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 : 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 : 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!