Rajasthan Court December 1991 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.
A.C.T.O. Vs. Jawahar Patang House
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1991
Reported in: [1993]88STC321(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan has prepared the statement of case and referred the following question of law in pursuance of the direction given by this Court under Section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was right in holding that the cotton thread used for kite flying was not different from sewing thread and was taxable at a fixed rate and not at the general rate ?'2. The contention of the learned advocate, Shri G.S. Bafna is that the cotton thread used for kite flying cannot be considered to be a sewing thread because it is not used for the purpose of sewing. In this case the proceedings under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act were taken for levying the tax on the sale of thread at general rate instead of the rate prescribed for that of sewing thread. The appeal was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur, on December 20, 1972 a...
Ladulal Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)442
N.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Chittorgarh dt. 12.4.91 Whereby he has refused to set aside sale under Order 21 Rule 90 in execution case No. 10/86, and confirmed under Order 21R. 92. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur respondent No. 1 Senctioned a loan for Rs. 1 lac for machinary and 50 thousand for construction of building to the appellant and respondent No. 3 but he could not repay the amount. A suit was filed and it was decreed for Rs. 1,81,011/-. The respondent No. 1 Bank decree-holder filed an exedution petition. The appellant filed objections...rejected. Hence, this miscellaneous appeal.2. Mr. N.K. Rastogi, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that sale was conducted on 20.3.90 without giving proper and full particulars in the preclamation of sale and thus mandatory provisions were not complied with. He has further submitted that no opportunity was given to the appellant to produce evidence regarding valuation of p...
Smt. Bhiki Bai Vs. Smt. Uma Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC565; 1991WLN(UC)227
N.K. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Bali dt. 9.1.91.2. In brief the facts of this case are that suit No. 44/85 for ejectment was filed against Sheshmal in the year 1985, and exparte order was passed. In execution a warrant of possession has been issued by the learned trial court on 27.9.89. The petitioner is the legal representative of judgment debtor during the pendency of the execution petition has filed an application under Order 21 Rule 26 real with 151 C.P.C. It was alleged by the petitioner that at the time of passing the decree, there was an oral compromise between the parties and while maintaining the earlier rent on the basis of oral compromise it was agreed that out of disputed premises one room over the shop was to be handed over by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder. It was prayed that as a new tenancy was created between the parties, the possession cannot be given to the decree-holder in exe...
Puran Chand Saini Vs. the General Manager, Uco Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC179; 1991WLN(UC)254
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer that the termination of the service of the petitioner be declared as illegal & be quashed & the Respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of daily wage casual worker & they be directed to make payment of arrears of salary as well as payment of salary for future period regularly.2. The case with which the petitioner has approached this Court is that he was initially appointed on the post of casual worker on daily wage basis with effect from 1.6.88. Thereafter he has been continuously working on full time basis as a causal worker on daily wages. He has completed more than 210 days of service without any break. In respect of this assertion that the petitioner has completed more than 240 days of continuous service, the petitioner has placed on record Annexures 1 and 2. Annexure-1 is a letter written by the Chief Officer of the Respondent Bank to the Manag...
Smt. Rajesh Kumari and ors. Vs. Smt. Uma Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC551; 1991WLN(UC)432
N.K. Jain, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of learned District Judge, Bikaner dt. 5.5.90 whereby he has granted temporary injunction in favour of I he respondents.2. In brief the facts stated by the petitioner No. 1 are that she was married to Balram Singh in the year 1956 and had four sons and one daughter by this wedlock. They were living in the house of her father in law at Bkaner. It was alleged that after his transfer, relations between then became strained. Balramsingh filed a divorce petition but the same was dismissed on 4.5.92. He preferred an appeal by the same was also dismissed as withdrawn. The father of the appellant Manoherlal deceased bequeathed his house situated at Ranibazar in favour of the appellant No. 1 on 3.11.84 Balramsingh died at Bhilwara on 28.7.88. On 10.3.89, the appellant applied for succession certificate before the' District Judge, Bikaner. Succession certificate was issued on 10.9.89. Respondent Umadevi filed an application ...
Abdul Gaffar Vs. Narendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC503; 1991WLN(UC)434
N.K. Jain, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil misc. case No. 70-B/90 whereby the appellant's application under 0.39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been rejected.2. The main contention of Mr. Bhoot is that the court has acted without jurisdiction in deciding the application without any order passed by executing court under Order 21 Rule 98 C.P.C. The court should have issued notice under Order 21 Rule 97 to the decree-holder particularly in view of the report of the Sale Amin dt. 1.5.90 and thus, the order is liable to be set aside in this misc. appeal.3. Mr. Y.R. Vyas, Power of attorney holder of the respondent who has appeared in person has submitted that the respondent has obtained a decree for a shop with godown against the petitioner long back and he has obtained a part of the possession of the godown on 2.8.84 in execution of this decree which was passed in the year 1978. He has ...
Mst. Sukhli and Ramchandra Vs. Veer Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC524; 1991(2)WLN436
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a civil suit filed by the plaintiff (appellants) which was decreed by the trial Court for cancellation of adoption of Veer Singh by Ramlal (defendant No. 1) which was reversed by the first appellate court dismissing the plaintiff's suit, itself.Factual Matrix:2. Smt. Sukhli (plaintiff No. 1) had married to Harsahay. Harsahay is said to have died four years prior to the filing of the present suit. Thereafter, she is said to have been residing with Ramlal (defendant No. 1) as his wife, after performing village custom and rites. According to her, Ramlal (defendant No. 1) with an oblique motive, adopted Veer Singh as his son from Hardevararm (defendant No. 3) on 4-9-70 under a deed of adoption having been manipulated by defendant Nos. 2 & 3.3. In para 4 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have admitted that the defendant No. 1 had got adoption deed registered but, their assertion was that in fact, Hardevaram (defendant No. 3) never given his so...
Chet Ram Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)438
Rajesh Balia, J.1. By this petition, petitioner challenges the correctness of the order passed by the collector, Churu in Civil Revision No. 11/81 on 21.9.1982 whereby he has held that the revision filed by the petitioner was not maintainable Under Section 27-A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953.2. It is stated by the petitioner that he has got his residential house in village Dhirwas Bada. In front of the house of the petitioner, there is a common lane used as a way which is 60 ft. in length and about 20 ft. in breadth. On the other side of this common lane, there is situated the house of the respondent Salag Ram while the houses of respondents No. 3, 4 and 6 Shanker Lal, Udai Chand and Prem Prakash are situated towards the western side of the petitioner's house. It is further averred by the petitioner that Gram Panchayat Dhirwas Bada without following the mandatory provisions of the Rules 256, 257, 259, 260 & 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, has sold the part o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›