Rajasthan Court March 1994 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.
Jwala Singh Vs. Laxmi Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN489
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the decree dated September 22, 1993 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 2 Udaipur affirming the judgment and decree dated March 1, 1990 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (North), Udaipur.2. The eviction suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed by the two courts below on the ground of second default in payment of rent. The plea of the defendant in his written statement was that he had paid Rs. 1200/- in advance and theretofore, he has not committed any default. The payment was alleged to have been made to the son of the plaintiff. Both the courts below on the basis of the appreciation of evidence have found that the payment of rent in advance alleged by the defendant has not been proved.3. Before this Court, the appellant has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for permitting him to lead additional evidence which is in the form of a receipt of Rs. 1200/- allegedly executed by the plaintiff. T...
Pratap Rai and anr. Vs. Sohan Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj247; 1995(1)WLC265; 1994(1)WLN569
ORDERR. Balia, J. 1. A short but interesting question arises in this revision. 2. An ex parte decree for eviction on the ground of default as well as reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff respondents was passed against the petitioner on 14-2-1991 by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. The defendant applied for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. and he also preferred an appeal against the ex parte decree. Appeal against the decree was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Bhilawara on 29-8-1991 as barred by limitation. The petitioner preferred a second appeal before this Court, which was dismissed in the presence of both parties as withdrawn on 3-10-1991 with the following observations:-- 'I have heard'the learned counsel for the parties, in view of the fact that the appeal against the order of rejecting application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. is still pending, therefore, any observations made in the impugned judgments will not a...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Jagdish Vyas and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR723]; (1995)IILLJ387Raj
1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated August 20, 1993, whereby the award in favour of the respondents treating him to be a workman and terminating his services without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, .1947, has been confirmed and it is held that his services have wrongly been terminated and, therefore, the order treating him to be in continuous service since October 19, 1978, has been sustained. Mr. Munshi, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the order of learned Single Judge is not sustainable because the respondent was appointed as an apprentice and was being paid at the rate of Rs. 150 per month. It is true that, that period of training was only for one year but thereafter, no formal order was issued either granting any appointment to the petitioner as a workman or extending his training period but in spite of that he continued to work with them and, therefore, he should not have...
Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. Ravindra Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN567
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the Order dated August 28, 1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bikaner dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the Order dated October 16, 1990 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Bikaner by which the application of the petitioner-plaintiff for temporary injunction for staying the execution of decree passed in favour of non-petitioners Ravindra Kumar and Shantilal against Kishan Lal in Suit No. 41/87 be stayed.2. In previous suit instituted by Ravindra Kumar and Shantilal against Kishan Lal for evicting Kishan Lal from suit shop No. 4 situated at K.E.M. Road, Bikaner. Kishan Lal had denied the existence of tenancy between the plaintiff and himself which was evidenced by a rent note executed by Kishan Lal in 1970 and subsequently also in 1979. Kishan Lal and Hukam Chand who is the brother of Kishan Lal and husband of petitioner, both appeared in the witness box as defendant's witnesses. Kishan Lal stated that in the...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Raj Kumari Bhubaneshwari Kumari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: (1994)119CTR(Raj)312; [1994]210ITR711(Raj); 1994(1)WLN403
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dated July 8, 1982, in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Wealth-tax Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Property (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1973, were applicable for determining the market value of the plots for the purposes of the wealth-tax on the relevant date of valuation ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the market value of the plots on the relevant valuation date could not be more than Rs. 3,00,000 in view of the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Property (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1973, is perverse and contrary to the material on record ?' 2. The brief facts of the case ar...
Bhagya Wanti Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR687(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated December 15, 1982, and February 24, 1983, in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the limitation provisions contained in Section 153(2)(a) were applicable and not in Section 153(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act and, consequently, the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer was within time ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed any return in respect of its income under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), and no notice was issued under Section 139(2) to the assessee. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act which was served on the assessee on January 5, 1977. In pursuance of the said...
Babu Lal Vs. Raj Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC152; 1994(1)WLN243
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Babu Lal (a stranger to the decree) seeks setting aside of the order dated 15.12.1992 alleged to have been passed ex-parte against him and in favour of the decree-holders. This has been claimed through the application dated 17.12.1992. The order challenged in the revision is dated 31.1.1994.2. Briefly, deceased decree-holder Shyam Lal Saxena filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sale against deceased Smt. Bhoori and deceased Prabhu Lal on 5.10.1966. The suit was decreed on 18.10.73 in pursuance to which the court executed the sale-deed on 9.12.80, which was registered on 28.1.1981. This was the suit in respect of a house situtated in Ballabh Bari, Kota. The decree for specific performance became final. Thereafter, the decree holder applied for police aid for getting possession in pursuance to the decree. Police aid was given by the order of the court below.3. Learned...
Virji Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC135; 1994(1)WLN246
N.C. Kochhar, J. 1. The only question involved in this appeal is as to whether the petition moved by the petitioner appellant under Section 8/20 of the Arbitration Act, had been filed within the period of limitation.2. The brief facts are as under: The appellant had entered into a contract with the Union of India, through the General Manager, Western Railway (Church-Gate), Bombay (the respondent No. l), for carrying out the construction work for the period from 1st October, 1961 to 30th September, 1962, on the terms and conditions agreed to between the parties. The respondent Noll placed 44 work-orders on the appellant for carrying out different works. The appellant completed 27 out of the said 44 works, but the remaining 17 works could not be completed by him. The appellant submitted his final bill in or around the year 1963. The contract between the parties was governed by an arbitration clause as contained in the general conditions of the contract and according to which, in the case...
Mustaq Ali Vs. Mujiburahman and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLN53
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition directed against the order dated January 20,1994 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur by which application of Abudl Rashid, respondent No. 5 for being impleaded as a party in the suit filed by the petitioner has been allowed. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said Order.3. The petitioner has filed a suit against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 alleging that he was a duly appointed principal of Juberia Tibbia Trust and respondent No. 1 Mujiburahman has been removed from that office before his appointment as Principal. He has sought injunction against respondent No. 1 from interfering with discharging duties as principal by the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 Mujiburahman has pleaded as his defence that the College in question which was founded by Jubria Tibbia Trust is a Waqf property which is now under the supervision of Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf and he has been duly appointed by the Education Committ...
Ram Gopal Vs. Sampati Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLN51
In view of the clear provision of Section 13(6) of the Act, when the court has determined the amount payable Under Section 13(3), of the Act and compliance thereof has been made in terms of Section 13(4) of the Act, no decree for eviction on the ground of default can be passed. From the record of the case, it is apparent that the defendant Ram Gopal now represented by his legal representative has complied with the requirement of Section 13(4) and as no other ground is there on which a decree of eviction can be passed, the trial court was right in dismissing the suit of eviction.Appeal Dismissed.Rajesh Balia, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the suit filed by Sampati Bai against Ram Gopal for eviction from the suit premises which are situated at Nagaur, and for arrears of rent. The suit of eviction was based on the ground that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent for a period of more than six months before the filing of the suit. According to the palintiff, the suit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »