Rajasthan Court November 1952 Judgments
Durg Singh Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj177
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Durg Singh who has been detained under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act (No. 4) of 1950. His main contention is that the grounds supplied to him were so vague that he could not make a representation against the order. He therefore contends that he has been deprived of his personal liberty against the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as he has not been afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention, granted to him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.2. The grounds, that have been supplied to theapplicant, are these-(1) that it has been established that when some dacoits visited his village, he took his mealswith them in village which naturally shows that he knew the dacoits and they had come in the village at his instance, 2. that, he instigated the dacoits to enquire from one Bhera Darji about the gold 'gho-khru' 'ear-rings...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhai Vs. Union of India (Uoi), General Manager, Western Railway, Bom ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj199
Sharma, J.1. This is an application by Sukbai, ex washout coolie, Loco-shed, Kotah for the issue of writ of Mandamus or any other proper writ or directive which might be considered feasible to the Union of India, General Manager Western Railway, Bombay Churchgate and Mr. I. T. Carter, District Mechanical Engineer, Western Railway, Gangapur city to set aside the order of his removal from service, issued by the General Manager, Western Railway under his Order No. F/2, dated 30-8-1951. The facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are as under.2. The patitioner was appointed in Loco Department of B. B. & C. I., Railway (now Western Rail-way) in the year 1923. On 1-1-1942, on change of the B. B. & C. I. Company managed into a State-managed Railway, the petitioner by virtue of option, given to him by the District Loco and Carriage Superintendent, Gangapur in the name of the General Manager of the said Railway, became a member of the State managed Railway -- Subordinate staff (Non-Ga...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj145
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. The Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd., Kishangarh, made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That application came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, and, on 5-11-1951, the following two points were referred to a larger Bench for decision:1. Whether by virtue of Articles 278, 279 and 295 of the Constitution of India and the agreement entered into between the President of India and the Raj Pramukh of Rajasthan on 25-2-1950, the Union of India is entitled to levy and recover arrears of excise duty on cloth held in stock or manufactured before 1-4-1950, in case, excise duty thereon was payable to the State of Rajasthan under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Duties Ordinance 25 of 1949? 2. Whether the publication of the Government notification by which tho Jaipur Excise Rules were adopted under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Duties Ordinance was sufficient publication in the meaning of Section 28, Rajasthan Excise Du...
Tag this Judgment!Bhajandas Vs. Nanuram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Raj17
Bapna, J. 1. This is a second appeal in a suit for redemption. 2. One Prayagdas and his son Budhraj mortgaged a house with Hukamdas as a security for the loan of Rs. 1,500/- on Besakh Vadi 12, Smt. 1984 (17-4-1928). Prayagdas delivered possession of the property to the mortgagee and executed a lease of the same in favour of the latter at a rent of Rs. 15/- per mensem. Prayagdas had another son Deo Kishen who had died in his lifetime leaving a widow Shrimati Suraj Kanwar. Suraj Kanwar adopted Nanuram on 20-3-1929. Budhraj died leaving a widow Mst. Shanti. Hukamdas sued Prayagdas for arrears of rent and a decree was passed on 15-12-1931 against Mst. Suraj and Mst. Shanti as legal representatives of Prayagdas and in execution of that decree the house was put up for sale. Mst. Suraj Kanwar applied to the court for permission to raise money on security of the house and on such permission being granted. Suraj Kanwar mortgaged the house for Rs, 600/- to Chhotmal 9n 5-6-1934. In the meantime, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwarlal Vs. Rajasthan State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj180
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Bhanwarlal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and arises in the following circumstances :2. The applicant is the proprietor of a Cinema in Pali. This Cinema used to be known as Chitra Talkies, and is now known as Rajen-dra Talkies. The Municipal Board at Pali started collecting a tax known as entertainment tax from the cinema goers from August 1950 at the rate of two annas per rupee on the value of the admission ticket. The procedure for collection seems to have been that the applicant used to collect from the cinema goers and pay to the Municipal Board. The applicant continued to do so up to June 1951. Thereafter, it appears that he was advised that the tax was illegal. He, therefore addressed a letter to the Municipal Board, Pali, in July 1951. In it he said that the tax was illegal under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. He therefore wanted the Municipal Board to refund the amount which had already been realised from him...
Tag this Judgment!Hans Raj Vs. Gappulal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj88
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is a revision by Hansraj against the order of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, refusing to stay the suit brought by Gappulal and another against him. 2. The fact giving rise to this revision are briefly these. Hans Raj was a tenant of Gappulal & Damodar. It is said that the landlords gave notice to Hansraj on 16-9-1950, determining the tenancy. Thereafter, a suit was filed by them on the 10th of September, 1951 in the court of the Civil Judge for recovery of damages for use and occupation for the period after the determination of the tenancy. Before this, however, the tenant, Hansraj, has filed a suit on 4-1-1951, for fixation of standard rent under Section 6, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereafter called the principal Act. As soon as the landlords filed their suit for damages for use and occupation, Hansraj applied to the Munsifs Court under Section 7 of the principal Act, for an order of stay of proceedings in the Civil Judge's Court...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›