Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj84
Modi, J.1. In this review application the question that has arisen for our consideration is whether the court-fee paid thereon by the petitioners is sufficient. The judgment from which the review application has been preferred was pronounced by a Bench of this Court on the 9th October 1952. The review application was filed on 3rd January 1953. There is, therefore, no dispute that the review application was filed within 90 days of the Judgment. The appeal was valued by the petitioners for purposes of court-fee at Rs. 13,569/87- and the present review application, has been valued at the same figure. The Stamp Reporter has reported that the court-fee of Rs. 108/- paid by the petitioners is insufficient and that they should have paid one-half of the sum of Rs. 595/- on the review application inasmuch as the court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal, if it should have been filed at the time the review application came to be made, would be a sum of Rs. 595/-. It may be pointed out that a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1953Raj188; (1953)IILLJ214Raj
Ranawat, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd., Kishangarh, against the State of Rajasthan, Mr. D. O. Sharma, Judge of the Industrial Tribunal and Kishangarh Mill Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress. The petitioner is a public limited company owning Textile Mills at Kishangarh, which manufactures cotton yarn and cotton cloth. Respondent 3 is a Union of the labourers of the Mills.2. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that for some time past the Mills were running at a heavy loss and as there was no hope of running them at a profit the petitioner closed the Mills on 19-10-1952, which resulted in unemployment of labour. The Government of Rajasthan, it is said, intervened and the petitioner agreed to work the Mills subject to the condition that an expert, who had been appointed to hold an inquiry into the affairs of the Mills, should complete the inquiry within 10 days and that if the finding of the expert would be that i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj53
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Jeewanram under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, which may be appropriate in the case.2. The applicant's case is that he purchased a plot of land measuring 18 Biswas in Chak Beed-wala for a sum of Rs. 100/- and got a sale-deed executed in his favour on 3-5-1952. The applicant is a Jat, while the vendor Girdhari is a barber. The applicant presented for registration the sale-deed before the Sub-Registrar of Hanumangarh on that very day. The Sub-Registrar, however, refused to register the deed, and his reason for the refusal was that the seller and the purchaser did not belong to the same community or group of castes. He relied on Notification No. 108 dated 11-10-1943, issued by the Government of Bikaner, and published in the Bikaner Rajpatra, dated 30-10-1943, at page 430, read with Notification No. 66 of 29-9-1945, published in Bikaner Rajpatra of 6-10-1945. These notification...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1209
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. In September 1952 the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Ajmer, sent a requisition under Section 234 of Regulation 6 of 1925 requesting the Tahsildar and Magistrate 2nd Class to realize a sum of Rs. 583/- outstanding on account of the land and property tax in respect of properties Nos. 814, 815 and 816 in Ward No. 7 of Ajmer City. The opposite party Hazarimal was called by the Tahsildar on 13.10.1952. He was asked whether he had received the notice of demand and on his admitting that he had, the Tahsildar-Magistrate 2nd Class directed the issue of a warrant of attachment returnable on 27.10.52. On that date Hazarimal filed an objection. These objections were rejected by the learned Magistrate on 12.11.1952, and the warrant of attachment was re-issued returnable on 27.11.1952. On 25.11.1952 Hazarimal filed Criminal Revision No. 21 of 1952 in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Ajmer. After hearing the parties, the learned Assistant Commissioner and A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1192
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. Suwalal has been found guilty of an offence under Section 278, I.P.C. He was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 550/-. He appealed to the Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge, by his order, dated 14.6.1952, dismissed the appeal and maintained the fine of Rs. 350/-. Against that order, Suwalal has come up in revision. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. The prosecution case against the accused was that he was using two open compounds situated in Khazanehi Gall, Beawar as open latrines for himself and his family and was thus polluting the atmosphere to such an extent as to amount to a public nuisance. He was asked by the Municipal Board to desist and to construct a latrine. Three months time was granted to him but he persisted in using the open compounds as latrine.3. The learned Counsel for the applicant has urged that no offence was actually committed by the applicant inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1196
Nigam, J.C.1. Athasingh has been found guilty of offences under Sections 366 and 376, Penal Code. Under Section 366, Penal Code he has been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 376, Penal Code he has been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and to fifteen stripes. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. Lalu has been found guilty of offences under Sections 366 and 376/144, Penal Code. On each count he has been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment with the direction that both the sentences are to run concurrently. Against their conviction and sentence, they have come up in appeal. Lalu has filed Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1952 and Athusingh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1952. Both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and have been argued together. I have, therefore, given only one judgment in them. The original judgment will be placed in the file of Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1952 and a copy thereof will be f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1953Raj185
Ranawat, J.1. This is an application by Mano-har Lal Vaishya of Fahari, District Bharatpur, against the Custodian Rajasthan, Naib Deputy Custodian, Bharatpur, and Tehsildar, Pahari, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts alleged by the petitioner are that he purchased 46 maunds and 8 seers of 'sarson' from one Sheo Singh Meo on the 14th day of the dark half of the month of Asarh in Samwat year 2004, and paid Rs. 800/- to him on the same day. Rs. 5/- were paid at the time of settling the transaction, while the balance, it is said, was paid two or three days later Sheo Singh left India, and went to Pakistan. The then custodian of Evacuee Property, Bharatpur, by his order dated 1-3-1949, acting on a report of the Naib Tehsildar, Pahari, ordered the petitioner to deposit with him Rs. 831/9/- being the price of the aforesaid 'saron', which had been purchased by the petitioner from Sheo Singh, who was an evacuee, without allowing any opportunity to the petitioner of bein...
Tag this Judgment!