Rajasthan Court February 1986 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rooplal Danchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Raj)79; [1986]162ITR742(Raj); 1986(2)WLN756
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' herein), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no contravention of the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act and that the assessee-firm was validly constituted and was entitled to registration '2. The assessment year involved is 1973-74. The assessee is a partnership concern which during the relevant assessment year derived income from sale of country liquor. In the relevant previous year it had three partners, Svs. Rooplal Danchand, Ladharam Murandmal and Khemchand Tekchand. The licences of the three main shops of the assessee-firm were in the names of all the three partners. Besides these three shops, there were, however,two other shops of which the licences were not in the names of all the three partners. The Income-tax Officer h...
Firm Kripa Ram Geneshi Lal Vs. Vijai Kumar Goyal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN450
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. This Civil Special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated January 30, 1986, by which the appellant's (tenants) appeal was dismissed and the order of the learned Additional District Judge (2), Ganganagar, striking out his defence against eviction, was maintained.2. Very few facts need narration for the disposal of this appeal. Briefly recapitulated, the relevant facts are that the respondent Vijay Kumar (here in after referred to as 'the landlord') instituted a suit against the defendant-appellant (here in after referred to as 'the tenant') for his eviction from the demised property. The eviction was sought on a number of grounds and one of them is that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for a period of more than six months. He is, therefore, a defaulter within the meaning of Section 13 (1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (C...
Raj Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)250
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 15-7-1985 whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the application for granting time to produce the vehicle in question. Consequently, the bond & surety bond were cancelled and proceedings under Section 446 were ordered to be opened. The learned Magistrate also ordered for the forfeiture of the vehicle.3. A complaint was made under Section 42 and 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in that case on account of non-production of the vehicle, the above order was passed. It may be stated that the law did not warrant the forfeiture of the vehicle. At the most, the vehicle could be ordered to be seized and produced before the court but vehicle could not be confiscated or forfeited. It is true that the application was not accompanied with an affidavit and it was also not stated as to why the vehicle was out of order but still the learned Magistrate should have afforded one opportunity...
Banwari Lal Vs. Om Prakash and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN119
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, against the order of Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jaipur City, dated April 8, 1972, by which he refused to set aside the award of the arbitrator. On basis of the award, he passed a decree for Rs. 9,231.40 paisa with proportionate cost and interest pendente lite and further at rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization.2. The facts of the case may be mentioned briefly only to the extent to which they are relevant for the purposes of this appeal.3. The plaintiff respondent carried on a business in the name of M/s Jaipur Electric and General Industries and on November 1, 1962, the defendant appellant Banwari Lal and defendant respondent Ramesh Kumar agreed to form a partnership along with the plaintiff to carry on the aforesaid business in the same name. The terms and conditions of the partnership were reduced to writing in deed dated November 2, 1962. However, this partnership business...
Sultan and ors. Vs. Ganesh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN729
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is a civil appeal filed by the defendants appellants against the judgment and decree dated 21-9-1981 of learned Additional Distt. Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, by which the judgment of Addl. Munsif (West) Jaipur City was affirmed and the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for possession and rent was decrred.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents purchased a plot No. 5-11 measuring 50x90' in Rambabu-ka-Aahata, situated at Station Road, Jaipur, which is now known as the Sen Colony. After the death of Rambabu Sen, his son K.K. Sen became the owner of colony, the land was divided into plots and the scheme was approved by the Municipal Council. Father of the present appellants, Sultan and plaintiffs were living in Rambabu-ka-Aahata as tenants. Late Johari took on rent a piece of land from K.K. Sen and executed a rent note on 23-1-1949, which came into force from 1-1-1949 and was registered on 18-2-1949. Shri K.K. Sen executed a reg...
Kanhaiyalal Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Salaya Mathura Pipe Line a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)52
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order Ex. 6, dated, 11th May, 1983, whereby his services were terminated.2. The petitioner was appointed after due selection by the respondents. Firstly an offer was sent to him and he accepted the same and thereafter appointment order dated 15th December, 1982 Ex. 2 was issued appointing the petitioner as Line Patrol Man. Thereafter papers were sent for verification to the place of his residence i.e. to the District Magistrate, Pali and it was found that the petitioner was convicted by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pali Under Section 186 IPC and fined to tune of Rs. 100/-. When this fact came to the notice of the respondents, they issued notice to the petitioner on 22nd March, 1983 asking him whether he was ever convicted Under Section 186 IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/- was imposed or not. This fact was deliberately concealed by the petitioner, therefore by this notice the petitioner was called upon to ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manaklal Porwal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: [1986]160ITR243(Raj); 1986(1)WLN439
M.C. Jain, J.1. On a direction by this court on November 15, 1968, in D.B. Income-tax Cases Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of 1968, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B', Bombay, was justified in law in departing from the previous finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi, dated October 14, 1963, that the firm of M/s. Manaklal Porwal of Udaipur was not a genuine firm and as such was not entitled to registration under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'2. We may state a few relevant facts. Manaklal was an 'A' class contractor and was carrying on the business of construction engineer for a number of years up to March 31, 1955. With effect from April 1, 1955, he entered into a partnership agreement with Shri Kalulal, Shri Amritlal and one Smt. Jatan Bai, each of them having 1/4th share in the prof...
idol of Shri Narsingji Maharaj and ors. Vs. Prabhati Vaish
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN240
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment of the Addl. Civil Judge, Bharatpur, whereby the first appellate court decreed the plaintiff's suit as a whole Which was decreed partly by the trial court with regard to the shop situated on the eastern side holding that the Idol had not been installed on the eastern shop but dismissed the suit with regard to the shop situated on western side holding that the Idol had been installed on the western shop.2. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit against the appellants contending that the plaintiff gifted the disputed two shops on January 17, 1967 with the condition that the shops will be constructed upto Smt. Yr. 2024 and Idol installed therein else the gift shall be deemed cancelled. As it was not done, hence the gift deed stands cancelled and it be sold again.3. The defendant contested the suit and contended that the Idol has been installed as per conditions and the suit should be dismissed.4. After framing of t...
Seva Ram and ors. Vs. Smt. Saudine Jawahar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN436
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, C.J.1. The question which arises in this revision petition is as to whether the District Judge, Udaipur, had jurisdiction to entertain the application for grant of Succession Certificate in respect of the Estate of deceased Jawahar Hingorani.2. Jawahar Higorani at the time of his death was posted as Principal of the Government College at Jaisalmer. His wife, petitioner, who filed the application for Succession Certificate before the learned District Judge, Udaipur, was at the relevant time posted as Senior Lecturer in Meera Girls College at Udaipur and their son Ajay Jawahar was also residing with his mother Smt. Saudine Jawahar at Udaipur. The jurisdiction of the Court granting Succession Certificate is governed by the provisions of Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, which reads as under:371. Court having jurisdiction to grant certificate : The Distirct Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of his death, or, if at the t...
Bansal Place Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN525
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. The trial court has allowed the application moved by Harbanslal and Rameshwar Lal under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC for being added as a party to the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that neither Harbanslal nor Rameshwarlal were directly interested in the subject matter of the suit, as such they should not have been ordered to be added as party to the suit under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC. Learned Counsel for the newly added defendants expressed an apprehension that contradictory decrees may not be passed in the suits filed by the petitioners Harbanslal and Rameshwarlal and so it was necessary for the trial court to add Harbanslal and Rameshwarlal as party to the suit filed by the petitioner. It cannot be denied that Harbanslal and Rameshwarlal have no direct interest in the sucject matter of the suit.2. In Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum AIR 1958 SC 86 their Lordships of the Supreme Court obse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »