Rajasthan Court March 1966 Judgments
Ratan Chand and ors. Vs. Panchayat Samiti and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj142
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. These are sixteen connected writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for a number of reliefs in regard to the tax on money lending imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Sojat, on the petitioners. The petitions have been contested on behalf of the respondents. 2. Section 33(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1959 empowers the Panchayat Samiti to impose and levy in the prescribed manner a tax on such trades, callings, professions and industries as may be prescribed. The Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis Taxation Rules 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were framed prescribing the manner of imposition and levy of taxes. The schedule attached to these Rules prescribes the trades, callings, professions and industries on which tax may be imposed and also lays down the maximum rate per annum of such tax. The maximum tax leviable on money lenders is Rs 200 per annum.3. On 19-9-61 the Panchayat Samiti passed a resolution under R...
Tag this Judgment!Yogendra Nath Handa and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj123
ORDER1. We have before us three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by three members of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly respectively, by which they seek to challenge the validity of certain proceedings of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly taken on 26th February, 1966 and 28th February. 1966, and pray for issuances of appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondents. As the writ petitions raise certain common questions, they can conveniently be dealt with together.2. Writ petitions of Servashri Yogendra Nath Handa and Manikchand Surana were argued by Shri C.L. Agarwal and that of Shri Ramanand Aggarwal was argued by Shri R.K. Garg The writ petitions referred to certain events that took place in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly on 26th Feb 1966 and 28th February 1966, and they are like this.3. The Governor of Rajasthan summoned the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly to meet for its budget session on 26th February, 1966, at 11.00 a.m. Accordingly the A...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Gangadhar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj199
P.N. Shinghal, J. 1. Both the courts below having allowed the claim of plaintiff Gangadhar for the recovery of Rs. 2,390/1/-, with costs, against the State of Rajasthan, the defendant has preferred this second appeal. 2. One Zorawarmal was found to have been murdered in his house in Churu, in the former Bikaner State, during the night between December 13 and December 14, 1948. He had no issue and used to live alone in his house. The police sealed all his property. Subsequently, the police reached the conclusion that Zorawarmal had died heirless and that his property bad escheated to the Slate. They therefore prepared a detailed inventory (Ex. 2) on the 23rd 24th and 25th January. 1949, in the presence of 'motvirs', making it quite clear that the property bad been seized because of escheat. It consisted of a large number of articles including jewellery and utensils. All these were placed in four rooms of Zorawarmal's house which were locked and sealed. The keys of the locks were placed ...
Tag this Judgment!New National Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Vs. State of Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj42
Modi, J. 1. This is a writ petition by the New National Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works, Bharatpur, through its proprietor H. C. Malhotra under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. It is admitted that the petitioner has been carrying on the business of manufacture of medicinal and toilet preparations since 1956. On the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (Act No. 16 of 1955 hereinafter called the Act) having come into force with effect from the 1st April, 1957, the petitioner obtained a licence in form L-1 in accordance with Rule 83 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 (hereinfter called the Rules) made under the aforesaid Act. It is further admitted that the petitioner got his licence renewed from year to year until the 31st March, 1960.Before this licence expired, the petitioner had made an application on or about the 22nd February, 1960, to the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation of this State for renewal of his licence in form L...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Ram Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ134
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. The appellant Gangaram has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar, vide his order dated 19th October, 1965 of an offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to an imprisonment for five years and a tine of Rs. 500/-, in default, one year's further rigorous imprisonment. He has filed the present appeal.2. The case against the appellant is that on 3.7.1963 at about 2 p.m. in the premises of Gram Panchayat, Samola, the appellant attacked Harla with a dagger in the right side of the back above right iliac crest. He then again tried to give a second blow to Harla P.W. 1, but Baneysingh PW/2 Sarpanch caught hold of the band of the accused. The accused then tried to attack Baneysingh Alamsingh DW/1 came from behind and snatched the dagger from the hand of the accused. The accused tried to run away by jumping the wall of the Panchayat but Iqbalsingh and Shadi caught him. Baneysingh Sarpanch PW/2 sent a written report to the Police St...
Tag this Judgment!Manoranjan Mukherjee and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj57
ORDER Whereas Shri Manoranjan Mukherjee s/o Makhan Lal resident of Jhatwara District Jaipur was detained under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, under District Magistrate, Jaipur's order dated 2-1-1965 confirmed by this Department order of even number dated 6-2-1965. And whereas on a review last made, it was ordered on 24-6-65 that the said detention order be continued; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (7) of Rule 30-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, the Governor of Rajasthan is pleased to order that the said order of detention of said Shri Manoranjan Mukherjee be continued. By order of the Governor (H. S. Rawat) Deputy Secretary to the Government.' The petitioner moved the present application from jail on the 26th October, 1965, which was received here on the 3rd November, 1965. While the case was pending for hearing, the State Government by its order dated the 8th March, 1966, under the signature of the Home Secretary, by order ...
Tag this Judgment!Manoranjan Mukherjee and anr. Vs. the State of Rajsthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ405
ORDER.Whereas Shri Manoranjan Mukheriee s/o Makhan Lal resident of Jhatwara District Jaipur was detained under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, under District Magistrate, Jaipur's order dated 2-1-1965 confirmed by this Department order of even number dated 6 2-1965.And whereas on a review last made, it was ordered on 24-6-65 that the said detention order be continued;Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (7) of Rule 30-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, the Governor of Rajasthan is pleased to order that the said order of detention of said Shri Manoranjan Mukherjee be continued.By order of the Governor (H. S. Rawat)Deputy Secretary to the Government.' The petitioner moved the present application from jail on the 26th October, 1965, which was received here on the 3rd November, 1965. While the case was pending for hearing, the State Government by its order dated the 8th March, 1966, under the signature of the Home Secretary, by order of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1966
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ399Raj
Modi, J.1. This Is a writ petition by Balbir Singh under Article 228 of the Constitution challenging his order of dismissaldated 28 October 1964, Ex. 6.2. The petitioner was posted as helper under the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Canal Project, Mechanical Division 1, Hanumangarh. It is not disputed before us that as such he was a workcharged employee of the Irrigation Department. According to the petitioner, Baldeo Singh and Heeralal, overseers, were his immediate superiors. On 9 October 1964, the petitioner was found to have carried a dibba or a container from the workshop where he used to work. This dibba contained an electric meter and a piece of rexine cloth. The case of the petitioner was and is that the gate-keepers wanted to check the dibba at the exit gate whereupon Heeralal who was accompanying the petitioner told him that it belonged to him-Heeralal-and therefore, the petitioner was allowed to take it away. The petitioner's further case is that when he had carried the dibba ...
Tag this Judgment!Phoolchand and ors. Vs. Laxminarain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj151
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal and is directed against an appellate Judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated 2nd May, 1961 whereby in dismissing the defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur the learned Judge affirmed the decree for a sum of Rs. 6,694/10/-. The main question that has been canvassed before me, as was done before the learned District Judge, was about the suit being within limitation. The relevant facts may be recounted as follows:2. Respondent Laxminarain commenced this action on 3rd December, 1957. It was averred by him that the defendant was a member of the Bullion Association Limited, Jodhpur and was carrying on bullion business as such. According to the plaintiff the defendant was constituted by him as his pucca Adatia and he started having dealings in the sale or purchase of bullion through the defendant. According to the usage prevalent in that Bullion Association Migsar Sud 5 of Samv...
Tag this Judgment!Chauthmal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj179
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order of the State Government under Section 285 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959 setting aside the sale of a plot of Nazul land situated within the Municipality of Merta to the petitioner.2. 'Nazul land' as defined under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 means abadi land within the limits of the municipality or a panchayat circle or a village, town or city, vesting in the State Government. Such land is sold in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1958 or the rules made thereunder. Section 97 provides that in all cases where there are more than one applicant for the same piece of land it shall be sold to the highest bidder at a public auction. This is subject to the following provisions :--(i) it shall be open to the Collector to refuse the highest bid for reasons to be recorded; (ii) small strips of lands adjoining e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »