Rajasthan Court November 1956 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jairamdas Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj114
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 277 of the Constitution by Jairam Dass in a matter arising out of grant of permits under the Motor Vehicles Act. The applicant wants a writ, direction or order from this Court against the revocation of a permit by the Regional Transport Authority which permit had been granted to him by the appellate authority.2. The facts relating to this application may toe briefly mentioned.3. It appears that the applicant was at sometime Promised two permits, but in 1953 the Regional Transport Authority granted him only one permit. Thereupon he went in appeal to the appellate authority. That authority passed an order on 11-6-1953 in favour of the applicant and directed the Regional Transport Authority to grant one more permit to the applicant.This is really the basic order with which we are concerned in this case. The appellate authority has said in this order that the applicant had promised to put new buses of not earlier than 1950 model within t...
Jairamdas Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj162
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Jai Ram Dass under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ, direction or order in connection with certain orders of the Transport Authority. 2. The facts of the case briefly are that the applicant was granted a permit by the appellate authority in June 1953. Thereafter he applied to the Regional Transport Authority for the issue of the permit. Eventually on the 23rd February, 1955, the Regional Transport Authority cancelled the permit under Rule 80 (b) as the applicant had failed to produce the requisite vehicle. Thereafter the Regional Transport Authority granted a temporary permit to Laxminarayan for two months. It is said that this permit was renewed for an other three months. Eventually in July 1955, if was renewed till the grant of a 'pucca' permit. Thereupon the applicant made this application. His contention is that it was not open to the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits like this one after the other and that S...
Anoop Singh Vs. Cheloo and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj382; 1957CriLJ1455
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu under Section 145 Cr. P. C.2. Parties have not appeared. I have gone through the judgment of both the lower courts as well as the record of the case and the explanation of the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate did not issue warrant against the witnesses Ganesh Singh and Roopji of the applicant Anoop Singh, The applicant summoned the two witnesses Ganesh Singh and Roop Singh through court and when they did not appear, he applied that they should be brought to court by warrant. The learned Magistrate says in his explanation that there is no provision in Section 145 (4), Cr. P. C. requiring the magistrate to summon witness at the instance of the parties who are unable to bring the witnesses to court. True Section 145 (4), Cr. P. C. does not say so, but under Section 145 (9), Cr. P. C, the magistrate has been given a discretion at any stage of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. on the app...
Mangilal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1318
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is an application for revision by Mangilal against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar dated 1-5-1956 by which he has set aside the order of discharge of the applicant dated 18-3-1952.2. Two accused, namely, Mangilal and Bhonrial were challaned by the police, Alwar u/s. 409 I, P. C. for criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 2000/- of the office of the Director of Education, Matsya, It was suspected that there was defalcation of the amount of Rs. 2000 /-and the audit officers checked the accounts. The audit report showed that there was defalcation of the sum of Rs. 2,000/- and the responsibility of it was laid on the two accused Bhonrilai and Mangilal.The case came up before the Extra Magistrate, First Class. Evidence was produced on behalf of the prosecution and the statements of the two accused were recorded. The learned Magistrate found that no offence was made cut against Mangilal and he consequently discharged him. He. however, framed...
Anokhmal Bhurelal Vs. Chief Panchayat Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj388
Ranawat, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner is one Anokhmal of village, Choru, in Tehsil Uniara, district Tonk. His case is that a village panchayat was established at Choru under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, and the elections of Panchas and Sarpanch of the said Panchayat were held on the 21st of October, 1955, and respondents Nos. 3 to 17 were declared elected. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that notice under Rule 4 of the Panchayat Election Rules of 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) was published by the Returning officer on the 14th Of October, 1955. and a copy thereof was affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat the same day. Copies of the said notice were also circulated in the villages constituting the Choru Panchayat through Patwaris on the 15th of October, 1955.Thus the case of the petitioner is that the notice under Rule 4 of the Rules was not announced7 days before the da...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›