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 : 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 : 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 : RLW2008(2)Raj1197
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 11/5/2007 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur thereby rejecting her application filed on 26/4/2007. This application was filed by the petitioner in the pending proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred in short as the 'Act') which in fact was jointly filed on 20/2/1998 by the petitioner, Rajkumari Lalitya and Rajkumar Dev Raj, respondents No.2 and 3, respectively for issuance of Succession Certificate with regard to properties of late 'Maharaj' Jagat Singh who died on 5/2/1997. When notices of the petition under Section 372 of the Act were issued, other legal representatives of late 'Maharaj' Jagat Singh namely; Maharaj Prithvi Singh and 'Maharaj' Jai Singh admitted to the claim of the aforementioned three applicants to inherit estates of late 'Maharaj' Jagat Singh in equal proportion. Yet another brother 'Maharaj' Bhawani Singh objecte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj140
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dtd. 26.5.2008 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application of the defendant filed under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of the C.P.C. seeking to produce on record certain additional documents in an eviction matter.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff was for seeking eviction of the suit shop in question on the ground of personal and bonafide necessary of the landlord. After the evidence of the plaintiff-defendant was complete on 17.11.2006 and the case was fixed for final arguments on 8.12.2006 after taking several opportunities for arguing the case, the defendant filed the aforesaid application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of the C.P.C. and the said defendant wanted to produce the documents viz. application for registration under the Sales Tax Law by one M/s. Arihant Metals, proprietorship concern of father of the plaintiff, which was purportedly signed as Manager by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2010Raj86,RLW2010(2)Raj1418
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. The controversy involved in these writ petitions is identical, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The inspection report dated 20.7.09, provisional assessment order dated 31.7.09 issued by the Assistant Engineer (Vigilance), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited ('AWNL'), Kankroli directing the petitioners to deposit the electricity charges assessed under provisional assessment order without passing final assessment orders in terms of Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'the Act'), are impugned in each of these writ petitions.3. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the electric connections were released by the AWNL to the petitioners industrial establishments. On 20.7.09, a vigilance checking was made by the respondent No. 2 at the premises of the petitioners industrial establishments and the checking reports were prepared. As per the checking reports, the petitioners were found indulged in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2002]255ITR599(Raj)
N.N. Mathur J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated February 28, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 7,88,848 with respect to the bad debt for the assessment year 1987-88.2. This court admitted the appeal on the following question of law :'Whether after the Finance Act, 1985, amending the provisions of Section 36(l)(vii) and Section 36(2) with effect from April 1,1985, inserting a proviso to Section 36(l)(vii) and Clause (v) to Section 36(2), claims under sections 36(l)(vii) and 36(l)(viia) are separate and distinct ?'3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee, the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., is a scheduled bank governed by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the respondent-assessee for the assessment year 1985-86 on the income of Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1957Raj343
Wanchoo, C. J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Rawat and 141 others against the State of Rajasthan, the Tehsildar of Phalodi, and Shri Vikramsingh and others in connection with proceedings under Section 4A of the Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating (Second Amendment) Act (No. XXII) of 1953 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The case of the applicants was briefly this:The applicants are residents of village Bhaniyana in Tehsil Pokran, and are tenants of Shri Vikramsingh and other Jagirdars of Pokran. They say that they are liable to pay one-eighth share of the produce of Bajra, Moong, Mouth, Til and Juar as rent to the jagirdar, but that no share of the produce of Guar is payable by them.The share is determined by estimate or appraisement of the standing crop, which is known as Kunta in local parlane. They further say that they were prepared in the year 1953 to have the estimate or appraisement made according to the above share; but the jagirdars demanded ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(4)WLC725; 2002(1)WLN501
ORDERBalia, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 21.7.1997 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer.(2). The brief facts of the case are: that the petitioner is a person who holds certificate of registration under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 as also the CentralSales Tax Act, 1956. The business of the assessee has been described in the Certificate of registration as 'Execution of Work Contract and Drilling of Wells of Oil India Limited'. The petitioner executes the work contracts for Oil India Limited in excavating crude oil by using drilling machines. In his certificate of registration, the goods are described for the purpose of sub-S. (1) and (3) of Sec. 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, and it is mentioned that the sale of those goods in the course of inter state trade to the dealer shall be taxable at the rate specified in that sub-Sec. subject to the provisions of sub-s. (1) of the Sec. 8 of the Act. The column for re-sale has been filled by Nil. The col...
Tag this Judgment!