Rajasthan Court July 1958 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.
Achalchand Vs. Suraj Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj44; 1959CriLJ235
ORDERK.N. Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is a revision by Achalchand against the order of the Sessions Judge of Jodhpur in a case under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The facts of the case which have led to this revision are these. Surajraj, opposite party, and Achalchand are neighbours with a common wall between their houses, Achalchand made certain constructions on this common wall. Surajraj felt that these constructions were dangerous and the wall was likely to fall down causing injuries to him and members of his family. He consequently madean application under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Magistrate and prayed that action should be taken against Achalchand. The Magistrate made an enquiry into the matter and found on evidence, which is not in dispute, that certain new constructions had been raised by Achalchand on the old common wall and that part of these constructions was in a dangerous condition inasmuch as according to the expert evidence, the w...
The General Manager, Northern Railway Vs. Swaroopraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj55
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are two connected revisions arising out of proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter called the Act). They were laid before a learned Single Judge of this Court and he has referred them to a Divisional Bench because of the far reaching importance of the points of law arising in them.2. Before we deal with the points of law raised at the Bar, we should like to set down briefly the facts. One Swaroopraj (Civil Revision No. 90) was an employee of the Northern Railway and was posted as Assistant Station Master at Railway Station Mundwa. He was suspended on charges of corruption on 29-1-1953. Later he was prosecuted in Court and was acquitted by the Special Judge on 30-4-1955. Thereafter he was reinstated on 9-5-1955.He claimed the full salary for the period from 29-1-1953 to 9-5-1955 and also other benefits. This claim was rejected by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Jodhpur on the ground that Swaroopraj had not beenhonourably acquitted. Thereupon ...
Mansingh Vs. the Mewar Textile Mills Ltd., Bhilwara and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj36; (1959)ILLJ637Raj
K.L. Bapna, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The case set out by Mansingh petitioner is that he was an employee of the Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. Bhilwara, as a sepoy, and his duty on the night between the 29th and 30th September, 1957, was to supervise the Chowkidars from 2 a. m. to 6 a. m. A theft took place on that night at the mills premises. The petitioner along with certain other Chowkidars were suspended and an inquiry was held by the Manager of the Mill.His finding was that the petitioner and certain other Chowkidars were negligent in their duty. It was found that the theft was committed either by the Sepoys or it could be attributed to their gross negligence. Taking into consideration the previous conduct of the petitioner, the management directed his dismissal from the date of his suspension, that is, 1-10-1957. The management offered one month's pay as required by Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and an application seeking...
Heeralal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj41
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a writ application by Heeralal, Babula) and others under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the appellate tribunal of the State Transport Authority dated 29-1-1958, by which the appeal of Babulal and others-against a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority Jodhpur dated the 27th and 28th May, 1957, was dismissed as incompetent.2. The material facts are these. Petitioner No. 6 Babulal was a permit-holder for plying a stage carriage on the Sojat Road, Sojat City, Bilara route. There is also no dispute that petitioner No. 1 Heeralal obtained a transfer of the former's permit in March 1958. The other petitioners have also described themselves as bus operators on this route. It is, however, contended by the contesting respondents that these petitioners were not permit-holders at the relevant times and, therefore, have no 'locus standi' to make the present application.We consider it unnecessary to enter into any further detail as...
Mithalal and anr. Vs. Kapoorchand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj47
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors Mithalal and another in an execution matter. 2. The facts leading to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. The respondents decree-holders Kapoorchand and another obtained an ex parte decree against the judgment-debtors appellants for money from the City Civil Court, Bombay, on 18-10-1949. The respondents got this decree transferred to the court of Civil Judge, Balotra, and they filed an execution application on 10-5-1952, It appears that no notice under Order 21, Rule 22, C. P. C., was issued against the judgment-debtor. appellants and some immovable property of theirs was attached and a notice under Order 21, Rule 66 was issued against them. It was in response to this notice that the appellants appeared in the execution court and objected to the execution of the decree in November, 1952. They raised a number of objections but only two of them are material for the purposes of the present appeal. The first objection was ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›