Rajasthan Court April 1965 Judgments
Hemdan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ60
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This reference by the learned District Magistrate, Jalore arises out of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. On a report by the Station House Officer, Bagora that a dispute regarding possession over Khasra Nos. 681, 675 and 688 in village Nadia between Party A and Party B was likely to cause a breach of the peace, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate drew up a preliminary order on 22nd August, 1963. He called upon the parties to file their written statements and to produce evidence in support of their respective claims. Accordingly both parties filed documents and affidavits in support of their claims and the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate on its consideration declared party B in possession of the disputed land and forbade party A from interfering with the possession of party B unless so ordered by a competent court.3. Aggrieved by this order Party A filed a revision application in the court of the District Magistrate, Jalore. ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Birda
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ166
L.N. Chhangani, J. 1. This is a State appeal and is directed against the order of the Munsif Magistrate, Pali, acquitting the respondent Birda of an offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the respondent which resulted in the present appeal, may be briefly stated as follows: 3. On 30th August, 1961, Birda lodged information with the Circle Inspector of Police, Pali, against Bhuria, Labba, Misria, Sargara and others accusing them of an offence under Section 366, Indian Penal Code. It was stated by Birda that the persons named by him kidnapped his daughter Mst. Indra on 17-8-1961. The Circle Inspector after investigation found that the information given by the respondent was false and was lodged in order to cause harassment to Bhuria etc. by the police. On this finding, a complaint under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, was presented against the accused-respondent and a criminal case No. 3 of 1962 was registered in the court of the Munsif M...
Tag this Judgment!Kotah Transport Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1965
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas288(Raj)
Dave, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Kotah Transport Limited, which is a public limited joint stock company, under Section 155(4) of the Companies Act (No. 1 of 1956), which will hereinafter be referred to as the 'Act', against the order of the learned company judge of this court dated the 8th August, 1960, passed on an application filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 155(1) of the Act.2. It is common ground between the parties that the Government of His Highness the Maharao Raja of the erstwhile Kotah State granted a monopoly to carry passengers and goods by motor transport within the State to Messrs. Budhsingh Bapna, Sardar Ujagar Singh and Sardar Daljit Singh, who will hereinafter be referred to as the 'grantee', by a 'Deed of Covenant' (exhibit A-1) dated 19th September, 1945, for a period of ten years. In pursuance of the terms and conditions of the said document, the grantee floated a joint stock company with a capital of rupees ten lakhs. That company was named as Kota...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Singh Vs. Partapsingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Raj217
P.N. Shinghal, J. 1. This second appeal of defendant Ramchander Singh is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge of Jalore, dated March 20, 1959. It arises in these circumstances. 2. The parties are residents of Sayla, which was once a jagir village. Defendant Ramchander Singh, obtained a 'patta' from the other defendant Raghunath Singh, who was then the Jagirdar of the village, on December 4, 1954, for a piece of land in the village marked GDCYEF, made some construction on portion AXYD thereof, and also built a small platform on portion XDCY. All these have been shown in site plan Ex. 1. This was considered by the villagers, to be an encroachment on the village 'akhariya' (or common land at the extreme end of the village), which has been marked in green chalk in the site plan. The plaintiffs therefore, raised the present suit, in a representative capacity, in the court of the Munsiff of Jalore, on September 10, 1957. They pleaded that the portion of land ma...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Leela JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Raj50
Modi, J. 1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the Minister of Local Self Government Department of our State dated the 17th April, 1957, passed under Section 4 of the Rajasthan City Municipal Appeals (Regulation) Act, 1950 (Act No. 3 of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950). This application was originally allowed by a Bench of this Court (Bapna Ag. C.J. and Modi J.) by an order dated the 7th November, 1958, on the ground that the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass the order under challenge. The respondent State of Rajasthan then obtained special leave for appeal to the Supreme Court and by its judgment d/- 16-9-1964, Civil Appeal No. 245 of 1962, State of Rajasthan v. Mrs. Leela Jain, AIR 1965 S. C. 1296, the interpretation put by this Court on the proviso to Section 4 of the Act of 1950 was held to be erroneous and it was further held that a revision lay to the Government against the order of the municipal authori...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Udhyog Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR118(Raj)
The judgment of the court was delivered byKAN SINGH, J. - We have before us three writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution questioning the validity of certain provisional assessments made under section 141 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act', and as common questions of law are involved in them they can conveniently be disposed of together. As there is no dispute on facts, it will be sufficient to narrate the facts from Writ Petition No. 51 of 1964 (Jaipur Udhyog Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax).The petitioner No. 1 is a joint stock company registered under the Companies Act and runs a cement factory at Sawai Madhopur and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing cement. The petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of the company. They claim that the factory was established by the company in pursuance of an agreement between the company and the erstwhile Jaipur State whereby the company was exempted from the payment of all taxe...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Swaroop Bhatnagar Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Raj8; (1967)ILLJ279Raj
Kan Singh, J. 1. Petitioner Anand Swaroop Bhatnagar seeks to challenge by this writ petition the validity of the Government order dated 7-2-64, reverting him from the post of officiating Assistant Conservator of Forests to the post of Hanger Grade II. The case set out by him in the writ petition may be outlined as follows:2. The petitioner was an employee of the Forest Department of the erstwhile Bundi State when the first United State of Rajasthan was formed in the year 1948. He was trained in the Forest School at Balaghat before he joined the Forest Department of the erstwhite Bundi State and he was Ranger at the time of the merger of the State. The petitioner's case is that he continued to hold the post of a Ranger all along and when the united State of Rajasthan was formed in the year 1949, he was still holding that post, having worked as Ranger in different districts. When he was integrated with the services in the united State of Rajasthan he was fixed up in grade No. II provided...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. the Rastriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Raj213; (1965)IILLJ83Raj
Dave, C.J. 1. The petitioner, who has filed the present writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and has its registered office at Bijaynagar, Ajmer District. 2. Respondent No. 1, who is the only contesting party, is a representative body of the workers of the petitioner-company. On 12th March, 1953 a notice was issued by the company to the effect that on account of unremunerative working of the Mill and recurring continuous losses, the mill would be closed from 1st April, 1953 and in pursuance of the said notice, it was actually closed on 1st April, 1953. It continued to remain closed till 14th May, 1954. It started working again on 15th May, 1954 and continued working upto 23rd June 1957, On 24th June 1957 it was closed again. Then, it resumed work on 3rd March 1958. The petitioner retrenched some workers on 30th April 1958 and others on 11th May 1958. On 23rd June 1958, the mill w...
Tag this Judgment!Nandan Bhargava Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1965
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ327Raj
Kan Singh, J.1. The writ petition before us is by Nandan Bhargava, who is at present Conservator of Forests, Planning and Demarcation, Rajasthan, and by it he seeks to challenge an order of the State Government reverting him from the post of the Chief Conservator of Forests with effect from 5 November 1962, when he had already held that post since 4 September 1961 from which date he was appointed to officiate as Chief Conservator of Forests on the expiry of the tenure o one Sri N.N. Sen The petitioner has also made grievance of the successive two Appointment to the post of Chief Conservator subsequent to his reversion :first K. B.M' Mohan Lal, respondent 4, was appointed end subsequent to that R. K. Chaturvedi, respondent 3, was appointed on that post. The petitioner also seeks a direction for ex-punction of certain adverse entries paid to have been made in the confidential report of the petitioner. The case that ha has Bet out in the writ petition is briefly this:2. The petitioner who...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›