Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1972Raj98; 1971(4)WLN448
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This second appeal by the plaintiffs raises a question oi interpretation of Section 52 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act, 1947 (Act No. XXVIII of 1947), which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'. The facts riving rise to this question may be briefly narrated in the following manner.2. Defendant-respondent Sualal executed a 'khata' for Rs. 355/9/9 on 21-11-50 in favour of the plaintiffs. On 14th January, 1952, plaintiff Ram Swaroop made an application under Section 4 (1) of the Act, as extended to the erstwhile State of Aimer, in the Court of the Debt Settlement Officer, Tehsil Aimer, for adjustment of the suit debt, it appears that ultimately the case came up for disposal before the Extra Debt Settlement Officer, Katri, who determined the amount of debt in the manner provided in the Act and made an award on 24-7-59. Dissatisfied with the orderof the Debt Settlement Officer the debtor Sualal filed appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Aimer, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1998Raj28; 1997(3)WLC411; 1997(2)WLN46
B.R. Arora, J.1. Petitioner Smt. Saroj Chotiya, by this writ petition, has challenged (i) the validity of Section 26(xiv) and its proviso (e) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, which provide general disqualification for the person to be elected as a Member, who has more than two children; and (ii) the legality and correctness of the order dated 13-1-97 (Annexure 4) by which the petitioner was put under suspension.2. Petitioner Smt. Saroj Chotiya, on 2X-9-95, was declared elected as a Member of the Municipal Board, Ratangarh from Ward No. 12. On 9-12-95 she gave birth to the third child. On 30-11-96, a notice under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act (for short, 'the Act') was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary, Local-Self Government, by which she was asked to explain why she should not be removed from the post of the Member of the Board as she has incurred the disqualification under Section 26 of the Act by giving birth to the third child. She filed reply to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1982Raj39; 1981()WLN233
1. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge, dated June 29, 1981.2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity as well as on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The plaintiff-landlord filed an application under Section 13 (6) of the Rajasthan, Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 1-9-78 for striking off the defence against eviction. The learned District Judge. Alwar by his order dated 23-7-79 allowed the application and struck off the defence against eviction. The defendants filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act in this Court, which came UD for consideration before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal by his judgment, dated June 29, 1981- The defendants have filed the present appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge. A preliminary objection was raised by the le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj207; 2002(3)WLN622; 2002(3)WLN622
Chauhan, J. 1. The instant revision has been filed against the order of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, dated 24.7.2001, by which it has held that the inspection charges paid by the assessee but subsequently reimbursed by the purchaser, shall not form part of the sale price.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent-assessee had entered into an agreement with the public Health & Engineering Department, Rajasthan, for the sale of A.C. Cement Pressure Pipes and inspection charges had to be paid by the purchaser subsequently. The Assessing Authority, when made the assessment for the years 1987-88, 1990-91 and 1991-92, held that the said inspection charges formed part of the turn over being ah integral part of the sale price and the tax was imposed. Subsequently, appeals were filed, which had been accepted by the Appellate Authority vide judgment and order dated July 15/16, 1998, against which further appeals were preferred before ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1985Raj71
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These two special appeals Nos. 21/82 and 183/82 have been filed by (1) Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (for short 'the Trust') and (2) State of Rajasthan and the Special Officer, Town Planning Department, Jodhpur respectively against the judgment dt. Aprl. 30, 1981 of the learned single Judge, by which he allowed Civil Writ Petn. No. 13 of 1975 (Reported in ILR (1981) 31 Raj 656 : AIR 1982 NOC 30) filed by the petitioners-respondents Balveer Singh and eleven others and declared the Notification Annexure 18 dt. June 3, 1974 invalid and quashed the acquisition proceedings. As both the appeals are directed against the judgment dt. Aprl. 30, 1981 and involve identical questions and were heard together, we consider it proper to dispose them of by a common judgment.2. Balveersingh and eleven others who are respondents in both the appeals, will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners. They filed the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings of their lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1974Raj1; 1973()WLN210
Kan Singh, J. 1. The appeal raises a short question whether before filing a suit against the Gram Panchayat a notice was necessary to the Panchayat under Section 79(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.2. Learned counsel for the appellant admits that no notice was given by the plaintiff-appellant to the Gram Panchayat. He contends that Sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the Act was inapplicable. He takes the stand that the Panchayat had no authority to treat the plaintiff's land as belonging to it and then pass an order for removal of the so-called encroachment. The relevant facts as stated in the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court were briefly these: Plaintiff claims to have a piece of land situated in village Thanvla. He started the construction of a house over thisland which was abutting on a public road. The public of village Thanvla made a report before the Gram Panchayat about the construction alleging that there was an encroachment by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1985Raj11; 1984()WLN647
P.K. Banerjee, C.J.1. This Full Bench Reference was made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. C. Agrawal in S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 7 of 1981.- The Hon'ble Judge formulated the substantial question of law to be decided in the Full Bench in the following terms : --'Whether a tenant of a mortgagee is entitled to the protection of the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 against the mortgagor after the redemption of the mortgage?'In the said order of reference Mr. Justice Agrawal referred to two cases namely Ghamandi Ram v. Shanker Lal, 1965 Raj LW 333 : (AIR 1966 Raj 19) and Sachal Mal Parasram v. Mst. Ratan Bai AIR 1972 SC 637. His Lordship felt that the definition of 'landlord' contained in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950') is wider than that of in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949. In view of the first Division Bench judgment in Ghamandi Ram v. Shanker Lal 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1985Raj1; 1984()WLN149
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. Narain Lal, a votary of the Swetamber sect of Jains, made an application under Section 38, Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) before the Assistant Commissioner appointed under the Act, for permission to make an application before the District Court seeking certain directions from the said Court against the Prabandhkarini Committee Digamber Jain Atishya Kstratia (hereinafter called the Digamber Samiti), which is in charge of the management and administration of the well known Jain temple, known as the temple of Mahavirji, situate in the town of Mahavirji alias Chandangaon Naurangabad in the district of Sawai Madhopur, and also against the President and Secretary of the Digamber Samiti in respect of the administration of the affairs of the said temple. By his order, dated December 23. 1970, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the said application. The Digamber Samiti challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner by way of a writ petition u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1988Raj2; 1987(1)WLN134
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Right and duty co-exists. There cannot be any right without any duty and there cannot be any duty without any right. It is a happy sign that the citizens of Jaipur, through the present petitioner Mr. L. K. Koolwal has moved to this Court in the matter of sanitation of Jaipur City. Good number of affidavits have been filed by the citizens of Jaipur relating to each of the locality referred to in the writ petition to show that the sanitation problem is acute in Jaipur which is hazardous to the life of the citizens of Jaipur. Insanitation leads to a slow poisoning and adversely affects the life of the citizen and invites the death at an earlier date than the natural death.2. Article 51A of the Constitution has been inserted in the Constitution of India vide 42nd Amendment in 1976. We can call Article 51A ordinarily as the duty of the citizens, but in fact it is the right of the citizens as it creates the right in favour of the citizen to move to the Court to see that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1993)IILLJ1098Raj; 1992(3)WLC96; 1992(1)WLN541
Balia, J.1. This Special Appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3611/1988 on 25th January 1991 reported in 1992 II CLR 552.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Lake Palace Hotel and Motel (Pvt.) Ltd., Udaipur owns the Lake Palace Hotel situated at Udaipur. Respondent Ranjit Singh was employed as Steward-cum-Dining Supervisor in the services of the above named Hotel drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 926.85 when his services were terminated by order dated 13th August, 1983. Aggrieved with the termination order, the respondent approached prescribed Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act., Udaipur by making a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner under Section 28A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, hereinafter called as 'the Shop Act'. A preliminary objection was raised before the Prescribed Authority about its jurisdiction to entertain th...
Tag this Judgment!