Rajasthan Court April 1954 Judgments
Narendra Singh and Shambhu Singhji Vs. S.S. Deedwania
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1954
Reported in: 1956CriLJ358
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. These three Criminal (Misc.) Petitions (Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of 1954) have been argued together. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has presented these applications under Article 134 of the Constitution. It is, however, conceded that proceedings under the Legal Practitioners Act are only quasi criminal in character. I am of the view that Article 134 applies only to criminal proceedings and not to proceedings under the Legal Practitioners Act which are more administrative in characterand concern merely the maintenance of the dis cipline among the officers of the Court. I am in clined to the view that Article 134 does not refer to such proceedings,2. The learned Counsel has suggested that al proceedings must fall either within the purview of Article 133 or Article 134. I am unable to agree. Then are many proceedings like the proceedings before the Election Tribunals which are not within the purview of either Article 133 or 134. In such cases, the remedy lies in apply...
Tag this Judgment!Durjan Singh Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj217
Modi, J. 1. This is a reference by a learned Single Judge of this Court and relates to the interpretation of Section 145, Cr. P. C. The question referred to this Bench is in the following terms:'Whether the omission on the part of a Magistrate to pass a preliminary order under Section 145(1), Cr. P. C. stating the grounds of his being satisfied about the existence of dispute and the likelihood of the breach of peace is an illegality which would vitiate all the subsequent proceedings or is a mere irregularity curable under Section 537, Cr. P. C?'2. The facts out of which the reference has arisen are these. On 6-11-1951, a report was presented on behalf of the police station Begu, in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begu, that there was a serious dispute between Durjansingh and others, who are petitioners in this Court, and Moda and others who are opposite parties, relating to a well called Rawla and the agricultural land attached thereto, situate in village Brijraj-pura, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Siremal and ors. Vs. Kantilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj195
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Siremal and others against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Pali.2. A suit was brought by Kantilal plaintiff respondent against Siremal and others for preemption of a house sold by Takhatmal defendant respondent to Siremal and his three sons for Rs. 9,001/-. The plaintiff appellant is the minor son of Takhatmal vendor. The case of the plaintiff was that he was living separate from his father, and was not a member of the joint family with his father, and the house was not joint Hindu family property. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed pre-emption under the second clause to Section 3, Marwar Pre-emption Act of 1922.3. The suit was resisted by the vendees defendants, and their case was that the plaintiff was a member of the joint Hindu family along with his father, and that the house sold was joint family property belonging to the vendor and the plaintiff. As such the plaintiff was not entitled to pre-empt as the sale was made by the manager ...
Tag this Judgment!Milap Chand Vs. Dwarka Das
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj252
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. Milap Chand is a defendant in a suit filed by Dwarka Das, opposite party, in the Court of Munsif East, Jaipur City. Dwarka Das had taken a house on rent from the applicant by a rentdetd, and had agreed to pay Rs. 60/- per month as rent. In November, 1952, Dwarka Das filed a suit under Section 6, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Bent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (hereinafter called the impugned Act) for fixation of standard rent. The suit was resisted by the applicant, and one of the main grounds was that the impugned Act was void for various reasons. Issues were framed by the Munsif, and the suit is still pending in that Court. An application was made to this Court under Article 228 praying that as the suit involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, the determination of which was necessary for its disposal, this Court might either dispose of the suit itself, or determine the said question of law and return the case to the Court conce...
Tag this Judgment!Begum Fejun Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ1392
ORDERDave, J.1. This case comes on a reference made-by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by his report dated 22-4-1954.2. The facts giving rise to it arc that on 28-6-1953 one Govind Narain made a report to the Sub- Inspector Police, Division B Jodhpur that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 9001 to Sahebjada Fejmohamad of Jodhpur and Faijmohamad had therefore mortgaged his house with him for the said amount. He ad also executed a rentnote in favour of the complainant. On 13-1-40 the complainant got decree for possession of the house and also for arrears of rent. On 17-4-53 he was put in possession of the house through the bailiff of the Court. It was alleged by him that one Mt. Begum Fezun widow of Taj Moharhed Khan and Noor Mohamad Khan made a criminal trespass into his house and took possession of certain portion thereof and therefore, it was prayed that they should be dealt with for committing offences Under Sections 447, 448 and 379, IPC The police investigated into the matter and challaned...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj178
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by the Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd., Pali, under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate direction or order against the State of Rajasthan and the Inspector of Factories and Boilers, Jaipur, prohibiting the latter from realizing license fees from the applicant under the Indian Factories Act. 2. The applicant is running a cloth and yarn mill at Pali. Rules under the Factories Act 1948 were published by the State of Rajasthan in August, 1952. According to these rules, certain fees are to be charged from all factories according to horse power installed and the number of persons employed in the factory during the year The charge is on a sliding scale, and the applicant was required to pay Rs. 2,000/- per year for obtaining a licence under the Indian Factories Act. The applicant attacks the realization of this Hence fee on the following grounds : (1) that this fee is a tax, and the Raj...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Gulab Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj211
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Gulab Singh accused of an offence under Section 409, Penal Code.2. The prosecution case was briefly this. Gulab-Singh was a cashier in the Panchayat Office at Udaipur, and used to remain in charge of moneys relating to that office. The money used to be kept in a safe which was placed in the office of the Inspector of Schools for safe custody. The accused left for Jaipur on casual leave on 24-5-1952, with the permission of Sundernath, the then Officiating Panchayat Officer. He should have returned to duty on the 29th of May, but did not. He sent applications for extension of his leave time and again. This extension however was not granted, but as the address of the accused was not known, he could not be informed of this refusal.In the meantime, Sundernath was relieved by Krishna Vallabh as Panchayat Officer on 31-5-1952. Krishna Vallabh wanted the keys of the safe in order to count the cash. Sundernath said that th...
Tag this Judgment!Sadaria and anr. Vs. the Rajasthan Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj224
Bapna J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts of the case are that on 11-8-1952,Bhomla, respondent No. 2, made an application under Sections 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (9 of 1949), to the Anti-Ejectment Officer, Sikar, for restoration of possession on the allegation that he had been driven out of the land on 3-7-1952, by Sadaria and Jhunta petitioners. The Anti-Ejectment Officer allowed the petition after notice to the opposite party, and the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 10-11-1952. It is urged that the Rajas-than (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, was promulgated by the Rajpramukh who had no powers to do so, and, in any case, it had ceased to have the force of law after the expiry of the period provided for its duration, and that its extension for two years by Notification No. F 1(2) Rev./50 dated 14-6-1951, was ultra vires. Certain other pleas as to the legality ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›