Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj249
Bapna, J.1. This is a revision against an order of acquittal.2. The petitioner filed a complaint against the opposite party Bhonrilal in the Court of City Magistrate, Jaipur, on 24-9-1949, on the allegations that the complainant was the pujari of the temple of Shri Sitaramji and Shri Laxminarainji situated near Ghat Gate and the accused also lives close by. It was alleged that the accused had enmity towards the complainant & had been telling people that the complainant does not perform sewa puja properly and had kept a brothel in the temple which had accordingly disgraced him in the eyes, of the people. It was also alleged that the accused had on more than one occasion abused him filthily and had threatened to beat him. The complainant wanted the Court to take action against the accused under Sections 504, 503, 352, I. P. C., and Sections 108, Criminal P. C. The complaint was passed on to the First Assistant City Magistrate and it appears that in that Court the complainant restricted h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj170
Modi, J. 1. The only question which we are called upon to decide at this stage is one of court-fees. We give below a few facts out of which the present question has arisen. 2. The appellants were defendants in the trial Court. The plaintiffs-respondents are sons of the respondent Bakhtawarlal who was impleaded as defendant No. 5 in the suit. The plaintiffs' case was that their father Bakhtawarlal & the plaintiffs were members of a joint Hindu family, and that Bakhtawarlal sold certain property to defendants Nos. 1 to 4, namely, Sukhlal, Hukmichand, Kastoorchand and Gahrilal, by a sale-deed dated 10-6-1944, for a sum of Rs. 800/-, and that the said property was ancestral property of the family and had been sold to the vendees above-named without the consent of the plaintiffs and without any family necessity. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed that the sale-deed executed by Bakhtawarlal in favour of the vendees be cancelled. The plaintiffs valued their suit at Rs. 6000/- for purposes of j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj169
Bapana, J. 1. In this petition the validity of the Notification. No. F. 1 (2) Rev./50, dated 14-6-1951, is challenged.2. His Highness the Rajpramukh promulgated an Ordinance to provide for the protection of tenants from ejectment from their holdings on. 21-6-1949, as the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance 1949 (Ordinance No. 9 of 1949), in exercise of the power conferred upon His Highness the Rajpramukh by para. (3) of Article 10 of the Covenant by which the State of Rajasthan was formed. In Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Ordinance it was laid down that the Ordinance 'shall come into force at once and shall remain, in force for a period of two years unless this period is further extended by the Rajpramukh, by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette.' In the Gazette of 18-6-1951, (Part IV-A, Vol. 3: No. 55), the following Notification was published 'GOVERNMENT OP RAJASTHAN REVENUE DEPARTMENT. 'NOTIFICATION. Jaipur, June 14, 1951. No. F. 1 (2) Rev./50.--In pursuance of Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj129
Bapna, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226, Constitution of India and has arisen in the following circumstances:2. The petitioner Sangramsingh was elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly and the opposite party Shri Bhureylal challenged the election by a petition which is No. 297 of 1952. The Election Tribunal had its sittings at Kotah. After certain proceedings had been gone through an order was recorded by the Election Tribunal on 11-12-1952 that the further sittings of the Election Tribunal will take place at Udaipur from 16th to 21-3-1953. On 5-1-1953 it was discovered that 16-3-1953 was a public holiday and an order was recorded that the sittings will take place at Udaipur from 17-3-1953 and onwards. Mr. Trivedi who appeared for the petitioner Sangramsigh before the Election Tribunal on these dates had notice of the hearing from 17th March at Udaipur. On 17-3-1953 the petitioner and his counsel did not appear before the Tribunal and an order was recorded for further p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1954CriLJ540
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. Shambhu Nath Mehra, Camp Clerk in the office of the Divisional Engineer Telegraphs, Ajmer, was prosecuted for charging travelling, allowance for three journeys which he was alleged to have performed without purchasing railway tickets. He was convicted by the learned Magistrate in respect of two journeys but his appeal was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. The State appealed against that order of acquittal and on 2-1-1953 I accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Special Judge. Now Shambhu Nath Mehra applied under Article 134 of the Constitution for a certificate that it is a fit case for appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.2. A preliminary objection has been taken to. the effect that Article 134 does not confer any right of appeal in as much as the order of this Court dated 2-1-1953 was not a 'final order' within the meaning of that Article. This is the only point that has been canvassed before me. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and ...
Tag this Judgment!