Rajasthan Court February 1964 Judgments
Anandilal and ors. Vs. Abdul Hussain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj240
C.B. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of Rs. 3500/- along with interest paid by them on 29th May, 1954 to the respondent towards part payment of the sale price of 106 Bighas and 10 Biswas of land situated in village Ghori for which a contract to sell was entered into between them on that elate. The land was to be sold for a sum of Rs. 8500/-Balance of Rs. 5000/- was to he paid on Phagun Sudi 15 Smt. 2011 corresponding to 8th March, 1955 when the sale deed was to be executed and mutation to be effected in the plaintiffs' favour. Two documents were executed regarding the agreement of sale -- one by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs marked Ex. 1 and the other by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant marked Ex. A1. 2. Plaintiffs' case was that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and had approached the defendant a few days before Phagun Sudi 15 as also on the same day and had offered to pay Rs. 5000/-,...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra Kapur Vs. University of Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj161
Modi, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which originally came for hearing be-fore a Division Bench and has been referred to this Full Bench as important questions of law, constitutional and otherwise, arise for decision therein. 2. The petitioner is Virendra Kapur, a student of the Bachelor of Engineering course in the Engineering College of the University of Jodhpur. Respondent 1 is the University of Jodhpur, while respondents 2, 3 and 4 are the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering of the Jodhpur University respectively. Respondent 5 is the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner's principal prayer is that the order of the University authorities reverting him to the II year B. E Class be held to be illegal and set aside and a writ of Mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction be issued to the respondents to permit him to continue in the Third Year B. E. Class under circumstances presently to be mentioned. ...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Sukhdeo Atmaram Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj235
C.B. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of compensation, against the Union of India as representing the Northern. Railway. 2. Plaintiff's case was that on 1st May, 1948 one consignment of a bale of cloth was book ed from Ahmadabad for Jodhpur by Messrs. Bherulal Champalal under railway risk note form B. The Railway receipt for this consignment was assigned to the plaintiffs, but the railway administration failed to deliver the consignment to the plaintiff, at Jodhpur Railway Station. The plaintiff thereafter preferred a claim under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, but no delivery as given and its claim after some correspondence was finally repudiated on 4th August, 1950. 3. The defendant resisted the suit and inter alia pleaded that it was barred by limitation. 4. Several issues including that of limitation were framed, by the trial court. The trial court after considering the evidence of the parties decreed the plaintiff's suit holdin...
Tag this Judgment!Gyasiram Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj237; 1964CriLJ581
ORDERI.N. Modi, J.1. This is a reference under Section 439 Cr. P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in a case under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (No. X of 1955, hereinafter called the Act) and arises under circumstances presently to be mentioned. 2. The accused petitioner is a food-grain dealer holding a license under the Rajasthan Food-grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1958). On the 14th November, 1958, the Tehsildar, Bnaratpur, who is the licensing authority in this class of case, inspected the petitioner's shop. He discovered that the petitioner was not maintaining account-books or receipt-books' properly as required under the conditions of the license. Consequently, he reported the matter to the police at Bharatpur. After the usual investigation, the police challaned the petitioner for an offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Act for failure to maintain accounts as stated above in the court...
Tag this Judgment!Lohare Vs. Civil Judge, Bharatpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj196
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Lohare against a decree passed against him by Maharavar Nyaya Panchayat.2. The validity of the decision has been challenged on the ground that no bench for the trial of the suit was formed as provided under Section 27-B and that the decision was by only two Panchas whereas under Section 27-D the minimum number of Panchas who could form a bencli is three.3. The relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 are these :-'Section 27-D. Formation of benches of Nyaya Panchayat.- (1) Subjeet to the provisions contained in Section 27-F and to the rules made under Sub-section (2), the Chairman of a Nyaya Panchayat shall, for the hearing and disposal of suits and cases coming up before such Nyaya Panchayat under and in pursuance of the provisions of this Chapter, form benches, each bench to consist of any three members whether or not inclusive of the Chairman himself.(2) The formation of benches u...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Deo and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ240
D.M. Bhandari, J.1. This is an appeal by Ram Deo, Bal Dev Chandani and Ramesh against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu dated the 25th of September, 1983, convicting all of them under Section. 302/34, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for life. All of them were further convicted under Section. 380/34, Indian Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted under Section 460/34, Indian Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The deceased Bhanwarlal was post master of Sujangarh in November, 1981. He resided in the resi dential quarter attached to the post office. The case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening 10th/ 11th November, 1981, all the accused Ramdeo, Ramesh and Baldeo, along with Yaqub approver (P. W. 1) entered in the residential quarter of Bhanwarlal post master...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Mal Vs. Smt. Gayatri Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj223
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a reference under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Modi and Shinghal, JJ. It arises out of an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act 1951. 2. The facts relevant for disposing of it are these. Smt. Gayatri Devi respondent was elected to the House of the People at the third general elections held in the month of February 1962 from the Jaipur Parliamentary Constituency in Rajasthan. Her election was challenged by Sardar Mal appellant, who is an elector in the constituency, by an election petition on the ground of corrupt practices mentioned in para 4 thereof. Full particulars of the corrupt practices as required by Section 83(i)(b) were given in three annexures to the petition marked A, B and C. An affidavit in support of the allegations of corrupt practices was also filed along with the petition as required under the proviso to Section 83(2). The election petition, including th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›