Rajasthan Court November 1998 Judgments
Dwarka Das and ors. Vs. Chuni Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj150; 1999(1)WLC233; 1999(1)WLN212
D.C. Dalela, J. 1. The plaintiff-respondents preferred a suit for eviction, against the defendant-appellants on the ground of default in the payment of rent, subletting, and personal and bona fide necessity of the suit premises for his own and his son. The learned trial Court as well as the learned first appellate Court decided the issues regarding the default and subletting in favour of the defendant-appellants. The issue regarding personal and bona fide necessity has been decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. Considering the question of comparative hardship, the learned trial Court ordered only partial eviction from the suit premises by directing to divide it into two parts and to give one part to the plaintiffs. On appeal by both the sides, the learned first appellate Court upheld the personal and bona fide necessity of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiffs and after considering the comparative hardship, reversed the order of partial eviction and directed the evict...
Tag this Judgment!Nathia Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1371; 1999WLC(Raj)UC399
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is directed that against the judgment dt. 1-9-92 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 1791 convicting the appellant-accused of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution story stated briefly is that at about 1.30 p.m. on 24th October, 1990, first information report was lodged in Police Station, Parsola to the effect that one Paduri aged about 55 years has been killed by the accused as he wanted to take up the land belonging to Paduri who was a childless woman. It was alleged in the first information report that one Nathia s/o Chokha Meena has killed Paduri and this information was given to Kesia who lodged the first information report by Kalu s/o Roopa who directed to lodge the information with the Police. On the basis of this report, investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation, the accused was prosecuted as aforesaid and convicted by t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mohni Devi Vs. Ghanshyam Das
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: 1999WLC(Raj)UC211; 1999(1)WLN221
D.C. Dalela, J.1. Heard.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction, relating to the suit-shop, against the defendant-appellants on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal & bonafide necessity. The learned trial court decided the issue of default against the plaintiff, but decreed the suit for eviction, on the ground of personal & bona fide necessity of the plaintiff. The matter was carried in appeal. The learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree of the learned trial court. Feeling aggrieved thereby this second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants.3. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence 61 material on record, have decided the issue regarding personal & bonafide necessity in favour of the plaintiff. There is concurrent finding of both the courts below that there is personal & bona fide requirement of the suit-premises by the landlord-plaintiff-respondent. The question relating to personal & bona fid...
Tag this Judgment!Kerla State Coier Corporation Limited and anr. Vs. Kewal Krishan Kumar ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj124; 1999WLC(Raj)UC107; 1999(1)WLN215
D.C. Dalela, J.1. Heard.2. A suit for rent and eviction came to be instituted by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 against the defendant-appellant (tenant) and defendant-respondent No. 2. On the grounds of expiry of the stipulated period, as mentioned in the lease-deed, subletting by the tenant-appellant, to the respondent No. 2 and personal and bona fide requirement of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 to do automobile business in the suit-premises, i.e. a shop. The learned trial court held that there has been no subletting of the suit-premises, but decided the issue of personal and bona fide necessity and comparative hardship, in favour of the plaintiff. It also decided that partial eviction is neither desirable, nor possible in view of the requirement of the plaintiff. It, therefore, passed the decree of eviction against the defendant. The matter was carried in appeal before the learned first appellate court, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree of eviction, passed by the lear...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1734
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 3-8-95 in sessions trial No. 18/94 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar, the appellant Ramesh Kumar has preferred this appeal on the facts and grounds mentioned here in after.2. On 4-10-93, first information report was lodged by one Jagdish Lal that the accused Ramesh Kumar was married to Ramesh Rani, sister of the complainant Jagdish, has been killed by his brother-in-law present accused. On this information, investigation was conducted by the police in the incident of 4-10-93 at about 4.00 in the morning and on completion of the investigation, Ramesh Kumar his mother and his father were prosecuted for homicidal death amounting to murder of Ramesh Rani on 4-10-93 as aforesaid. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, some of whom prove certain documents in connection with the crime and on appreciation of this oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion of guilt. Consisten...
Tag this Judgment!Jodhpur Chartered Accountants Society and Anil. Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Raj)396
V.S. KOKJE, ACTG. C.J.:Admit. Issue notice returnable by six weeks. Heard on stay application.2.. Issue notice of stay application also returnable by six weeks.3. In the meanWhile, the operation and implementation of the Notification No. 53/98 Service-tax, dt. 7th Oct., 1998, Annexure 2 to the petition, shall remain. stayed and be kept in abeyance so far as its application to practising chartered accountants. practising in the State of Rajasthan....
Tag this Judgment!Jodhpur Chartered Accountants Society Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(105)ELT290(Raj); 2006[2]STR267; [2007]6STT106
1. Admit. Issue notice returnable by six weeks.2. Heard on stay application.3. Issue notice of Stay application also returnable by six weeks.4. In the meanwhile, the operation and implementation of the Notification No. 53/98-Service Tax, dated 7-10-1998, Anx. 2 to the petition, shall remain stayed and be kept in abeyance so far as its application to practising Chartered Accountants practising in the State of Rajasthan....
Tag this Judgment!Tarachand Dangi Vs. the Municipal Council
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1999WLC(Raj)UC426; 1999(1)WLN198
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Undisputed facts of the case are that the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector was created in Municipal Council, Sikar, vide order dated 30.9.91. The respondent was a member of the scheduled caste while the petitioner Tara Chand Dangi is from general category. Shri Nemichand Garwa, respondent was appointed as a Nakedar in the Municipal Council, Sikar, by order dated 8th August, 1990, whereas the appellant Tara Chand was appointed on 1.2.7 as a Nakedar. So far as the seniority is concerned, in the Municipal Council Service, the appellant was senior. It is not disputed by the parties that both i.e. the appellant and the respondent No. 3 were eligible for promotion on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector, having acquired the qualification of Matriculation with Diploma in Local Self Government and having five years, experience as a Nakedar/Moharir. The Municipal Council took up the proceedings for promotion to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector from the post of N...
Tag this Judgment!Veer Prabhu Marketing Vs. Sunmoon Printers Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj229; 1999WLC(Raj)UC126
S.C. Mital, J. 1. The appellant is defendant No. 1 in Civil Suit No. 78/98 instituted by the plaintiff respondent No. 1 M/s Sunmoon Printers Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur for the reliefs of mandatory and perpetual injunction for ordering the defendant No. 1 appellant to make construction on the lines of construction already existing on his industrial plot A-11 described in para 2 situated in Industrial Estate, Jodhpur and if permission is granted by the defendant No. 2 to raise construction according to new rules, then to raise the construction leaving proper set backs as per rules and at a height by maintaining an angle of 22 degree of his shed. The defendant No. 1 may be further restrained from obstructing the passage of light, air and sun shine to the plaintiff s industrial plot No. A-12. The defendant No. 2 Rajasthan Industrial Development & Investment Corporation, Jodhpur is respondent No. 2 in this appeal. The respondent No. 1 also moved an application under order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Bhai Bhola Bhai Jani and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: [2001]249ITR363(Raj)
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The aforesaid petitions are listed for admission, but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of them on the merits.2. By filing Writ Petition No. 1554 of 1998, the petitioner, Shri Suresh Bhai Bhola Bhai Jani, questions the validity of warrant of authorisation dated March 27, 1998 (annexure 5), under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1961'), on the ground, inter alia, that on the information in possession of the Commissioner (respondent No. 2) no reasonable person could have entertained a belief that the amount of Rs. 12,00,000 (rupees twelve lakhs) seized on suspicion from possession of the petitioner represents undisclosed income for the block period.3. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 363 of 1998 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the Income-tax Officer, Sumerpur, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated May 4, 1998, passed by the Judici...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »