Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2010(1)Raj39; 2009(3)WLN113
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The application seeking immediate order for ejectment of the tenants from the demised premises (Case No. 1/1997: Old No. 10/1996) as made by the respondent No. 3 (hereinafter also referred to as 'the applicant' / 'the landlord') on 10.06.1996 with reference to the provisions of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' / 'the Act of 1950') came to be allowed by the Additional District Magistrate, Banswara on 13.05.1997 making an order for ejectment of the tenants from the suit premises. The order so passed on 13.05.1997 was challenged by the tenants under Section 16(11) of the Act of 1950 in Civil Revision Petition No. 1/2005 that came to be dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Banswara by the impugned order dated 15.12.2005. Aggrieved, the tenants in the first place preferred a regular first appeal (CFA No. 77/2006) that was dismissed by this Court on 12.05.2006 as being incompetent....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN494
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge No. 1 Jodhpur, dismissing the plaintiffs suit for partition and recovery of arrears of rent.2. For the proper appreciation of the facts, the following pedigree showing the relationship of the parties is set out below: Udaichand | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Dharam Chand Kewal Chand *Zorawar Mal | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Umrao Chand @Dhanpat Chand 'Inder Chand (Plaintiff) (died in Smt. (Deft. 1 along with 2009 Migsar V. 2= his sons & grand-sons 3-11-1952 (defts. 2 to 5) *Zorawar Mal | --------------------------- | | Himmat Mal (D.W.12) Chanda Mal | ------------------------------ | | Mohan Mal Sumat Mal (D.W. 8) @Dhanpat Chand | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | Ugam Chand Manohar Paras Prakash Prem Chand Pratap Chand (Deft. 6) Chand Chand C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2009)IVLLJ225Raj; RLW2009(3)Raj2029; 2009(3)WLN571
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Petitioner Gopal Prasad Varshney was appointed on the post of Clerk in the respondent Bank on 23.01.1965 after giving age relaxation of two and half years in view of his additional qualification and retired from the post of Senior Manager on attaining age of superannuation on 31.07.1995. The pension scheme was introduced in the Banking Industry in November, 1993. The respondent Bank also framed its own employees pension regulation in 1993. The total service of the petitioner with the respondent Bank was 31 years, whereas for 100% pension 33 years service is required and for short of 2 years service, the petitioner wanted to take the benefit of Rule 26(c) of The Bank of Rajasthan Limited (Employees') Pension Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996') as prior to the service with the respondent Bank, the petitioner had served in the Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation for the period from 01.08.1959 to 09.01.1965. To this effect, the petitioner submitted his repre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN398
Jagat Narain, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan (defendant No. 2) against a decree of the District Judge, Kota, dated 25-9-58 decreeing a suit instituted against it and against the Union of India (defendant No. 1) by the Associated Stone Industries Kota (hereinafter referred to as the Company).2. The relevant facts are that the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Kota entered into an agreement Ex. A on 2-5- 45 with the Company for quarrying Kachcha stone from the Tehsils of Ramganj Mandi and Chochat. Monopoly rights for quarrying Kachcha stone in these two tehsils were granted to the Company for a period of 15 years from 1-10- 44. The terms and conditions contained in Clause 18(1) of the agreement ran as under:In consideration of the concessions and privileges granted by the Grantor and in lieu of income-tax, super tax and excess profits tax, the Grantee convenant to pay to the Grantor royalty on the stone excavated at the rate of rupee one per 100 sq. ft., subjected to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj46
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Rajasthan State Mines and Mineral Limited, a Government of Rajasthan Enterprises, RSMM, for short, against the Railway Administration challenging the vires of Railways (Punitive Charges for Over-riding of Wagons) Rules, 2004 framed under the provisions of Section 73 of the Railways Act, 1989 and framed in supersession of earlier Rules of 1990 prevailing in this regard.2. The petitioner had initially laid a challenge to the provisions of Section 73 of the Railways Act, 1989 also, but that challenge was given up before the Division Bench of this Court on 26.9.1997 and challenge was restricted to the validity of aforesaid Rules of 2004 and thus, the matter was remanded to the Single Judge. However, prior to that, on 6.12.2006, the Division Bench had passed the following Interim order in the matter:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh BaliaHon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan VyasMr. M.R. Singhvi, for the appellant.Mr. Kamal Dave, Mr. J.P. J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1969WLN177
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is plaintiff's revision application against an order of the Civil Judge, Ajmer, setting aside an award which was made in his favour. This order was confirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge, Ajmer.2. The material facts are these. Shri Lajpat Rai, plaintiff, was appointed a lecturer in the D.A.V. College, Ajmer on 16-7-51. He was confirmed on 16-7-53 and on 28-9-53 agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant incorporating the terms of his employment. The defendant is the Arya Samaj Shiksha Sabha, Ajmer. It is a registered body, which runs the D.A.V. College, Ajmer. Para 9 of this agreement provides for termination of the services of the plaintiff on the grounds enumerated in Clauses (a) to (f). Para 11 of the agreement provides for arbitration in case of any dispute arising from the termination of services, by a tribunal consisting of the Vice-Chancellor for the time being of Agra University, a judicial officer not below the rank o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1969]72ITR278(Raj)
CHHANGANI J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' by which the following question of law has been referred to us for our answer :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the payment of Rs. 60,000 under section 10(2) (xv) and/or section 10(1) ?'The material facts are these.The assessee is the Dholpur Glass Works Ltd., a public limited company (hereinafter referred to as the assessee-company), formed in the year 1946. By an agreement dated February 18, 1945, the assessee-company appointed the firm of M/s. Agarwal Brothers of Agra as its managing agents. M/s. Agarwal Brothers were to be paid managing agency commission equivalent to 12 1/2% of the net profits of the assessee-company besides office allowance of Rs. 1,000 per month. Initially the assessee-company started manufacturing commercial glasses w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)17
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Both these special appeals raise common questions relating to the validity of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter reffered to as 'the Rules' ).2. The Rules have been made by the Governor of Rajasthan, in exercise of the power conferred on him by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, for the purpose of regulating the recruitment to the posts in and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service ( hereinafter referred to as 'the service'). The Rules were published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 16th March, 1966 and they came into force with effect from that date. Rule 4 of the Rules relates to composition and strength of the Service and the said rule, as originally framed, laid down that the Service shall consist of eight groups specified in the Schedule to the Rules. The number of groups specified in the Schedule to the Rules was subsequently increased ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN846
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. This is a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ, order or direction for the release of HariRam Loharia (hereinafter called 'the detenu') detatined under Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Security Act') by the order of the District Magistrate, Sikar (hereinafter called 'the D.M ') dated 25-9-1973.2. On a report by the Assistant District Supply Officer to the Sadar Police Station, Sikar, dated 7-9-73 a search was made of the premises of Jagdamba Oil and Dal Mills, Sikar, and the Inspector found 2808 bags of cement while the stock register showed a balance of 2689 bags only. The excess of 119 bags according to the police was due to the admixture of sand in cement bags and in a garage some labourers were engaged in the process of adulteration and they made statements to this effect. A case under Section 420 IPC and Essential ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]64STC324(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. As a common question of law arises in these two cases, we propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. These reference applications under Section 15(2) and Section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are treated as revision petitions under Section 15(1) of the Act as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984, because of the provisions of Sub-section (10) of Section 13 of the Amending Act of 1984, as they were pending before this Court at the time when the amending Act of 1984 came into force.3. The question which arises in both these cases is as to whether interest could be levied under Section 11B of the Act in respect of default of payment of tax for part of a month at the relevant time. The period of assessment in the case of M/s. Hemraj Udhyog in respect of which this question arose, was from June 22, 1974, to July 10, 1975. In the case of M/s. Keshrilal Lalchand the period of assessment was from ...
Tag this Judgment!