Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1994Raj178; 1994(2)WLC353; 1994(2)WLN43
1. Bajrang Lal, landlord plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of Satya Narain tenant in respect of the shop in Question situated in Bhiloara. The rate of rent admitted to be Rs. 45/- per month. It is said that one Sharda Bai was the owner landlord of the shop in question and vide a sale deed Ex. 1 dated 22-8-1972 said Sharda Bai sold out the shop in question to the plaintiff and thereafter the defendant appellant has become the tenant for the shop in question. Ex. 2 is the rent note which the tenant is stated to have executed in favour of Sharda Bai and after the purchase a notice was given by the landlord, which is Ex. 3 and there was another notice given by Sharda Bai to the tenant which is Ex. 4, stating that she had sold out the shop in question to the plaintiff. Exs. 5 and 6 are the postal receipt and acknowledgment. Ex. 8 are the proceedings from a suit where the tenant had admitted the status of Sharda Bai. The plaintiff sought the eviction of the tenant defendant on the ground o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1978Raj186; 1978(11)WLN173
ORDERP.D. Kudal, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. is directed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 2nd July, 1977, whereby the application dated 2nd March, 1977 seeking amendment of the plaint was rejected. It was alleged in the plaint that the suit premises were constructed in the month of April, 1971 and that in view of the then existing law the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) did not apply to the premises which were constructed after 1st June, 1951 for a period of seven years from the date of completion. This provision contained in Section 2(e) of the Act was deleted by the Ordinance dated 29th Sept. 1975. This ordinance was thereafter replaced by an Act. The contention of the plaintiff is that in view of this legislative change it has become necessary to amend the plaint to bring it in conformity to the requirements of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1970Raj252; [1970]75ITR253(Raj); 1969()WLN365
Bhandari, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'B' (hereinafter called the Tribunal) has made this reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ap-plications filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and the as-sessee Messrs. Mazdoor Kisan Sahkari Samiti, village Bhadu, District Bhilwara.2. The statement of the case submitted to this Court by the Tribunal shows that the assessee was a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act in the year 1949. The assessee was doing business of mining mica in the State of Rajasthan from the year 1952. Up to and including the assessment year 1960-61 no assessments were made of the incomes of assessee because the tax was not payable by a co-operative society in respect of profits and gains of business carried on by it by virtue of Section 14 (3) of the Act. But there was an amendment of Section 14 (3) of the Act in the year 1960 and the exemp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1969CriLJ1324; 1969()WLN87
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This case involves interpretation of Section 12 of the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Places Act, No. 18 of 1954, which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'.2. The following question has been referred to Division Bench by Kan Singh J., whether the word shall' occurring in the words 'shall direct that any work which shall have been constructed in contravention of the provisions of this Act or of any permission granted thereunder shall be removed so as to restore the building or place in question to its original condition should be construed as 'may'. The circumstances in which this question has arisen may be set out briefly as follows:-The Station House Officer, Police Station, Malasisar, District Jhunjhunu, filed a complaint against Sardar Khan and five others under Section 6 read with Section 11 of the Act in the Court of Sub-divisional Magistrate Jhunjhunu on 7-5-1968 alleging that the accused bad constructed a mosque in village Dabri, District Jhunjhunu w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1980]45STC345(Raj); 1980()WLN52
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'), by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 30th September, 1969, passed in D.B. Civil Misc. Application (Sales Tax) No. 44 of 1969.2. The question that has been referred to us reads as follows:Whether, after the amendment of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act by Section 6 of the Rajasthan Amending Act (Act No. 13 of 1964), sales tax could be levied by the State of Rajasthan on the goods sold by the petitioner during the period from 14th May, 1964, to 31st December, 1964, by virtue of Notification, Excise and Taxation Department, No. F. 5(40) FD (R & T)/63-XIII dated 2nd March, 1963, issued by the Government of Rajasthan and penalty could be imposed on it under Section 16(l)(i) of the said Act? 3. For a correct appreciation of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2342; 1991(2)WLC630; 1991(1)WLN62; 1991(2)WLN43
R.S. Verma, J.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer has convicted the appellants Saffiya and Nathiya of offence under Section 20(II) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and has sentenced each one of them to undergo R.I. for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-each and in default to undergo further R.I. for one year each. Aggrieved, Saffiya and Nathiya have come in appeal.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 28-2-87 PW5 Hamir Singh was posted as S.H.O., Police Station, Sheo. That day he was informed by the Superintendent of Police, Barmer that the latter had been informed by an informer that Nathiya and Saffiya were proceeding on two camels with contraband 'charas'. Upon this information from the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, Shri Hamir Singh along with Dy. S. P. Govind Narayan, Head Constables Bijraj Singh and Heera Ram, Head Constable of C.I.D. Umaid Singh and other police officials, nam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj347; 1973()WLN128
V.P. Tyagi, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the judgment-debtor who stood surety for the principal debtor and it arises out of the following circumstances : 2. A decree from the Civil Court was obtained by the decree-holder respondent No. 1 against Jeetmal respondent No. 2 and appellant Narayan Singh who stood surety for the debt advanced by the decree-holder to the principal debtor. After the decree was put in execution, principal debtor Jeetmal made an application under Section 6 of the Rajas-than Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act. 1957 (hereinafter called the Act) before the Debt Relief Court for the re-determination of his decretal amount as he was an agriculturist. Notice of that application of Jeetmal was issued to the executing Court. The executing Court abated the execution proceedings against both the judgment-debtors. On appeal, the learned Judge, relying on an authority of this Court in Brij Gopal v. Bhanwarlal, 1965 Raj LW 196, upheld the order of abatement against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1997]225ITR142(Raj); 1996(3)WLC373; 1996(1)WLN36
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court with respect to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1977-78 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there could not be a partial partition both with regard to an asset of the Hindu undivided family and its members and sustaining the inclusion of the jewellery of the value of Rs. 89,892 for the assessment year 1975-76 and Rs. 94,000 for the assessment year 1977-78 in the net wealth of the assessee ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Hindu undivided family consisting of the coparceners Sarvashri Lalchand -- karta of the Hindu undivided family -- and his two sons, Jawahar Lal and Lalit Kumar. On Kartik Wadi 3, Samvat year 2031, a partial partition of the asset relating to jewellery held by the Hindu undivided family ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1987)65CTR(Raj)46; [1988]169ITR379(Raj)
S.S. Byas, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'E'), Delhi, has remitted the following question of law to this court for its decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is an educational institution within the meaning of Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and is, therefore, not liable to be assessed under the Act ?'2. Briefly recapitulated, the material facts are that the assessee, Maharaja Sawai Mansinghji Museum Trust, City Palace, Jaipur, is a public charitable trust duly registered under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959. The late Maharaja Mansinghji, the ex-ruler of the erstwhile State of Jaipur, created a trust on April 16, 1959, by a registered deed and founded a museum in a portion of the City Palace, Jaipur, for the benefit of the public. By a supplementary deed of trust executed in 1972, some more properties were settled on trust. It has been treated and accepted a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj1420
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The facts of this case are identical to the facts involved in Kailash Chandra v. State of Raj. and Ors., S.B. C.W.P. No. 5663 of 1993 = RLW 2005(1) Raj. 584. In addition thereto, another fact which has come on record and which has not been disputed is that after the termination on purported ground that work for which the petitioner have been appointed has come to end, another person namely one Prakash Chandra has been appointed as Driver to discharge the duty which the petitioners were discharging under the Municipal Board, Rajsamand until first week of December, 1993.2. The other facts which emanate clearly from the record are that the petitioners were appointed as Driver on daily wages and continued as such for more than one year when their services were terminated verbally w.e.f. 02.12.1993. The petitioners performed their duties until first December, 1993, however, salary was paid to them only upto August, 1993. The immediate cause of termination was stated to be...
Tag this Judgment!