Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1961Raj6
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. This is a special appeal against the judgment and decree of Bhandari J, sitting single, confirming in second appeal the decision of the District Judge, Jaipur. Leave to appeal has been granted by the learned Judge.2. The appeal relates to a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, The Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd., for recovery of Rs. 3539/7/- from the defendant Municipal Committee, which is the appellant here. The plaintiff alleged that the Municipal Committee Madanganj had borrowed on 9-7-1947 a sum of Rs, 3,000/- and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, after the loan had been duly sanctioned by the Mahkama Khas of the then Kishangarh State. Later the Municipal Committee Madanganj merged in the Municipal Committee Kishangarh and plaintiff averred that, by virtue of the merger, the defendant became liable to pay the aforesaid amount with interest.The defendant resisted the claim and its liability to pay the amount; but admitted that in any...
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 : AIR1971Raj128
Jagat Narayan, 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 Chechat. 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 (i) 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 covenant to pay to the Grantor royalty on the stone excavated at the rate of rupee one per 100 sq. ft., subject t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1637
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, by K. Narendra, Managing Proprietor, Printer, Publisher and Editor of Hindi Daily 'Veer Arjun', New Delhi and Nanak Ram Israni, Correspondent of the above paper, Ajmer, against the order dated November 4, 1971, of learned Additional MunsinVMagis-trate, Ajmer City (East).2. The brief facts of this case are that Amrit Kumar Advocate had been engaged in Criminal Case No. 238 of 1966 (State V. Ajit Singh under Sections 323 and 335, Indian Penal Code), pending in the court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Ajmer, on behalf of Ajit Singh. When Ajit Singh had come to know on 25-8-1970, that that case had been decided against him and he had been convicted and sentenced, he had shouted to attract the attention of the court as to how he had been convicted when he had already given to his Advocate Amrit Kumar bribe money to be paid to the Munsiff-Magistrate. At that time Amrit Kumar was also present b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1984WLN585
G.M. Lodha, J.1. All the petitioners mentioned above claim to be the Managers of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Socities in Bharatpur District holding substantive posts and alleged that they are permanent employees. They have now received the orders which are impugned orders issued by the Managing Director, Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur directing their compulsory retirement under Rule 17 of the Krishi Rin Datri Sahkari Samitiyon ke Vyavasthapakon ke Chayan, Niyukti and Seva Niyam, 1977 thereinafter referred to as, `the Rules, 19J7) in pursuance of the decision of the Committee. A specimen copy of the order passed in Ismail Khan's case is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:dk;kZy; nh Hkjriqj lsUVy dksvksijsfVo cSd fy0] Hkjriqjdzekad@_.k@293 fnukad 8&1&83 14&2&83Jh blekbZy [kak O;oLFkkid xzke lgdkjh lfefr fy0 }kjklgk;d vf/k'kk'kh vf/kdkjh i0 lfefr uxjfo'k; & vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr ckcr Afnukad 8&7&83 dks desVh dh cSBd gqbZ A ftl cSBd es vkidk ekeyk izLrqr gqvk...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1985]156ITR463(Raj)
Sidhu, J.1. On an application made by the assessee under Section 256(1), Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter called 'the Act'), the Appellate Tribunal made a reference to this court inviting our opinion on three questions of law framed by the Appellate Tribunal as follows :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right, in holding that the purchase and installation of secondhand machinery not earlier used by the firm, which was otherwise an industrial undertaking, disentitles the firm from claiming deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that mere purchasing of a polishing machine by an undertaking already in existence and addition of one more process to the existing manufacturing in the accounting year corresponding to the assessment year 1969-70 did not constitute setting up of a new industrial undertaking ?(iii) Whether, on the facts an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2006Raj128; I(2006)DMC667; RLW2006(1)Raj612; 2006(1)WLC648
V.K. Bali, J. 1. Sudarshan Bhatia, born and brought up in the State of Rajas-than, but stated to be a Canadian citizen, died on 21.4.1989 in Germany leaving behind considerable movable and immovable properties. Poonam Bhati his wife and Smita Bhatia, minor daughters, said to have been born out of the wedlock of Sudarshan Bhatia and Poonam Bhatia, successfully sought succession certificate with regard to the movable properties of deceased Sudarshan Bhatia, details whereof have been given in the application under Section 372 of the Indian succession Act itself as the same was allowed vide orders dated 6.12.1999 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Whereas Surendra Bhatia brother of Sudarshan Bhatia resisted grant of succession certificate to Poonam Bhati and her daughter Smita on the basis of Will dated 17.4.1989 (Ex.A.l) said to have been executed by Sudarshan Bhati, his sister resisted the same on the ground that movable properties owned by Sudarshan Bhatia were made from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj6
Dave, J. 1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Balotra, dated 13-7-1953 whereby their suit has-been dismissed.2. The plaintiffs in this case 'were seven innumber. Their case was that plaintiffs 1 and 2 Multanmal and Dayachand and one Nenmal, who wasthe deceased father of plaintiff 3, carried on business to the name and style of Multanmal Juharmaland Company. Defendants 5 and 6 were also sonsof the deceased Nenmal but they had separated fromthe father in his lifetime and so they were impleaded only as pro forma defendants.It was averred that the remaining defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were members of a joint family and that defendants 1 and 2 Sanwalchand and Babulal, who were Kartas of 'that family, borrowed from the plaintiffs' firm Multanmal Juharmal and Company Rs. 9801/- on Fagan Sud 11 Samwat 2001 and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 8 annas per cent per mensem.The claim was thus founded on a Khata dated Fagan Sud 11 Samwat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1957Raj336
Modi, J. 1. These two first appeals raise a common question as to their proper venue or forum. In the event that these appeals should have been filed in the Court of the District Judge concerned, instead of in the High Court, a question of limitation is further involved because in that case the appeals were presented, more than thirty days after the judgment of the trial Court was delivered. We propose to decide both these points by this judgment.2. In order to appreciate the points which are raised before us, a few facts may be stated shortly.3. As to Appeal No. 55, the plaintiffs respondents filed their suit against the defendant appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,221 on the 29th May, 1953. The Senior Civil Judge Jalore decreed the suit by his judgment dated the 25th January, 1956. The defendant filed his present appeal in this Court on the 15th May, 1956, which came to be registered as Appeal No. 55 of 1956.4. As to Appeal No. 56 of 1956, the plaintiff appellant filed his suit...
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!