Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1963Raj22; [1962(5)FLR8]; (1962)ILLJ609Raj
Bhandari, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on behalf of His Highness Shri Bhagwat Singhji, Ruler of Mewar, and arises under the following circumstances:On the demise of his father, late His Highness Maharana Bhopal Singhji, who was the Maharaj Pramukh of Rajasthan, the petitioner discharged certain employees of the Motor Garage as they became surplus on account of the office of the Maharaj Pramukh being abolished on the death of his father. Thereupon these employees claimed compensation for retrenchment and made a representation through the Motor (Workers) Mazdoor Union Udaipur (Respondent No. 3 in the Writ petition) to the Rajasthan Government (Respondent No. 1) which by Notification No. F9(15)Lab./57, dated Jaipur the 18th of December 1957 made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Respondent No. 2) for adjudication of the dispute. The petitioner took several objections to the maintainability of the reference.The first objection...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1963Raj48; 1963CriLJ318
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by the state and arises under the following circumstances:2. On 23rd August, 1960, Station House Officer, Abu Road, apprehended the respondents while they were gaming at 3 public place, that is, in the verandah of the office of A. W. L. I. S. which is outside the railway platform. On 20th September, 1960, Station House Officer submitted a police report before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Abu Road. The learned Magistrate ordered the case to be registered and directed the party to bring witnesses on the date of hearing which was fixed on 22nd September, 1960. There appears to be a rubber stamp in the court of the learned Magistrate containing the aforesaid order and that rubber stamp was also affixed on the order sheet of this case, but the order is duly signed by the learned Magistrate.On the next date, that is, 22nd September, 1960, all the accused were present before him and the learned Magistrate, in compliance with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1963Raj38
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a civil regular second appeal by the plaintiffs Nathmal and others against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Pali, dated the 8th May, 1956, in a suit for recovery of purchase price and damages, the appellant Nathmal having died during the pendency of this appeal, his name was ordered to be struck off the record, & no application for substitution was apparently made as his son Champalal and his grandson Bhanwarlal stood already impleaded as appellants in the memorandum of appeal.2. The material facts out of which this appeal arises may be briefly stated as follows. There were money dealings between the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Koopa and Chatra (and their father Mukna) and In connection with these the former had filed two suits being No. 384 of 1950 and 328 of 1950 for the recovery of Rs. 3730/-and Rs. 2200/-respectively In the court of the Civil Judge Sojat and had filed a third suit for the recovery of Rs. 500/- in the court of the Mun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1963Raj145
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is an execution second appeal by the decree-holder against an appellate order of the Civil Judge, Beawar, holding that the execution application was barrea by limitation.2. An instalment decree for Rs. 1,643-12-9 was passed against the judgment-debtor on 3-12-53. The amount was payable in instalments of Rs. 20/- per month commencing from 15-1-54. In default of payment of any two instalments the whole amount was to become payable in lump sum. The present execution application was filed on 24-5-57 for recovering the balance due on that date on the allegation that the judgment-debtor had paid all the instalments due upto 15-2-57 amounting to Rs. 760/- and had committed a default in the payment of three successive instalments falling due on 15-3-57, 15-4-57 and 15-5-57 respectively. The judgment-debtor filed an objection in which he alleged that he had not paid any amount and contended that the execution application was barred by limitation. Both the Courts below h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1963Raj161
Jagat Naryan, J.1. This is an anneal by the defendants against an order of the Appellate Court passed under Order 41, Rule 23, C. P. C. remanding a suit for disposal on merits. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on a preliminary point.2. Ramji Lal is a tenant of Khasra No. 10 situated in village Sanwlod. Chandgi Ram defendant No. 1 is a tenant of Khasra No. 25 and Sukha and Baldeo defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are tenants of Khasra No. 12. The plaintiff claims that he has a right of access to his field through Khasra No. 25 and along the mendh of Khasra No. 12. He has brought the present suit for a deciara- tion of his right of passage and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with it. The suit was contested by the defendants inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff and they being tenants of a common landlord namely the State, the plaintiff could not acquire any right of easement, over their tenancy lands for the beneficial enjoyment of his land in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1963Raj6
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J. 1. Petitioner Totalal, who at the relevant time, was a Director of the Edward Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar (hereinafter called the Mills) incorporated and registered as a public limited company under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1882 on 9th August 1906, has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for an offence punishable under Section 295(4) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956; in default of payment of fine, he is to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Along with the petitioner, three other Directors, namely, Chandmal, Rishi Kesh and Lalita Prasad, were also convicted for the same offence, but no revision application has been filed on their behalf. 2. Section 295 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, runs thus : 'Section 295. Loans to directors etc. -- (1) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section (2), no company (hereinafter in this section referred to as 'the lending company') shall, without obtaining the previous approval of the Central Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1963Raj9; 1963CriLJ65
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional District; Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, and raises a question relating to the proper interpretation of proviso to Sub-section (7) of section 251-A,. Criminal P. C.2. The facts leading to the reference may be, shortly stated as follows:3. The accused Kawal Jat, resident of Maimpur, is being tried for offences under sections 215 and 411, Indian Penal Code in the Court of Munsif-Magistrate, Hindaun. Charges were framed against, him on 28th of January, 1960 and the accused-pleaded not guilty. Prosecution evidence was recorded on 7th and 8th March and only one witness .Sub-Inspector Police Abdul Hamid Khan remained to be examined arid the case was fixed for recording his evidence on 30th March, 1960. The Sub-Inspector Police failed to attend the Court on 30th March to give evidence. On that day, the accused having engaged a counsel, put in an application praying for de novo trial on the ground that as he was not supplied the nece...
Tag this Judgment!