Rajasthan Court February 1962 Judgments
Firm Bilasrai Mannalal Vs. Frim Purshottam Dass Sanwaldass and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Raj247
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's revision application against an appellate order of the District Judge, Bikaner, confirming an order of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh, holding that he did not have jurisdiction to try the suit.2. The plaintiff is a firm carrying on business at Ratangarh. The defendant is also a firm carrying on business at Kota. Banshi Dhar a partner of the plaintiff firm went to Kota on 17-7-53 and placed an order for the supply of 11 bags of Dhania, 32 bags of Mungphali, 40 bags of rice and 200 bags of Jowar with the defendant firm. These goods, with the exception of 200 bags of Jowar, were consigned by the defendant by rail to Ratangarh. The consignment was made in the name of the defendant and the railway receipt was endorsed in favour of a bank at Ratangarh. Two Hundis were sent with the railway receipt to the bank. One was for Rs. 4,262/-which represented the price and other charges of the goods which were consigned and the other was for Rs. 3,000/-.The...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Abdullah Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj11; 1963CriLJ66
Modi, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against a judgment and order of the City Magistrate, Kotah, dated the 28th February, 1959, in a case under section 14 of the Foreigners Act (Act 31 of 1946 hereinafter called the 'Act') by which he has acquitted the accused. 2. The material facts are these: It is alleged that the accused is a citizen of Afganistan and that under a passport from that Government and a visa obtained in consequence thereof, the accused came to India on the 19/20th August, 1955. He was originally permitted to stay in India for six months and this permission seems to have been subsequently extended from time to time until the 13th of August, 1957. For certain reasons however which are not disclosed on the record, the Government of India, by its letter dated the 2ndof August, 1956, (Ex. P.3) to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, required that the accused be served with a notice to wind up his business and to leave India within a period of six months ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Padmaram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1962
Reported in: 1962CriLJ584
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against a judgment and order of the First Class Railway Magistrate, Jodhpur, dated the 2nd January, i960, acquitting the accused respondent Padmaram of as offence Under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act 1878, (Act VIII of 1878) read with Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (Act VII of 1947).2. The prosecution case was briefly this. It was alleged that on the 18th October, 1957, information having been received that smuggled gold was being carried by certain passengers, (whose names were not mentioned,) travelling by the railway train bound from Barmer for Jodhpur, P.W. 5 Kuberdany a Deputy Superintendent of Policy who was deputed on special duty at Jodhpur in connection- with anti-smuggling operations and P.W. 2 S. S. Chawla, a Deputy Superintendent of Customs at Barmer who was also at Jodhpur on that date, in the same connection, reached the Jodhpur Railway Station at about 6-30 A.M. which was the time when the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Pareek Hosiery Products Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC722(Raj)
B.P. Beri, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Assistant Sales Tax Officer and the State of Rajasthan, respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, from recovering any sales tax on certain hosiery goods manufactured and sold by the petitioner and for quashing the order of the respondent No. 2, dated 29th June, 1960.2. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing amongst other articles cotton vests (banians), underwears (jangias), mufflers and 'topas', the cost of which does not exceed Rs. 4 each, in the City of Jaipur. The State Government, respondent No. 3, in exercise of its powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act XXIX of 1954), by Notification No. F. 5(3),E&T;/58 dated 31st January, 1958, exempted from the levy of sales tax, 'the sale of any garment whether prepared within or imported from o...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Bijai Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. the Inspector of Payment of Wages Act ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj147; (1963)IILLJ51Raj
Modi, J.1. Both, Civil Writ No. 512 of 1961 and Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 128 of 1961, arise out of the judgment of the learned District Judge, Ajmer, dated the 21st of August, 1961, in a matter under the Payment of Wages Act (Act No. IV of 1936 -- hereinafter to be called the 'Act').2. The facts, in so far as they are relevant, may be stated very briefly;3. The petitioner before us is a limited company Shri Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd., Bijaynagar, with its head office at Bijeynagar, and it is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, and is acting through its Managing Director Raghunath Singh Man Singhka. Certain disputes arose between the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Union, Bijaynagar, constituted by the employees of the Mill, and the petitioner, and in consequence thereof, the Inspector of Payment of Wages Act made an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Beawar, as the authority under the Act, under Section 15 of the Act. The authority decided this application in favour of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Salu and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj98; 1963CriLJ613
Ranawat, C.J.1. Although this petition was filed as an appeal from the order of the Sessions Judge, Balotra, dated the 25th of February, 1961, the learned Assistant Government Advocate prayed that as the interim order was not appealable, this petition may be treated as one for revision.2. Mst. Sukhi filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Banner, on the 21st of August, 1959, against Salu and Deda, with theallegations that, on the previous day, namely, the 20th of August 1959, both the accused went to the bank of Kareli 'Nadi' where Mst. Sukhi had gone to fetch water, and that Deda caught hold of both her hands and Salu bit her on her face, and that when she cried, Hazari, Kesha and others reached there and they saved her. The Magistrate issued process against the accused persons after examining the complainant under Section 200, Cri. P. C. Mst. Sukhi also filed a first information report at Police Station, Barmer, on the same day, and the police registered a ca...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Sahai and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj13; 1963CriLJ69
ORDERD.S. Dave, J.1. This reference comes on the report oE the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated the 15th March, 1961.2. The facts giving rise to it are that on 17-1-61 a motor-bus No, RJV 357, which used to ply on the route between Sikar and Shrimadhopur, was checked at about 6-45 P.M. by Surajbhan Singh, Head Constable (Traffic) when it was passing near the workshop of Chandi prasad Khetan on the hospital road, Sikar, He found that the driver and the conductor had contravened certain provisions of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951, and therefore both of them were prosecuted in the court of the Magistrate First Class, Sikar. It was alleged against the driver Hanuman Sahai that he refused to produce his driving licence on demand by the said head constable and that he was not wearing the prescribed uniform. Against the conductor, Habib, it was alleged that he was not wearing the prescribed uniform. It was further alleged that the bus was carrying 59 passengers altho...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Hari Ballabh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj19; 1963CriLJ223
Modi, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against a judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kotah, dated the 19th April, 1960 by which he acquitted the respondents Hari Ballabh, Gulab Chand and Kailash of an offence under Section 448, Indian Penal Code, reversing the judgment and order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotah, dated the 22nd February, 1960, by which he had convicted the said respondents under section 448, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each.2. The question raised before us is an interesting one relating to possession and it is for that account that the learned Government Advocate presses this appeal, although he has given an undertaking before us that he would not press for the conviction of the respondents in view of all the circumstances of the case, even though our finding be in his favour on the question raised.3. The material facts in so far as they are relevant for appreciating the ques...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›