Rajasthan Court January 1965 Judgments
State Vs. Mansharam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Raj168; 1965CriLJ411
L.N. Chhangani, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State and is directed against the order of the Munsif Magistrate, Gangapur datad 23rd of May, 1962 acquitting: the respondents of offences relating to contravention of Rules 5 and 8 (2) of the Payment of Wages (Mines)' Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and punishable under Rule 22 thereof. 2. The facts leading to the appeal are briefly these. That one Gulab Rai Somani was the Labour Inspector (Central) Bhilwara in the year 1961. He was also appointed Inspector under the Payment of Wages Act. On 28th of June, 1961 he inspected Nansa Prospective Mica Mines, Gangapur. Mansharam Gupta respondent No. 1 was then the owner of the mine. Ramchander respondent No. 2 was the agent and Mangilal respondent No. 3 was the Manager. The inspection was done in the presence of Mangilal respondent No. 3. At the time of inspection it was; revealed that (1) the copies of notices required to be displayed under Rule 8 and 8 (i) had not been sent ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council Vs. Rawat Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Raj180; 1965CriLJ535
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is an appeal by the Municipal Council, Ganganagar, on leave granted under Section 417, Sub-section (3), Criminal P. C., and is directed against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, dated 23rd of February 1963, by which he accepted the respondent Ravatram's appeal, set aside his conviction under Section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and acquitted him of the offence.2. The facts leading to the appeal are not in controversy and lie in a very narrow compass. On behalf of the Municipal Council, Ganganagar, a complaint dated 2nd November 1961, was presented in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ganganagar, for respondent's prosecution under. Section 203 of the Act. It was alleged that the respondent made an encroachment by constructing a room and a compound wall around the room in Harijan Colony Ward No. 18. It was further stated in the complaint that the respondent had been previously pr...
Tag this Judgment!Gopichand Vs. Dhannalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Raj169
Modi, J.1. This is a reference by a learned Single Judge and the question referred to us as arising out of the first proviso to Sub-section. (2) of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction, Act, 1950 (Act No. 17 of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act) has been formulated as follows :'In cases of premises first let out after 1-1-48 can the standard rent be fixed below the basic rent thereof ?'2. In order to appreciate the point referred to us a few facts may be stated. The tenant who is the respondent before us filed a suit for fixation of standard rent with respect to the suit shop for which a rent of Rs. 60/ had been agreed by him to be paid to the landlord. The latter resisted the suit on the ground that the whole shop had been let out by him to the respondent for the first time on the 1st day of February, 1957 and, therefore, the standard rent could not be fixed below the figure of Rs. 60/- per mensem, which according to him, was the basic rent within the mean...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Bahadur Moolchand Nemichand Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Raj184
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by R.B. Moolchand Nemichand, a creditor of respondent No. 2. Shri Sohan Chand, and is directed against the decision of the Debt Relief Court (Civil Judge) Chittorgarh dated 28-10-1963, whereby the Debt Relief Court held in a proceeding under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957, hereinafter to be called the 'Act', that Shri Sohan Chand was an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Act. The creditor first went up in revision to the Court of the District Judge, Partabgarh, but the latter dismissed the revision by his order dated 9-4-64, holding that the Debt Relief Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that Shri Sohan Chand was an agriculturist. Consequently the petitioner is questioning the correctness of the decision of the learned District Judge as well. 2. Respondent No. 2 Shri Sohan Chand approached the Debt Relief Court with the allegation tha...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarshanlal Bajaj Vs. S.P. Agarwala and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ245Raj
D.S. Dave, C.J.1. This is a writ application by Sudarshanlal Bajaj under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of an order dated 6th May, 1963, passed by the Divisional Operating Superintendent, Western Railway, stationed at Jaipur, whereby the petitioner was reduced from the post of Assistant Station Master to that of the Traffic Signaller for two years with future effect from 9th May, 1963. 2. The petitioner's case is that he was Assistant Station Master at the Dausa railway station in the year 1962. On the midnight of 30th & 31st July, 1962, there was an incident of an averted collision at about 1-25 a.m. on Line No. 3 in front of Dausa railway station between 872 Down goods-train entering Dausa station and 5 Up Express Passenger-train entering the same station from the opposite direction. The charge against the petitioner was that he was responsible for violating certain orders at the time of reception of 5 Up and thereby endangered the safety of the tra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›