Rajasthan Court January 1962 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.
Tilkayat Govindlalji and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Raj196
Bhandari, J.1. The three Writ Petitions referred to above seek to challenge the vires of the Nathdwara Temple Act (Act No. 13 of 1959) (hereinafter called 'the Act') passed by the Rajasthan State Legislature. This Act received the assent of the President on the 28th of March, 1959.2. Writ Petition No. 90 of 1959, has been filed by Shri Tilkayat Govindlalji Maharaj of Nathdwara (hereinafter called 'the Tilkayat').3. Writ Petition No. 310 of 1959 has been filed by Triyambak Lal and nine others who are the followers of the Vallabh Sampradaya and are hereinafter called 'the Vaighnavas'.4. The third Writ Petition No. 420 of 1960 has been filed by Goswami Shri Ghanshiam Lal, head of the Shrine of the Vallabh Sampradaya at Kamban (District Bharatpur). The respondents to all these Writ Petitions are the state of Rajasthan and the members of the Temple Board constituted under the Act and the executive officer of the Board appointed under the Act.5. Before we refer to the contentions of the peti...
Kunj Behari Vs. Saligram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1962
Reported in: 1962CriLJ717
D.S. Dave, J.1. This is an appeal by the complainant Under Section 417(3) of the Criminal P. C. against the judgment of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hindaun, dated the 20th of April, 1960 acquitting all the accused of offences under Sees. 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Counsel for the accused to the effect that the case in, which his clients were tried by the said Magistrate was instituted on a police report, that it was tried according to the procedure laid down in Section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, the complainant had no right to file this appeal, that leave to appeal was granted to him by mistake since' all the facts were not disclosed and hence the appeal should be rejected.3. In reply it is urged' by learned Counsel for the appellant that his client had filed a complaint on 4th September, 1956 against the present respondents and, therefore, leave to appeal was rightly granted to him and he has ...
Anop Chand and ors. Vs. Hirachand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Raj223
Bhandari J. 1. These two miscellaneous execution appeals are connected cases and arise under the following circumstances:-- 2. Heerachand and Mst. Umrao Kanwar filed a suit tor the sale of the mortgage-property against Mishrimal and obtained a preliminary decree on 5-7-57. They had also obtained another decree for Rs. 2159/13/- on 20-8-54. Before they obtained a preliminary decree on the mortgage-debt, it is alleged that they had assigned the mortgage-debt along with the decree of Rs. 2159/13/- to Pukhraj and others (hereinafter called the assignees). Heerachand and Mst. Umrao Kanwar (hereinafter called the assignors) got the final decree in the mortgage-suit on 11-3-58. Before that on 19-10-57 the assignors had also assigned both the decrees to the assignees. Mishrimal had filed a suit against the assignors in the Court of District Judge, Balotra on 20-9-1957. That suit was decreed on 31-5-58 and the decree for Rs. 17083.12nP was passed in favour of Mishrimal against the assignors. Mi...
The State Vs. Banshilal Luhadia and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Raj250
Modi, J.1. We have four criminal matters, one appeal and three revisions, all of which have been filed by the State and arise out of similar facts. The appeal arises out of the judgment dated the 25th October, 1958, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, acting as Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act (No. 2) of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act of 1947), by which Banshilal Luhadia and one other person Sumatimal were acquitted of an offence under Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 and for the abetment thereof respectively in case No. 8 of 1957 which was tried on the merits.By extremely brief orders of the same date but apparently based on the reasoning which was contained in the judgment in case No. 8, three similar complaints against Banshilal Luhadia in cases Nos. 6 and 5 and Sumatimal in case No. 7 of 1957, out of which revisions Nos. 29, 30 and 31 of 1959 arise respectively, were dismissed without a trial and being bad for want of previous sanction which ...
State Vs. Shrinath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj14; 1963CriLJ218
Ranawat, C.J.1. These are six criminal appeals Nos. 68 to 73 of 1961, both inclusive. All these appeals arise from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, dated the 7th of May, 1960. The accused Shrinath was committed to Sessions by the First Class Magistrate No. 3. Jodhpur, for trial under Sections 409, 467, 471 and 477A, Indian Penal Code. He was in the employment of the Municipal Board, Jodhpur, and in that capacity he was alleged to have committed criminal breach of trust in respect of certain sums of money from the 19th of June, 1954 to the 22nd of July, 1955. In all, he misappropriated Rs. 9,445/6/9. The accused drew up treasury challans from time to time and made deposit entries in the books of account when in fact' he pocketed the amounts in whole or in part. When the accounts were audited, one such item of embezzlement came to light and, on the report of the Administrator of the Municipality, a case under Section 409, Indian Penal Code was registered agai...
Sohan Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj17; 1963CriLJ221
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by Sohan against his conviction under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). The trial Magistrate sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment for three months. In appeal the sentence was reduced to payment of fine of Rs. 500/- only.2. The charge against him was that on 3rd March, 1959 at about 9 a.m., he was found selling Cows' milk near Kabootro-Ka-Chowk in Jodhpur City from which some milk was purchased by the Food Inspector of Jodhpur Municipality who divided it in three parts, filled it in three bottles, sealed them and sent one of them to the Public Analyst and on his report that it was adulterated, obtained the consent of the Chairman, Municipal Board for his prosecution and filed a complaint in the court of the Munsif Magistrate, First Class, Jodhpur. The report...
Saiyad Afjal HussaIn and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Raj216
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by Saiyad Afjal Hussain, Chand Mohammed, Budha and Likhmiram against their convictions under Section 5 of the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960. Each of them was sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for one month by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratangarh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu has upheld the convictions. They were all employees in the Railway Department. The sentence beyond that already undergone by them has been remitted by the orders of the Governor of Rajasthan and they have also been reinstated in their posts. The revision application was pressed only on the ground that the stigma of convictions would always remain in case it was not set aside.2. It is well-known that the employees of the Indian Government in the Essential Services had put forward certain demands, which not having been met...
Banshi Dhar Vs. Ghisalal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Raj225
Beri, J.1. This is a plaintiff-appellant's application for the appointment of a receiver to collect the rents or the property which is the subject-matter of a purported simple mortgage during the pendency of the appeal before this Court. 2. Material facts leading to the present controversy are these. The defendants-respondents before us, on 19th September, 1950, secured a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff-appellant, mortgaged a property situate in Nasirabad and executed a registered deed. The mortgage was simple. The loan was to be repaid within two years and it bore interest at the rate of 12% per annum and in the event of there being a default in the payment of interest for three months the rate of interest to be charged was 15% per annum. The respondents only paid a sum of Rs. 1,200/- by way of interest on different dates and it appears that nothing was paid towards the principal. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted a suit for the sale of the mortgaged property. On the date o...
Executive Officer, Municipal Board Vs. Harka Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Raj178
D.S. Dave, J.1. This is an appeal by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Rajgarh, against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, dated the 31st May, 1960, acquitting accused Harka Ram of the offence under Section 165 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) and setting aside the fine .which was imposed on hijn by the .Sub-Divisional Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, on 30th April, 1960.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 2.2nd September, 1950, the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Rajgarh, presented a complaint in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh. It was stated by him that the house of the accused Harka Ram was 'situated in a locality called Mohalla Mochiyan, Shitala Chowk. On the eastern side off that house there was an open piece of land, which belonged to the Municipal Board and which was leased out to one Debu Mochi. The accused broke open a portion of the wall of his...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Parmindar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Raj244
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the union of India against an appellate decree of the District Judge, Kota, confirming a decree of the Munsif Kota granting a declaration to the plaintiff-respondent that his removal from service was void and inoperative and that he continued in the service of the Railway.2. The relevant facts are these : Parmindar Singh plaintiff filed an application (Ex. P. A) to the Chief Engineer, B. B. and C. I. Rly. through the Executive Engineer Kota. This application was forwarded by the Executive Engineer on 23-8-49 to the Chief Engineer with the recommendation that he may be employed as a Mason Mistry in place of Shri Surendra Narain Mathur who had been recommended for the post of S. O. S. R. by him. This recommendation was accepted by the Chief Engineer who issued the following order (Ex. P. S):'One Mr. Parmindar Singh is appointed as a temporary Mason Mistry vice Shri Surendra Narain Mathur wide para 1 above, on the usual terms of service. Sd/...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›