Rajasthan Court December 2005 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.
Sugan Chand Vs. Madan Lal Through Lrs. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj557; 2006(1)WLC412
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal against the decree and judgment dated July 21, 1979 of the District Judge Sawai Madhopur reversing the decree and judgment dated October 17, 1977 of Munsif Sawai Madhopur whereby plaintiff's suit for possession of the suit land was decreed and the defendants to remove their material from the suit land and to close the door and windows. The defendant respondents have filed cross objection.2. This court while admitting the appeal on January 21, 1980 framed following substantial question of law:-(i) Whether the interpretation put by the learned District Judge on the various documents of the title showing the ownership of the disputed land of the plaintiff is proper or not?(ii) Whether the sale of the disputed land by the Municipal Board, Sawai Madhopur without the permission and approval of the Collector is proper or not?(iii) Whether the lower appellate court could have ignored the site inspection note of the learned Munsif while ...
Shravan Kumar Vs. Bal Kishanji Through Lrs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj465; 2006(1)WLC595
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC has been filed by the heirs of appellant Shravan Kumar with the averments that Shravan Kumar died on October 10, 2004. Respondents have opposed the application on the ground that the alleged legal heirs were not utilizing the suit property with the deceased at the time of his death since the deceased himself was not using it. Controverting the reply of the respondents, Smt. Leelu the daughter of deceased filed affidavit to show that all the heirs were residing with the deceased at the time of his death. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties. I allow the application. The legal representatives of appellant are brought on record. Amended cause title has already been filed.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties on merits also. This is tenant's second appeal, against the concurrent findings arrived at by two courts below. It appears that issues No. 9, 10 & 11 regarding reasonable necessity and comparative hardshi...
Kishan Lal Sharma Vs. Nanag Ram Sharma Through L.Rs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj382; 2006(1)WLC452
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Learned first appellate court and the trial Court concurrently held that the tenanted shop was required by he landlord reasonably and bona fidely for the coal business of his son and that the tenant committed default in payment of rent. It is against these findings that the instant second appeal has been preferred by the tenant.2. As per averments made in the plaint the suit shop was let out to tenant on 1.2.1974 on rent at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month. The tenant neither paid nor tendered the rent from 1.7.1977 and committed default in payment of rent. It was also pleaded that the shop was required by the landlord for his son who intended to start coal business in it.3. The tenant refuted both the grounds taken by he landlord in support of his plea for eviction.4. As many as eight issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Issues in regard to reasonable and bona fide necessity, comparative hardship, partial eviction and default were decided in favour of th...
R.S.R.T.C. and ors. Vs. Khub Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj462; 2006(1)WLC419
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Having heard the submissions and on scanning the material on record I am satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the instant matter.2. Contextual fact depict that the plaintiff respondent (for short 'plaintiff') instituted civil suit with the averments that he was appointed in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'RSRTC') on the post of Conductor on probation in January 1980. When he was on duty on November 1, 1980 on the route of Shahpura Kawat his vehicle was checked and five passengers were found without tickets. After holding the inquiry the services of the plaintiff were terminated vide order dated June 23, 1984. The departmental appeal also was dismissed vide order dated February 5, 1985. During inquiry the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses was not afforded to the plaintiff as such the inquiry was not held properly and the provisions of Section 35 of Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees S...
C.T.O. Vs. Siddhu Palace
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: (2009)20VST184(Raj)
Vineet Kothari J.1. Jarvis, a jurist of his times once said 'while taxes and death, both are inevitable, being taxed to death is not'.2. The case present before this Court poses a question as to whether the entertainment tax collected by Panchayat Samiti under the provisions of Rajasthan Entertainments and Advertisements Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act' hereinafter) discharges the liability of the assessee under the Act and therefore, State Government through its Commercial Taxes Department again cannot demand the same tax on the same entertainment and for the same period.3. In fact, what should have been really a tug of war between the two departments of the State Government, its left and right arm, the right arm of the State Government, the Commercial Taxes Department without asking a question from the Panchayat Samiti, grabbed hold of the poor assessee and slapped upon him the demand of same entertainment tax, which it had already paid to the Panchayat Samiti.4. The chequered his...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Krishna Talkies
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: (2009)20VST757(Raj)
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. These two revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order.3. The Tax Board by its order dated May 9, 2003 has allowed the assessee's appeals and held that since the composition scheme for payment of entertainment tax, which was in force vide notification dated July 8, 1982 was cancelled with effect from May 22, 1999, for the period in question from May 23, 1999 to May 31, 1999 (in C.R. No. 556 of 2005) and June 1, 1999 to June 30, 1999 (in C.R. No. 555 of 2005), the assessee had collected and paid the entertainment tax on the basis of actual collection and had filed returns for the said period. The actual collection of entertainment tax for these periods was Rs. 6,611 and Rs. 14,566 respectively. However, the learned assessing authority proceeded on the assumption that since the order cancelling the composition for the assessee with effect from May 22, 1999 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration)...
Laj Kaur and anr. Vs. Shanti Devi Through Lrs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj115; RLW2006(1)Raj562; 2006(1)WLC609
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In Civil Second Appeal No. 192/1981 following substantial question of law was formulated on July 17, 1981 :-Whether the lower appellate court entertained the appeal after expiry of the prescribed period of limitationThis court considered the question and allowed the appeal of the landlord on October 17, 1997 while granting six months time to the tenant to vacate the suit premises.2 An application seeking review of the said order was filed by the tenant on April 7, 1998, which was dismissed in default on October 1, 1999. Thereafter the tenant filed instant Misc. Application on April 27, 2004 under sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the judgment dated October 17, 1997 rendered in second appeal No. 192/1981.3. It is contended by Mr. A.K. Bhargava, learned counsel for the tenant applicant that on October 17, 1997 the tenant and his counsel could not appear before this court and the landlord did not place correct facts before thi...
Raj Kumar Vs. Shanti Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj469; 2006(1)WLC607
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. This is tenant's second appeal against the decree and judgment dated August 24, 1998 of learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City reversing the decree and judgment dated February 1, 1996 of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) (East) Jaipur City. The parties shall be referred hereinafter, in the manner, they were arrayed in the suit.2. Contextual facts depict that the plaintiff instituted a suit in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) (East) Jaipur City for recovery of rent and eviction in regard to tenanted premises on the grounds of bonafide necessity, nuisance and change of user. It was pleaded in the plaint that the premises was let out only for stitching work but the tenant started selling ready made garments. The defendant by installing counter in the chowk, created nuisance. The plaintiff also pleaded that the shop was required by him reasonably and bonafidely. The defendant refuted the averments made in the plaint and asserted that the suit shop was let out f...
Ravindra Pareek Vs. Daya Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC534
ORDERNarendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.The injured appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment/award 12.1.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 289/1994, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 58,840 in favour of the claimant appellant.2. Learned Counsel for the claimant appellant contended that looking to the head injury of the injured and further that he was operated, the amount of Rs. 15,000 as compensation for 10% permanent disability is a meagre amount and the same be enhanced.3. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable and no case for interference in the impugned award is made out.4. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal.5. Learned Tribunal while discausesing Is...
Sharvan Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-2005
Reported in: 2(2006)DMC534
Dalip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kekri, District Ajmer in Sessions No. 5/2003 convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the offences under Section 306, IPC to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each and; in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment and further convicting the accused appellants under Section 201, IPC for one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The brief facts of this case, as perthe prosecution, are that the appellant No. 1 Sharvan Lal and the appellant No. 2 Achraj Devi, are husband and mother-in-law of Yashoda, the deceased. After the marriage of Yashoda with the appellant No. 1 Sharvan Lal, the accused appellants used to ill...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »