Rajasthan Court December 1967 Judgments
Guru Nanak Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Ganganagar Vs. Regiona ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj264
ORDERKan Singh, J.1. The petitioner, who is a cooperative society, is a bus operator and by this writ petition it seeks to question the validity of certain permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 10. It went up in appeal to the Transport Appellate Tribunal against the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, but was unsuccessful and consequently the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 16-8-67 is also challenged. The relevant facts, as presented in the writ petition are briefly these:2. There is a route known as Ganga-nagar-Karanpur via Arayan which is about 80 kilometres in length. Before the impugned resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, there were 8 operators on this route who were having 11 return services. Out of the 11 return services, 10 were provided for the whole route and one was provided only between Ganpa-nagar and Arayan a distance of about 21 miles. By its resolution dated 26/ 27/28th Nov...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj294
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J. 1. This writ application has been filed by Surendra Kumar Sharma under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or anv other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the non-temporary stage carriage permit granted to Chelaram respondent No. 2 by the Regional Transport Authority. Jaipur by its resolution dated 4/5th and 7th August. 1967. 2. The facts of this case are not in controversy and they are as follows: Respondent No. 2 Chelaram applied for a non-temporary stage carriage permit on Beawar-Todgarh route on 29th January, 1966. That application was published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra by the Regional Transport Authority on 14th April, 1966 and the Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to the respondent on that route on 17th November. 1966. That order of the Regional Transport Authority was challenged in an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the objections filed by the existin...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal Vs. Smt. Durga Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj314
P.N. Shinghal, J. 1. The suit giving rise to this appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Bharatpur, dated March 4, 1960, was raised on October, 5, 1953 by Gopinath, Ramprasad and Mangilal, in a representative capacity, on behalf of the general public of Gangapur City, with the sanction of the Advocate General under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Ramprasaddied during the course of the trial and his name was therefore struck off.2. The property shown in site plan Ex. X (filed with the plaint) and described in paragraph 2 of the plaint is situated, near Mahu gate, in Gangapur town on the railway station road. It consists of a 'bagichi' (or small garden), with a 'dharamshala', a well, a 'Chatri' etc. According to the plaintiffs, it was known as Bhagat-wali-bagichi and the villagers used to take their bath on the well and worship the idol of Mahadevji in the 'chatri'. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the 'bagichi' had been built by the re...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Laduram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ341
D.M. Bhandari, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances:Karola, Kishana and Onkar filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,368 against Ram Chander and his sons Laduram and Fatehlal on the basis of an agreement dated Jeth Sudi 2, Smt. 2014 (31.5.1957), executed by Laduram under which, it was alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants were liable to pay Rs. 1,300, and interest thereon to the plaintiffs. Laduram, defendant, alone contested the suit and the case proceeded ex parte against the other defendants. The defence taken up by Laduram was that he had paid the entire amount due under the agreement to the plaintiffs after a settlement had been arrived at. The receipt Ex. P-1 dated Baisakh Sudi 15, Smt. 2015, corresponding to 3.5.1958 was produced by Laduram in support of his plea. This receipt purported to be signed by the plaintiffs. The scribe of this receipt is Ladulal, son of Magji. During the trial Laduram and Ladulal appeared as witnesses in proof of the receip...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Rukmanand Vs. Official Liquidator, Bharatpur Oil Mills (Privat ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj214; [1969]39CompCas670(Raj)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. A petition was filed on November 25, 1958 for the winding up of the Bharatpur Oil Mills (Private) Limited, and the winding up order was made on October 4, 1960. M/s. Babulal Rukmanand, a partnership firm, made an application to the Official Liquidator on January 27, 1961, for proving its debt against the Company for a sum of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 2/3/6 as the costs of notice, and interest at 9 per cent per annum. It was claimed that the loan had been advanced on March 21, 1949, and although it had not been repaid, it had been 'confirmed' by the Company Rukmanand, it may be stated, was one of the partners of M/s. Babulal Rukmanand and his son Radheyshyam Khandelwal was one of the directors of the aforesaid Company. The creditor offered to give evidence, if necessary, in proof of the debt. The Official Liquidator asked the creditor to satisfy him that the claim was within limitation, and Radheyshyam Khandelwal thereupon produced a letter of the Company dated March 8, 195...
Tag this Judgment!Manak Chand and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1386
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. In Pushkar, near Maliyanka Chowk, Bari Basti, there is 'Sthanak' of the (sic)swal community. It is marked towards the (sic)outh in the site-plan Ex. P. 1. Towards the (sic)orth site-plan there is the house of Mst. Rame(sic)hari Sunar. The plot over which this house (sic)ists was admittedly purchased by Mst. Rame(sic)hwari from Bal Krishna Brahman of Pushkar, on December 9, 1959, for Rs. 2,500. This plot is marked M in the said plan. The place of dispute comprises the spot marked CDFG in the plan in between the 'Sthanak' and the house of Mst. Rameshwari. This plot measures 21' 8.' The Oswal community contends that the said plot is owned and possessed by it; whereas Mst. Rameshwari Devi claims it to be her property and is included in her sale-deed executed by Bal Krishna, Ex. A. 1, dated December 9, 1959. The Oswal community also contends that the lane owned by it was used as a passage for going towards the 'Sthanak' through the gate marked Y in the plan. Mst. Rames...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranjilal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-01-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1529
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. This revision application has been filed by Ghiranjilal who has been facing trials under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Fool Adulteration Act in the court of the Municipal Magistrate, Jaipur City.2. The fact and circumstances out of which this revision arises are as follows:On 6th September, 1966, at 11.00 a.m. the Food Inspector of Municipal Council, Jaipur went to the shop of the petitioner and obtained samples of ghee and oil from that shop which were suspected by the Food Inspector to be adulterated. Those samples were sent for examination to the Public Analyst who, it is alleged, reported that both these articles did not conform to the standards prescribed for these commodities by the Act. Two challans were, therefore, submitted against the applicant, one for the adulteration of oil and the other for the adulteration of ghee, and they were separately registered by the learned Municipal Magistrate as cases Nos. 98 and 99 of 1966. On 9th December, 1966, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›