Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1969)ILLJ382Raj
Tyagi, J.1. This writ application has been filed by Lekhram Saini under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it arises out of the following circumstances.2. The petitioner at the relevant time, that is, on 11 December 1960. was posted at Abu Road and he was incharge of the special squad of the travelling ticket examiners (T.T. Es.) which was working directly under the Chief Commercial Superintendent. It is alleged that a marriage party of the son of one Murarilal, who was a sweet-vendor at Abu Road station, took 32 Down Janta Express from Abu Road to Delhi, and the petitioner Lekhram also took that train for checking purposes along with two other scheduled travelling ticket examiners. The petitioner checked two members of the marriage party at Sirohi Road who did not hold any tickets but it was found that they had boarded the train after informing the guard and, therefore, the petitioner prepared two excess fare tickets for these persons from Abu Road to Delhi and collected Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1968Raj220
P.N. Shinghal, J. 1. These three appeals arise from three different decisions of the Official Liquidator dated September 3, 1966 in respect of the proof of the claims preferred by the appellants before him during the course of the winding up of the Bharatpur Oil Mills (Private) Limited. As common question of fact and law arise in all these three appeals, they have been heard together at the instance of the learned counsel for the parties and will be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The three appellants Radhey Shyam, Raghunath Prasad and Ramesh Chandra were three out of the four directors of the Company which, it is admitted, was registered under the Indian Companies Act of 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1913) as a private limited company. It is admitted that the Company was not a subsidiary of a public company. The Company adopted the regulations contained in Table A of the First Schedule to the Act of 1913 subject to certain regulations which were specified in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1968Raj287
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 challenging the election of Shri Surendra Kumar Taparia, respondent No. 1, to the Lok Sabha from the Pali Parliamentary Constituency. The petition has been filed by one Mohan Raj, an elector to the Constituency. The election has been challenged under Section 100(1)(b) on the ground that respondent No. 1, his election agent and some other persons with his consent committed various corrupt practices defined under Section 123 2. The election petition was presented before this Court on 7-4-67. It was put up on 14-4-67 before me with an office report that the provisions of Sections 81, 82 and 117 had been complied with. This was done in pursuance of Section 86(1) which lavs down that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of these Sections. It was not detected by me at that time that the petition did not comply with the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1968Raj224
P.N. Shinghal, J. 1. This second appeal by plaintiff Wazirsingh arises from the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Ganganagar, dated December 2, 1961, in these circumstances 2. Thirty bighas and one biswa of agricultural land situated in Chak No. 49 G. G. A. of tehsil Karanpur, district Ganga-nagar, was put to auction by the Sales Officer of the Evacuee Department of the State of Rajasthan. The plaintiff gave the highest bid and deposited Rs. 2164/- as the one-tenth amount, at the fall of the hammer on October 21, 1955. The plaintiff made several applications expressing his willingness to deposit the balance of the sale price and asking for delivery of possession of the land, but to no avail. He therefore filed the present suit on April 23, 1960 for recovery of Rs. 2164/-, and Rs. 596/- on account of interest, making a total of Rs. 2760/-. The State of Rajasthan, which contested the suit, admitted the auction and the deposit of Rs. 2164/-, but pleaded that t...
Tag this Judgment!