improvement Trust intended to dispose of this land and the plaintiff wanted to purchase the same and the defendant Tekchand was also interested in purchasing the said land, the present suit has been filed for injunction that the U1T may not sell this land to the defendant and the defendant may not put any restriction or obstruction in the use of this land and if the UIT wanted to dispose of this land the land should be put to public auction as required b...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Mohanlal Chiranji Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1985
Reported in: [1985]60STC356(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is an application under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (No. XXIX of 1954) (for short 'the Act') for directing the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' herein) to state the case and refer the following question of law to this Court, which is said to arise out of its order dated 21st December, 1978 ; which the Board refused to do vide its order dated 25th September, 1979 :Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Board of Revenue was justified in setting aside the penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed under Section 16(1)(k) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 2. In view of Section 13(10) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. XX of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') which has come into force from 1st May, 1986 this application has been treated as a revision and heard as such under Section 15 of the Act as substituted by the Amendment Act.3. Non-petitioner No. 1 M/s. Mohanlal Chiranji Lal...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Laduram Bansilal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1985
Reported in: [1985]60STC324(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward A-l, Bhilwara (A.C.T.O.), filed an application under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. XXIX of 1954) ('the Act' herein), for directing the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan ('the Board') to state the case and refer the following question of law which is said to arise out of the appellate order dated 16th April, 1979 to this Court which it has refused to do vide its order dated 16th October, 1979 :--Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case penalty amounting to Rs. 1,270 under Section 22(6) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was not leviable as the unaccounted for goods were not seized ?2. On 30th April, 1974 the assessing authority made an inspection and survey of the business premises of the dealer-respondent and found that goods of the value of Rs. 6,350 were in possession of the dealer, which were not accounted for in his books of account. The assessing authority, therefore, gave a notice t...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Laduram Bansilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN732
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward A-l, Bhilwara (ACTO) filed an application under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. XXIX of 1954) ('the Act' here in), for directing the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan ('the Board') to state the case and refer the following question of law which is said to arise out of the appellate order dated April 16, 1979 to this Court which it has refused to do vide its . order dated October 16, 1979:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case penalty amounting to Rs. 1270/- Under Section 22(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was not leviable as the unaccounted for goods were not seized?2. On April 30, 1974 the Assessing Authority made an inspection and survey of the business premises of the dealer-respondent and found that goods of the value of Rs. 6,350/- were in possession of the dealer, which were not accounted for in his books of accounts. The Assessing Authority, therefore, gave a notice to the dealer...
Tag this Judgment!Anwar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)48
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20-8-1976, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellant Anwar Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- In default of payment of fine the accused-appellant has been convicted to undergo three moths rigorous imprisonment.2. On 3rd April 1975 Shiv Narain, PW 1 father of the deceased, lodged the FIR at police station Karoli and submitted that he is suspecting the accused appeallant as the murderer of his son. He informed the police that the dead body is lying nearby the Tal. He also produced the letter Ex. P1 received by him on the very day at 9 a.m. After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge examined 18 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution has also produced 18 doc...
Tag this Judgment!Ramgopal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)170
1. In the pending D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 289/85 (Ramgopal v. The State) this application Under Section 482, Cr. PC has been made in which it has been prayed that the appellant Ramgopal may be transferred from Central Jail, Jaipur to Sewar Jail, Bharatpur.2. The grounds for transfer of the accused-appellant are that the appellant is suffering from leprosy for over 10 years and is in need of constant treatment. His wife is the only responsible member of the family and she is unable to take trips to Jaipur due to long distance. That apart, it takes two days to travel, if she is to meet the appellant in the Central Jail at Jaipur. She cannot be away from Bharatpur for so long leaving behind young children all by themselves. The pension which is payable to the appellant has not been paid to him ever since his arrest, i.e. June, 1982, and thus the family has been deprived of the income, and on this ground also the wife of the applicant is unable to take trips to Jaipur on account of there ...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Moolchand Jainarain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1985
Reported in: [1987]64STC300(Raj); 1985(2)WLN173
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This application under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954) ('the Act' herein) read with Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CST Act') was filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Nagour on 21st December, 1979, for directing the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') to refer the following questions of law arising out of its order dated 29th November, 1978, passed in Special Appeal Nos. 69 and 83 of 1976, which the Board of Revenue refused to do by its order dated 11th October, 1979:(1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that the rate of tax on packing material sold along with cereals is 2 and 1 per cent and not at the rate of 10 per cent in absence of C forms ?(2) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that the rate of tax o...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)597
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This application Under Section 482 Cr.PC is directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (Roadways), Udaipur dated 15-7-1985 by which he has refused to give bus No. RJB 5922 on Superdginama to the petitioner. This bus was seized on 13-7-1985 by the Dy. S.P. Shri Devisingh on 13-7-1985 as it was found plying without permit and was carrying 60 passengers on Banswara-Partapur route, on a part of which the R.S.R.T.C. had a permit.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the order of the learned Magistrate.3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on this route, a permit was granted to Natwarlal but bus No. RJB 377 had got out of order on 13-7-1985, and therefore, the petitioner replaced it by bus No. RJB 5922 and sent a telegram to the R.T.A. Udaipur for permit for this replacement and in these circumstances, he urges that till the question is dec...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nirupama Ben Vs. Devat Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Raj56; 1985(2)WLN10
S.S. Byas, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal directed against an order of the-learned District Judge, Sirohi dt. May 10, 1985 by which the amount of rent was provisionally determined under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). Since the point involved in short, the appeal was also heard on merits on the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties.2. Briefly recapitulated, the relevant facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the defendant in the Court below on Sept. 20, 1983. The case set up by him is that the suit premises situate at Mount Abu known as 'Kesar Bhawan Canteen' was let out to the defendant on Oct. 1, 1980 for a period of eleven months on a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-. The tenancy was oral. The rent was to be paid by the defendant month by month. The defendant paid a sum of Rs. 2000/-only for the first time and thereafter failed to make...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »