Rajasthan Court August 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.
Aman Khan Vs. Sheo Onkar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj161
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, and is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 6-12-1966 whereby on a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the respondents the learned Judge ordered the cancellation of a permit granted to the appellant Aman Khan by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, on the Churu-Jhunjhunu route which was an inter-regional route falling in Bikaner and Jaipur regions The relevant facts may briefly be recounted for appreciating the questions canvassed before us:2. Churu-Jhunjhunu is an inter-regional route which is 30 miles in length. It is 6 miles in the Bikaner region and 24 miles in Jaipur region. Aman Khan applied for a permit over this inter regional route before the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner. The application was published in accordance with Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereafter to be referred as the 'Act', for ...
Nathulal Fatehpuria Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj151
Kan Singh, J. 1. Petitioner Shri Nathulal Fatehpuria has moved this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the legality of seizure of his account books and goods from his shop on 19-9-66 and has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondents. The case set up by the petitioner in his writ petition is briefly this.2. Petitioner is carrying on the business of selling and supplying cloth, saris, both plain and embroidered garments with 'Salma', 'Sitara' or 'Gota' work done on them and other ready-made garments. The petitioner is registered as a dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, hereinafter to be referred as the ''Act'. He proceeds to say that he maintains regular books of accounts and has been paying the sales-tax regularly. On 19-9-66, a party of officers numbering about 30, consisting of respondent No. 3, Shri Surendra Sharma, Special Officer, Anti-Evasion, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur and others came to his sho...
Sampat Raj Vs. Ladu Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj179
Tyagi, J. 1. This special appeal has been filed by plaintiff Sampat Raj under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance end Order 43, Rule 1 (w) of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 31st August, 1966 whereby the learned Judge granted the review application of the defendants-respondents and set aside his previous judgment dated 22nd February, 1966 passed in a second appeal filed by the defendants before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal before the D. B. is not maintainable under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance as the appellant has failed to obtain a certificate of fitness under Section 18(2) of the Ordinance from the learned Judge. 3. Mr. Hasti Mal appearing on behalf of the appellant has urged that the present appeal has been filed by him under Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance read with O...
Mst. Bhuri Bai Vs. Mst. Champi Bai and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj139
L.N. Chhangani, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal and is directed against the appellate judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated 10th July, 1961. By this decree, the first appellate court, allowed the appeal of the defendant-respondents and reversed the decree of the trial court and dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's suit in entirety. 2. There is no controversy over facts which may be briefly stated as follows-The dispute relates to the property of one Kachru Brahmin of village Lemdi, Tehsil Sagwara. He had both urban and agricultural properties which have been described in detail in Schedule I annexed to the plaint. He had been married with Mst. Champi Bai--the defendant-respondent. He died in the year 1950 leaving surviving his widow Mst. Champi Bai. Mst. Champibai as his widow succeeded to his property. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) came into force in June, 1956. This Act, it may be mentioned, improved the...
Ratan Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj148; 1968CriLJ801
ORDERD.S. Dave, C.J.1. This is an application in revision by three accused, namely Ratansingh, Gordhan Singh and Ramchandra who are being prosecuted by the police in the Court of Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 3, Kotah. for an offence under Section 307 I. P. C While the said Magistrate was making an enquiry in order to determine whether the case was fit to be committed to the Court of Session, learned counsel for the accused submitted to him on 29-6-66 that all the witnesses cited by the prosecution should be examined by him This request was opposed by the prosecuting Sub-Inspector. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, it was ordered by the Magistrate that 'in the interest of justice. it will be better if at least all the eye-witnesses are examined in this Court' It may be noted here that before this date, two witnesses Heeralal and Onkarlal were examined and five more eye-witnesses had remained to be examined Out of them, three eye-witnesses namely, Shankerlal, Abdul Wa...
Ramlal Vs. Vishveshwar Nath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj249
ORDERJagatnarayan, J.1. This is an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 challenging the election of Vishveshwar Nath Bhargava-respondent to the Lok Sabha from the Ajmer Parliamentary Constituency. The petition has been filed by one Ramlal, an elector of the Constituency. It has been contested the by returned candidate.2. The grounds on which the petition is based appear from the following issues which were framed in the case:1. (A) Is the office of pramukh of a Zila Parishad in Rajasthan (1) under the Government and is it (2) an office of profit within the meaning of Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution? 1. (B) Is the amount of Rs. 300/- which respondent No. 1 was admittedly entitled to draw as Pramukh of Zila Parishad Salary or honorarium or compensatory allowance? 1. (C) Did respondent No. 1 not draw the above amount from the second week of January 1967 up to the date of election? If so, what is its effect? 1. (D) Is the office exempt abov...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›