Rajasthan Court April 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Narayani Vs. Durgalal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj94
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the appellate judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City No. 2, dated November 21, 1961, dismissing her suit with costs.2. The controversy, which relates to the right of 'seva puja' and management of the temple of Shri Murli Manoharji in Jaipur, has continued for a little over four decades, but it will be sufficient to make a mention of those facts which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal. It is not in dispute that the temple in question was built by Mansaram, the common ancestor of the parties, and in that temple Mansaram installed the idol of Thakurji. He had four sons - Seyaram, Motiram, Gulabchand and Gumaniram. It is admitted that Gulabchand died without any issue. Plaintiff Smt. Narayani is the daughter of Giyarisilal, a representative of Motiram's branch. Giyarisilal died in Section 1962 and his widow Smt. Chai died in Section 1978. The contesting defendant Durgalal is the son of Narayan, wh...
Green Bus (Rajasthan) Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj169
ORDER Jaipur, April 16 1965.No. F. 1 (8) Jud-55-In pursuance of Section/Rule 7(1) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1960, the Governor is pleased to order that the Joint Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Rajasthan shall consider objections to, approval and modifications of the scheme under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 (Central Act TV of 1939).This is in supersession to this Department order No. F. 12 (1) LJ/B/60. dated the 13th October 1960By order,Sohan Lal AgrawalSecretary to Govt.'8. The first attack of Mr. Jain about this notification it that under Rule 7 (1) of the Rules of 1960 the Governor could appoint an officer to dispose of the objections received under Section 68-D of the Act only under the Rules made by the Governor in pursuance of Clause (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. In this connection Mr. Jain, further contended that the Rules of Business were amended by the Governor on 11-10-1960. where by a new ...
Shah (Dr. D.R.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1967
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ261Raj
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Dr. D.R Shah at present Lecturer in Medicine, Ravindra Nath Tagore Medical College, Udaipur, challenging the appointment of Dr. B.P. Jain as Junior Specialist under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963, and for certain other reliefs. The writ petition has been contested on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and Dr. B.P. Jain.2. The relevant facts as appear from the material on record are these. Both Dr. D.R. Shah and Dr. B.P. Jain were Civil Assistant Surgeons, Class I, when Dr. Jain was temporarily appointed for a period of six months as Junior Specialist (Physician) under an order of the Government dated 17 October 1962 (annexure 3). This appointment has been continued in a temporary capacity until today. The position of Dr. Jain on the seniority list of Civil Assistant Surgeons, Class I, was at No. 97 and that of Dr. Shah was at No. 198. Two temporary posts of Junior Specialists were a...
Ladu Ram Vs. Rameshwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj136
ORDERB.P. Beri, J.1. By his order dated the 5th July 1966 the Additional Sessions Judge,Jaipur District. Jaipur has recommended that the order of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby he dismissed the complaint for want of sanctionbe set aside.2. The facts which it is necessary to notice for the disposal of this reference briefly stated are these. Ladu Ram in his complaint claimed that he was the owner of a certain plot of land near Tonk Road and had fixed his slabs and pattis therein. The Chairman. Municipal Board, Chaksu and four other members on account of political rivalry served him with a notice on 10th November 1964 to the effect that he had trespassed into the land of the Municipal Board and was directed to remove the 'Pattis' and slabs he had affixed by 10 A.M. of 11th November 1964 failing which the Municipal Board would itself get them removed. It appears that Laduram neglected to comply with this order, and Chairman Rameshwar and four other membe...
The State Vs. Ganesha and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj116; 1968CriLJ648
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by the State under Section 417 Cr. P. C. and is directed against an order of acquittal passed by the Munsiff Magistrate, First Class, Bhadra, on the 14th December, 1962, in a case under Sections 326 and 323 I.P.C.2. The prosecution story may shortly be stated thus. Khemchand P. W. 3 who lives in village Bar was going to his field on 24th October, 1961, at about 2 P. M. in the company of his sons P. W. 1 Narsiram and P. W. 4 Gulzari. When these three came near the field of P. W. 2 Maniram, they found that the accused respondents who were lying in wait attacked Khemchand. Ganeshram was armed with an axe while Ram Kishan and Ratiram had lathies. To start with Ramkishen and Ratiram gave lathi blows to Khemchand as a result of which he fell down but they continued to beat him even after he had fallen down and last of all Ganeshram hit Khemchand with the axe as a result of which Khemchand sustained an injury on his leg. Gulzari, however, was frightened and h...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Vijairam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ270
D.M. Bhandari, J.1. This is an appeal by the State from the judgment dated 30th March, 1963 of the Sessions Judge, Partabgarh, acquitting Vijairam accused-respondent of the offence under Section 376/511 I.P.C.2. Briefly, the case for the prosecution is that on 6th November, 1962, at about 4-00 P. M. Vijairam respondent, resident of Khariakheri, met Mst. Shyam Kanwer (P.W. 4), a minor girl, aged about 11 years, of the same village, in the bed of the 'nallah' flowing on the outskirts of that village and attempted to commit rape on her. A report of the incident was made by Arjunsigh, father of the said girl, who was posted as a constable at Police Station, Deogarh, on 8th November, 1962, at 3-30 P.M. On the date of occurrence, Arjunsingh was at Police Station Deogarh and his elder son Bheronsingh and his wife had gone from village Khariakheri to Partabgarh to make purchases leaving Smt. Shyam Kanwer and her younger brother Amar Singh in the village.When Bheronsingh returned to the village...
Mithan Lal Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ431
Kansingh, J.1. Appellant Mithanlal who was convicted by the Special Judge, Gangapur, for an offence under Section 161, I.P.C. and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months by his judgment dated the 10th January, 1965, has lodged this appeal.2. Accused Mithanlal was a Patwari in the Revenue Department and was posted at village Senka in the month of July, 1963. It was alleged against him that he demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- fromone Kirori Mina of Santha who wanted to have certified copies of Khasra entries in connection with a suit instituted by one Mat. Sukli in the Court of the Munsiff, Hindaun. Hirori paid Rs. 50/- to the accused expressing his inability to produce Rs. 100/- at the time. He promised to pay the balance on the following day. Kirori, however, did not want to pay this amount and accordingly he apprised Shri Bajpal singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, ...
Northern Railway Employees' Co-operative Credit Society and Anr. Vs. L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1967
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ708Raj
Kan Singh, J.1. We have before us two writ petitions directed against an order of the labour court dated 16 February 1965 passed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), by which the labour court determined the benefits accruing: to one Kanraj Mehta out of an award of the Industrial tribunal, Bajasthan, Jaipur, dated 7 October 1963, on a dispute between the Northern Railway Co-operative Credit Society, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred to as the employer) and Kanraj Mehta and other workers employed by the employer. Writ Petition No. 61 of 1965 is by the employer and by it is seeks an appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing the order of the labour court awarding a sum of Rs. 25,650.50 to Kanraj Mehta. Writ Petition No. 384 of 1965 la by Kanraj Mehta and he seeks an appropriate writ, order or direction for modifying the order of the labour court by awarding him emoluments In accordance with Paras. 16 (a) to 16 (f) o...
A. C. Metal Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1967
Reported in: [1967]66ITR14(Raj)
D. S. DAVE C.J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'C', under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which will hereinafter be referred to as the 'Act'. The question, which has been referred for our answer, runs as follows :'Whether, in the circumstances of this case, it was obligatory on the succeeding Income-tax Officer to give another opportunity of showing cause before imposing a penalty under section 28 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'In order to appreciate the question of law involved, it would be proper to mention briefly the facts narrated in the statement of the case.Messrs. A. C. Metal Works, Jodhpur, which will be referred as the 'assessee' hereafter, was carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of umbrellas. He purchases some aero-scraps from time to time. They were stocked at a place called Rani and then sold through one Tejraj Jaswantraj to a Bombay party in the assessment year 1957-58 to which the present re...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›