Rajasthan Court July 1965 Judgments
Amar Chand Vs. Bach Raj and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Raj111
D.S. Dave, C.J.1. This appeal came for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court on 23-10-64, but since an important question of law relating to the period of limitation was involved, he referred it to the Chief Justice to be laid before a Division Bench of the Court. This is how the case has come before us for hearing.2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Balotra, dated 30-1-59, modifying the decree of Civil Judge, Jalore, dated 31-5-58. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 8,221 as principal and Rs. 1,479 as interest, in all for Rs. 9,700 on the basis of their account books which were said to have been signed by the defendants. It was averred that the defendants Ganeshmal and his son Amar Chand had dealings with the plaintiffs' father for a number of years. After settling their accounts the defendants admitted their liability to pay an outstanding debt of Rs. 8,901 and executed a khata on 14-2-51. After c...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Roopa
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ576
Modi, J.1. This is a reference by one of us sitting singly and raises an interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It arises in this way.On the 6th of April, 1960, the accused respondent Roopa sent a complaint by post to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur, alleging that in connection with the marriages of his daughters, which were held on the 3rd of March, 1960, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sojat accompanied by a number of constables had come to his house at the instance of the Sarpanch of the village Panchayat and announced that no one should partake of the feast arranged by Roopa as it was being held in connection with certain deaths which had taken place in his family. It was further alleged that as a result of what the Sub-Inspector had done all his guests had to go without food on that night for a long time until he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 600/- to the Sarpanch, the suggestion obviously was that...
Tag this Judgment!Dharma Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ441
Modi, J.1. These are two connected appeals arising out of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, dated the 16th April, 1963, by which the accused Dharma has been convicted under Sections 201 and 411 I. P. C. and sentenced to four years' and one year's rigorous imprisonment respectively. Another accused Hansia has been convicted under Section 411 I. P. C. and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. Both these accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 I. P. C. and the third accused Mst. Khasi was acquitted altogether. Appeal No. 349 of 1963 has been filed by Dharma from jail against his conviction and sentence. Appeal No. 575 of 1963 has been filed by the State, and the prayer is that all the three accused should have been convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. We propose to dispose of both these appeals by a single judgment.2. All the three accused were charged with the murder of one Mst. Hanja under Section 302 I. P. C. and also under Section 411 I. ...
Tag this Judgment!Hardutt Singh and ors. Vs. State Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Raj208
Kan Singh, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the three petitioners seek to challenge the order of the State Transport Authority Rajas than, Jaipur dated 14-9-64 (Ex. 13 on the record), by which the State Transport Authority declined to interfere with an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur dated 7/8-3-63 (Ex. 1 on the records), on the ground that the petitioners having not availed of the remedy of an appeal could not file the revision application.2. The three petitioners were holders of stage carriage permits on Mandawar Hindaun route. Karauli Sir Mathura route and Karauli Gangapur route respectively. Non-petitioners Nos. 3 to 24 were permit holders on the Jaipur Karauli route. Their permits were affected by a scheme of rationalisation over the Jaipur Bharatpur route which was published in the Rajasthan Gazelle of 14-12-60. The scheme, however, could not he enforced immediately as the same was under challenge, first before this Court and then...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Raj256
Dave, C.J.1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Mahavir Prasad, who is a resident of Ratan Nagar in District Churu.2. The petitioner's case is that in the year 1922 the erstwhile State of Bikaner had established a Municipal Board for the area of Ratan Nagar Town. Although its boundaries were extended from time to time. The Municipal Board continued to function during the continuance of the former Bikaner State and even after the formation of the State of Rajasthan. The last elections to the Municipal Board were held in December, 1963, when ten members including the petitioner were elected. Thereafter co-option proceedings were conducted and two lady members were co-opted. The petitioner was elected Chairman of the said Board and he took charge from the Administrator on 31st January, 1964.By a notification published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra Part IV (c), dated 24th August 1960, the State of Rajasthan constituted a Committee called Re-delimit...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Raj211; 1967CriLJ1187
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by Ramchandar against his conviction wider Section 16(1)(a) read with Rules 49 and SO of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 300.2. The case by the prosecution against the petitioner was that he was running a hotel named as 'Azad Hind Hotel' on Nai Sarak Churu and was carrying on the business of selling bread, cooked meat and vegetables etc. without a licence. Further on 6th October, 1968 when Shri Mangilal, Food Inspector checked the hotel, there was neither any notice board, nor were the utensils enamelled nor was there any glass almirah for protection from sand and flies, Kneaded flour was lying since morning and had fermented. Sugansingh servant in the hotel was found working there at that time and he informed the Food Inspector that Ramchandar petitioner was one of the owners oi the hotel, Mangilal prepared a memo of inspection and after o...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ghosh and ors. Vs. Dulia and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Raj145; (1969)ILLJ194Raj
Kan Singh, J. 1. These are four writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Shri S. Ghosh, Mines Manager, Bikaner Gypsums Limited. Jamsar (Bikaner), challenging the validity of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner (North), acting as Payment of Wages Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act, by which the Payment of Wages Authority directed the petitioner to pay the wages of Dulia and other workers which were found to have been deducted in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The writ petitions can conveniently be disposed of together.2. The petitioner was the Mines Manager of the Bikaner Gypsums Limited at the mines of the Company at Jamsar. The Company is engaged in the mining of Gypsum. The opposite party, who were workers employed at the mines, filed separate applications before the Payment of Wages Authority to the effect that for the wage period 2-10-63 to 30-9-64, the petitioner had wrongly deducted th...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswant Singh Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ451
Modi, J.1. We have two connected matters before us arising out of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated the 24th March 1965, by which he has convicted the accused Jaswant Singh of the offence of murder under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to death. Appeal No. 152 of 1965 is by the accused Jaswant Singh against his conviction and sentence. We have also before us the usual murder reference for confirmation of the sentence of death. We propose to dispose of both these matters by a single judgment.2. The prosecution story is briefly this. It is alleged that on the night between the 7th and 8th of June 1964, the accused Jaswant Singh killed his wife Mst. Siriya, his two minor sons Matadin and Balwant aged 12 and 10 years, respectively, and his infant daughter Mst. Phoosli aged about six months with an axe. The murders are alleged to have been committed in the house of the accused at village Khandwa sometime in the night between the 7th and 8th June. According to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bach Raj and anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Raj44
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is an execution appeal by the decree-holders against an appellate order of the Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur holding that their execution application was barred by limitation. The Executing Court has held that it was within limitation. 2. The decree was passed on 24th March, 1952. Shri Ugamraj Bhansali was the lawyer who conducted the case in the trial court on behalf of the plaintiffs. On 15-1-1953 he presented an execution application which was signed by him. It was not signed and verified by any of the decree-holders. As was held in Hassan Saheb v. Ramchandra Appaya, AIR 1929 Bom 196 if Shri Ugamaraj had also verified the execution application it would undoubtedly have been in accordance with law. But the defect of want of verification was not noticed by the Executing Court and the application was acted upon. The property of the judgment-debtor was attached on this execution application. The judgment-debtor appeared and filed some objections. He too did not t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sakina and anr. Vs. Smt. Zainab Bibi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Raj122
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by the defendants Smt. Sakina Bibi and Smt. Fahmida Begum against an order of the Civil Judge, Ajmer on their application for their examination on commission under Order 26, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code on the ground that they are 'Pardanashin' ladies.2. The learned Civil Judge has directed that they shall either be examined in his court room after excluding all members of the public unconnected with the suit or in his chamber. They can come completely covered in 'Burkha'.3. The order of the learned Civil Judge is in accordance with the view taken by the Madras and Calcutta High Courts This Court has not taken a contrary view.4. On behalf of the applicants it is contended that the view taken by the Allahabadand the Patna High Courts should be followed by this Court. Considering that the system of observing 'Parda' is being relaxed throughout the country, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Civil Judge, and di...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »