Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1979Raj44; 1977()WLN332
A.P. Sen, AG. C.J.1. This is a reference to the Division Bench for reconsideration of the correctness of the decisions of Jagat Narayan J., in Rajeshwar Dayal v. Padam Kumar Kothari (1969 Raj LW 546) : (AIR 1970 Raj 77) and reiterated by him in Kedarnath v. Pana Devi (1972 WLN 501) 8 (AIR 1973 Raj 24) holding that an application by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint seeking to introduce a new ground of eviction viz., on the ground of default based on Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, be allowed under Section 153 or Order 16, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where such ground arises after the institution of a suit for the eviction of the defendant on one or more of the grounds set forth in Section 13 (1) of the Act, inasmuch as that would be tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to include a cause of action which had not accrued on the date of the suit,2. The parties stand in the relationship of l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1960Raj224
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. These three appeals arise out of as many suits for recovery of damages instituted against the common defendant, the Kotah Transport Ltd., the appellant in all these appeals, by different plaintiffs, who are respondents to these appeals. First Appeal No. 21 of 1952 arises out of Suit No. 14 of 1949 instituted by the Jhalawar Transport Service Lid., the plaintiff in that suit, in the Court of the Civil Judge at Jhalawar. First Appeal No. 4 of 1955 arises out of Suit No. 36 of 1949 instituted by the plaintiff Amar Nath Bhatia in the Court of the District Judge at Kotah, while First Appeal No. 5 of 1955 arises out of Suit No. 37 of 1949 instituted in the same Court by the plaintiffs Suit. Gayatri Devi and her minor son Dhirendra. All these suits were field on the same day, that is, 29-7-1949. Most of the witnesses are also common, but Suit No. 14 of 1949. which has given rise to First Appeal No. 21 of 1952, was disposed of earlier on 29-3-1952, by the Civil Judge of J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1969]74ITR84(Raj)
Bhandari, J. 1. This is a reference by the Central Board of Revenue under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, hereinafter called the Act. The statement of the case submitted by the Central Board of Revenue discloses the following facts which have given rise to this reference: Daudas, son of Sukhdeo, submitted a statement of account under Section 53(1) of the Act to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Jaipur, giving the details of various properties belonging to a Hindu undivided family consisting of his father, Sukhdeo, who died on February 24, 1957, and his sons and grandsons. On the death of Daudas on 3rd May, 1957, his son, Mukandas, pursued the proceedings before the said officer. The properties of the deceased, Sukhdeo, comprised of several items, such as mortgage deeds executed in favour of Sukhdeo and his four sons, house property and money-lending business. The statement further shows that Sukhdeo, after having served a jagirdar, started tobacco business under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1979Raj87; 1979()WLN37
M.C. Jain, J.1. The following question of law was referred by one of us (M. C. Jain, J.) to be answered by the Full Bench vide order of reference dated 2-9-1978:--'Whether the finding recorded by the first appellate court on the issue relating to comparative hardship remitted by this Court, being a finding of fact, is not open to challenge in the second appeal?'2. The material facts leading to the present reference may be briefly stated as follows:--3. Mahant Ramdas, plaintiff-respondent, instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment from the disputed premises on the ground of personal necessity and default in the Court of Munsif, Udaipur, who by his judgment dated 30-11-1966 decreed the suit for eviction having found issue No. 2 regarding personal necessity in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant went in appeal, but his appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide his judgment dated 10th of July, 1968. The defendant then preferred the second appeal. Duri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1960Raj1
Bhandari, J. 1. This is a Civil Second Appeal in a suit for redemption. The main point involved in this appeal is whether the limited right of mortgagee can be acquired by adverse possession. There is an unreported Division Bench case of this Court in Sarwan Lal v. Gangadhar, Second Appeal No. 220 of 1949, decided on the 12th October, 1955, in which it was held that such right can be acquired by adverse possession, but there is another Division Bench case of this Court in Hansia v. Bakhtawarmal, ILR (1958) 8 Raj 126: (AIR 1958 Raj 102), in which it has been held that such right cannot be acquired by adverse possession. When this appeal came up for hearing before one of us sitting as a single Judge, it was referred to a Division Bench, in view of the conflict of opinion between two Division Benches of this Court. Eventually, this Special Bench was constituted for deciding the appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated thus. On 7th October, 1949, the plaintiffs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1986Raj18; 1985(1)WLN461
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company, Branch Office, Alwar, the insurer and Madan Lal Saini, the owner of the vehicle, truck No. RJA 5088 involved in an accident which took place on 9th March, 1979 near Station Road, Alwar, by which Dhanniram, the deceased, aged 18 years, was knocked down. Nasru Khan, the respondent No. 3, was the driver of the truck. Dhanniram died on account of the injuries sustained during the accident and the Tribunal has found that the driver was driving the truck rashly and negligently, on account of which the accident took place.2. Before the Tribunal, after the evidence was recorded, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 21,000/- to the claimants, namely, Ramdayal father and Smt. Umrawati, mother of Dhanniram deceased.3. Before this Court, in this appeal, cross-objection has also been filed by the father and mother of the deceased who are aggrieved by the compensation awarded in their favour as according to them, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1985]156ITR344(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal '), has referred the following questions for our decision I '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that even though no addition was made by the Income-tax Officer to the trading results of the tilli account and alsi account while framing the original assessment order, he could have re-examined the issue de novo and made additions to them during the reassessment proceedings completed by him after the original assessment had been set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, vide his order dated November 11, 1968 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the salaries said to Shri Ramgopal and Shri Omprakash by the firm were not allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1985)ILLJ111Raj
G.M. Lodha J.1. Durante bene placito' ruled the world with waves of 'laissez faire' up to 19th century, Political as well as Industrial revolutions brought new tides of workers emancipation from exploitation resulting in new concepts of 'status', 'security of service', 'releases from bonded labour'. Not to talk of Karl Marx or Lenin, even Abraham Lincoln and Roosvelt pleaded for 'Dignity of Labour', 'Equality', Dueprocess of law, and that resulted in New Deal Legislations, Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, the Founding fathers of the great Indian constitution brought the dream of 'Ravi' true when preamble of the 'Socialist Republic of India' embodied 'Equality' of status' and 'opportunity'. Justice, 'social, economic and political' targets 'followed' by Directives and fundamental rights of equality in Article 14 and equal opportunity in services in Article 16.2. Articulation of 14 and 16 in 1948 and 43A in 1976, whether gave death blow to 'durante bene placito' is even now a billion dollar q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2008)16VST387(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of 'sada pan masala', mixed with tobacco in the brand name of Geetanjali, Zafri 2100 Gutkha, etc. The petitioner as a manufacturer is subject to excise duty and is also liable to sales tax under the State sales tax or Central sales tax, as the case may be, in respect of the transactions of sale entered by it.2. Vide impugned notification dated January 3, 2001 'zarda mixed pan masala including gutkha and churi' was added to the list of commodities on which the levy of tax under the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999 was extended. The petitioner is aggrieved with the levy of tax under the Act of 1999 on its product when its brand is carried into local area of State of Rajasthan for use, consumption or sale within such local area. He has challenged the constitutional validity of the Act of 1999 and the aforesaid notification issued thereunder.3. Amongst other grounds, the petitioner has challenged the levy being u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Prakash Tatia, J.1. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 236/1984, following question has been referred to the Larger Bench by the order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court headed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and one of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prakash Tatia):Whether Hindustan Zinc Limited is 'State' or 'any other authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India ?2. The facts of the case of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 236/1984 are that the petitioner, an employee of the respondent-Company, appointed in the year 1968, faced disciplinary proceedings wherein order of termination of his service was passed on 23.12.1983 (Annex.31) which was challenged by the petitioner by preferring S.B. Writ Petition No. 236/1984 before the single bench of this Court on 11.1.1984. According to the petitioner, the respondent Hindustan Zinc Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is Government of India Enterprise and is an instrumentality o...
Tag this Judgment!