Rajasthan Court December 1992 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.
Stephen D'Silva Vs. Jaipur Chalchitra Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)WLC545; 1992WLN(UC)287
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment & decree dated October 4, 91 in Civil Appeal No. 18/90, passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which, the judgment & decree dated February 2, 90 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur was confirmed.2. This Civil Second appeal has been filed, in which, following three substantial questions of law are involved:(i) Whether a tenant can deposit rent in the Court under Section 19-A without first taking recourse to the provisions of Section 19-A(3)(a)(b) of the Act.(ii) Whether any deposit made against the provisions of Section 19A is a valid deposit and the landlord can not get a decree for that amount from the Court.(iii) Whether the appellant is a 'Landlord' of the respondent with regard to the share of rent of the minors and he is entitled to recover the arrears of rent from the respondent.3. Briefly stated, a suit for recovery of...
Barkat Ali Vs. Smt. Rukhsana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)WLC120; 1992WLN(UC)607
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated May 22, 1989, passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur, by which the learned Munsif dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. filed by the applicant Barkat Ali.2. Mst. Rukhsana filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction against Jabbar from the shop in question. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was moved by Barkat Ali. It was averred in the application that Mst. Rukhsana has filed the suit against Jabbar for eviction on the basis that Jabbar is the tenant of Rukhsana. The suit filed by Rukhsana against Jabbar has been filed by the plaintiff Rukhsana in collusion with Jabbar while Jabbar is the tenant of Barkat Ali, against whom he has filed a suit for eviction and that suit is, also, pending. This application was opposed by the plaintiff and the learned Munsif, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, came...
B.N. Bhootra Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)275
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. These two writ petitions raise almost identical questions of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these two writ petitions briefly stated are: that the petitioner Shri B.N. Bhootra being an Engineering Graduate joined his service as Junior Engineer with the State of Rajasthan in Public Works Department (B&R;) on 15.7.1961 and was selected for the same post by the RPSC in the year 1963. Before his confirmation as Junior Engineer, he applied for selection to the post of Assistant Engineer as a direct recruitee and he was selected by the RPSC on the post of Assistant Engineer and he was appointed as Assistant Engineer vide order dated 5.7.1965. However, when the petitioner was not confirmed as Junior Engineer with effect from 31.12.1963 and was not further considered for promotion in the year 1965 as Assistant Engineer, he filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil ...
Umesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)WLC339; 1992WLN(UC)541
I.S. Israni, J.1. The matter hascome up for final disposal today. Several opportunities have been given to the State to file reply. It is given out by Miss Ajwani, learned Assistant Government Advocate, that, inspite of several letters and telephonic messages, none has come to give instructions to draft the reply.2. It is submitted by Mr. Lodha, learned Counsel, the applications were invited vide advertisement (Annx.3) dated 16.8.91 from open market candidates for the posts of General Teachers (Main) and Physical Training Instructors III. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed his application alongwith necessary documents. A list of successful candidates was put up on the Notice Board, which is marked as Schedule 'A'. In this list, the name of the petitioner appears at S. No. 19, having obtained 55.2% marks. It is further submitted that, even though, the petitioner was expecting to get appointment, being quite high in the merit list, but he received a letter dated 21.12.91 (...
Swarna Lata Vs. University of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC366; 1992WLN(UC)532
K.C. Agarwal, C.J.1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking certiorari for quashing the circular dated 19.11.1992 (Annex.2) issued by the Education Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. The relevant portion of this circular is quoted below:I am directed to refer to your letter No. Estt. 1/92/9421/Misc. 29 dated 3.9.92 on the subject cited above and to convery approval of the State Govt. for the creation of Ex-cadre posts of Professors for the year 1988 to 1992 to implement the ex-cadre promotion scheme in the University to the extent given below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Name of Faculty No. of Ex-cadre posts of Professors---------------------------------------------------------------------------1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Total---------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Arts - 2 1 2 1 6---------------------------------------------------------------------------2. Sc...
Bina M. Cherian and 16 ors. Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)WLC391; 1992(2)WLN255
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. Petitioners by the aforesaid writ-petitions some filed individually and some jointly, challenge refusal of admission to them in the training course conducted by the State of Rajasthan for training in Multi-purpose Health Workers, for short 'M.H.W.'. The State Government issued an advertisement on 30.3.1991 inviting applications for twenty seven districts keeping sixty seats in each training centre from lady candidates, who had passed secondary examination and condition No. 1 of that Notification is that person applying for getting training as M.H.W. should be a bonafide resident of Rajasthan, which is a course of eighteen months duration. The training will be imparted to lady health workers who will have to work in rural areas and will have to independently look after the health, family planning, nutrition, child health, family welfare and rural organisational activity in the villages. They have not to work under the Doctors as nurses but they will have to independ...
Babu Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)WLC476; 1992(2)WLN223
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. The first case is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 1973 against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated October 31, 1984 by which he dismissed the revision petition filed against the order of the learned Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar holding that the reports submitted by the Police under Section 174, Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. for the purpose of taking cognizance on it and the petition moved will be treated as a complaint. The facts of the case may be summarised thus.2. In January 1978, the petitioner's daughter Mst. Neelam was married with Tarasingh Kumar son of Banarasidas at Sriganganagar. On July 7, 1978 at 6 P.M., she was brought to General Hospital, Sri Ganganagar in a seriously burnt condition and was declared dead there. The same day, the medical jurist sent a note about it to the S.H.O., Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar for information and necessary action. On its basis, a case u...
JaharuddIn Vs. Mohammed Lukman
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)WLC381; 1992(2)WLN516
Mipal Chandra Jain, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated November 18, 1992 by which he has dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment dated March 10, 1992 of the learned Munsiff, Jodhpur city, decreeing the suit against him for his ejectment.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the suit shop for the business of his son Mohammed Sadique. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Munsiff, Jodhpur City decreed the suit and the appeal filed against it by the defendant/appellant was dismissed as said above.3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant that the nature of the business which is to be started by the plaintiff's Son Mohammed Sadique in the suit shop was not pleaded in the plaint and this fact alone is suffici...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Paramhans Ashram Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: (1993)113CTR(Raj)433; [1993]203ITR711(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated September 25, 1980, in respect of the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1976-77 and 1977-78 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessee is a public charitable and religious trust and its income is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has claimed expenses for repairs and maintenance of temple and dharamshala besides expenses over charity. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that this is a case of a private trust and as per clause 3 of the trust deed, no deduction in respect of the repair charges shall be permissible.3. Against the assessment orders, appeals were preferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sanghi Oxygen Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR784(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which have arisen out of its order dated December 30, 1978, in respect of the assessment year 1973-74 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of the assessee in respect of gratuity payable was allowable under Section 37 or under Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the assessee in respect of gratuity payable was not hit by Section 40A(7)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered partnership concern and derives its income from manufacture and sale of oxygen gas, acetylene gas, etc. In the relevant previous year ending on March 31, 1973, the assessee has actually paid Rs. 4,000 by way of gratuity to certain empl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »