Rajasthan Court May 1965 Judgments
Mohan Lal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Raj1; (1968)ILLJ248Raj
ORDEROn reversion from the Public Works Department Shri Mohan Lal, Foreman I, is hereby posted as Foreman I, Chambal Grid Sub Station, Udaipur (De-bari), against newly sanctioned post vide Rajasthan State Electricity Board's order No. RSEB/Cell. 3/F. 1 (60) D. 2969, dated llth June, 1963 from the date he reports duty.Shri Mohan Lal, will report duty to Executive Engineer (Local Distribution), Rajasthan State Electricity Public Works Department.Sd/- K.C. Satsangi. Chief Engineer-Technical Member.'This is how the petitioner came back to the State Electricity Board. The petitioner's grievance, however, is that during the period he was on deputation to the Public Works Department there were a number of persons who were junior to him in the pre-existing Electrical and Mechanical Department and like him who were serving in the Electricity Board, and these persons who are respondents Nos. 4 to 14 before us had been promoted as officiating Assistant Engineers or as temporary Assistant Engineer...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Heera and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1202
Bhandari, J.1. This case has been referred to a Division Bench by Chhangani, J. as in the opinion of the learned Judge the point involved in this case requires consideration by a larger Bench.2. The point referred to us may be stated, as follows:'Whether a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a Police report can order the Police to submit a charge-sheet in a case in which the officer-in-charge of the Police Station concerned has forwarded a report to the effect that on investigation no offence has been made out.'3. There are two decisions of this Court on this point and they are Lumba Ram v. State, ILR (1956) 6 Raj 469 and State v. Mohan, ILR (1959) 9 Raj 671. This matter has been considered by various High Courts in India and there is divergence of judicial opinion on this point. Some of the cases of various other High Courts in India bearing on this point are--A.K. Roy v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 Cal 135 (FB); Uma Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Pat 242; Raghuna...
Tag this Judgment!Sureshchandra and ors. Vs. Birdichand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Raj229
1. These are two connected appeals and are both directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 18th August, 1964 by which, on a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by 13 electors of Kotputli municipality, the learned Judge set aside the elections and co-options of the members of Kotputli municipality who were elected or co-opted as a result of the general, election held in 1964. D. B. Special Appeal 21 of 1964 is by Sureshchandra and others, whose election or co-option was set aside and appeal No. 33 of 1964 is by the State of Rajasthan, the Collector and the Returning Officer. They can conveniently be disposed of together.2. The sole ground on which the learned Judge held the election to be void was that the notification issued by the Government, dated 26th November, 1963 for inviting objections against the proposed delimitation of the wards did not conform to the mandatory requirements of Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Raj234; [1966]17STC152(Raj)
Beri, J. 1. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan has made this reference under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act XXIX of 1954) for the opinion of this Court whether on a true construction of the terms of the contract entered in between the Man Industrial Corporation Ltd., Jaipur (hereinafter called 'the assessee') and the President of India the transaction amounted to a sale liable to sales tax. 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this reference briefly stated are these: The assessee, which is a public limited company, carries on the business of fabricating steel doors, windows, sashes and works of allied nature at Jaipur. It entered into a contract with the President of India through the Central Public Works Department, Ajmer, for providing and fixing windows of four different specifications in the building constructed to house the office of the Accountant General at Jaipur. While offering to execute the work the assessee indicated as one of its conditions that ...
Tag this Judgment!Vidya Ratan Vs. Kota Transport Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Raj200
Kan Singh, J. 1. This second appeal before us raises a question about the liability of a common carrier in respect of the loss of goods in transit delivered to him for transport. 2. The appellant before us is the legal representative of one Mangilal Chopra of Mangrol who had commenced the action for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1134/6/6 from Kota Transport Company Limited for non-delivery of 24 maunds and 11 seers of cotton which was consigned from Kota to Mangrol by a truck run under the management and control of the defendant company. It is common ground between the parties that the defendant company had a monopoly to ply transport vehicles within the ex-Kota State in the year 1949, and was acting as common carrier of goods. It was averred that on 5-12-1949, Messrs. Madhay Das Hiralal of Kota, who were plaintiff's agents, delivered 27 maunds 11 seers and 4 chhataks of cotton valued at Rs. 1266/6/6 to the defendant company for being carried to Mangrol. This cotton was carried in a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›