Rajasthan Court October 1968 Judgments
Surendrakumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj182; 1968()WLN192
Lodha, J.1. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged reservation of certain seats made by the Government of Rajasthan in the Medical Colleges run by it in the State. The petitioners have also challenged the notification No. F.5(1)ME/68 dated 30th August, 1968, (Exhibit 3) by which the Government of Rajasthan raised the upper age limit for admission to Medical Colleges in Rajasthan from 21 years to 22 years. Since all these writ petitions raise identical questions, we consider it convenient to dispose them of by a single judgment2. All the petitioners passed the First Year of the Three Years Degree Course (Science) Examination in the year 1968 and applied for admission to the various Medical Colleges of Rajasthan for the session, commencing from July 1968. It may be stated here that there are five Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan run by the Government, and they are located at Jaipur, Bikaner, Udaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer and all of them are affiliated to the Univ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN121
D.S. Dave, C.J.1. This is a revision application by one Vinod Kumar, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it arises in the following circumstances:2. The non-petitioner No. 2 Prabhudayal filed in the court of Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Bikaner, a complaint against non-petitioner No. 3 Rakeshkumar on 6-11-65. It was stated by him that on 24. 7. 65 Rakesh Kumar had obtained from him one transistor on hire on the condition that he would pay Rs. 5/- per day for its use, but he failed to pay the amount which was due from him and further failed to return the transistor. It was alleged by the complainant that when he demanded the amount and asked for the return of the transistor from Rakesh Kumar the latter replied that he had pledged it with one Nathmal Bubna, Proprietor, Sharda Hotel, Chandpole Gate, Jaipur, since he was in need of money. It was, therefore, prayed by the complainant that since the accused had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the radio ...
Tag this Judgment!Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR778(Raj); 1968()WLN242
D.M. Bhandari, J. 1. These two references have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act). The assessee in these two references is Messrs. Bikaner Gypsum Ltd., Bikaner (hereinafter called the assessee-company). The facts of these cases as submitted by the Tribunal in their statement of the case are practically the same; therefore, we propose to decide these references by one single judgment.2. The facts giving rise to these references, briefly stated, are these:'The assessee-company is a public limited company incorporated on 7th May, 1947, under the company law prevalent in the erstwhile State ofBikaner. It carries on business of extraction of Gypsum from Jamsar Mines in Bikaner District. The company sold gypsum so extracted to various persons all over India. The United State of Rajasthan was formed on 7th April, 1949, in which the State of Bikaner was merged. On January 26, 1950,...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Jangsingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN263
C.M. Lodha, J.1. By his Judgment dated 30th April, 1965, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar acquitted the respondent Jang Singh for offences under Sections 447, 304, 324, & 325 I.P.C., and the respondent Gurdev Singh and Ram Singh (who has died during the pendency of this appeal) for offences under Section 447, 304/34, 325 & 324 I.P.C.2. Aggrieved of this judgment of acquittal, the State has filed the above appeal. Since Ram Singh has died after the institution of this appeal, we have now to deal with the case against Jang Singh and Gurdev Singh only.3. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that Ram Singh accused was allotted 7 bighas of land for temporary cultivation in Chak No. 20 STG. The accused respondents Jang Singh and Gurdev Singh and Sons of Ram Singh. It is alleged that the allotment in favour of Ram Singh accused was cancelled after some time and the land was allotted to Prem Singh and Dhir Singh, sons of Bag Singh. The possession of the land in question,...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikishan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ576Raj; 1968()WLN109
ORDERKan Singh, J.1. The writ petition before me is by one Shrikishan, who was an employee in the power-house of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, hereinafter to be referred as the Board, and by the same he questions his retirement ordered by the respondents in pursuance of the Rajasthan Services (Amendment) Rules, 1967, with effect from 1 July 1967. The case set up by the petitioner was briefly this.2. Petitioner was born on 1 July 1910 and he Joined the Government service in the year 1927 on being appointed as wireman at the State power-house in the former State of Kishangarh. With the formation of Rajasthan the petitioner became the employee of the State of Rajasthan. He was a head lineman II with effect from 1 April 1950. Sometime in 1957, the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was constituted in pursuance of the relevant provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, hereinafter to be referred as the Act. Petitioner claims that after the formation of the Board, the State Go...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Airlines Corporation and ors. Vs. Ram Niwas Laduram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN103
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The above three matters arise out of suit No. 10 of 1967 pending in the Court of District Judge, Merta. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13 of 1968 has been filed by defendants No. 1 and 3 to 6, Indian Air Lines Corporation and its officers, and Appeal No. 15 of 1968 has been filed by defendant No. 8 M/s. Dalamchand Bajranglal, and both are directed against the same order of the learned District Judge, Merta dated 8.2.1968 where by the learned District Judge, granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff M/s. Ramniwas Ladhuram restraining the defendants Nos. 1 to 7 i.e. the Indian Air Lines Corporation and its officers from giving delivery of the tyres and tubes in question to defendant No. 8 and also restraining the defendant No. 8 from taking delivery of the same, till the decision of the suit. The Civil Revision No. 156 of 1968 has been filed by the defendant No. 1 Indian Airlines Corporation only against the order of the learned District Judge, Merta dated 8.2....
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Hath Kargha Vastra Utpadak Shakari Samiti Ltd. and Three ors. Vs ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN82
Jagat Narain, J.1. This is a revision application by the defendants against an order of the Civil Judge, Kishangarh, holding that the suit brought against them by the plaintiff is not barred by Section 75(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.2. Defendant ND. 1 is a co-operative society which produces yarn. Defendant No. 2 is its President, Defendant No. 3 is it Secretary and Defendant No. 4 is its Treasurer. On 4-3-1962, an agreement took place between the society and the plaintiffs about the sale of the yarn produced by the society through the plaintiffs on commission and about other matters. On 1-10-62 a fresh agreement was executed between the plaintiffs and Defendants Nos. 2, 3, & 4. On 9-3-1963, accounting took place between the society and the plaintiffs. As a result of this accounting, a sum of Rs. 4532/-/- was found due to the plaintiffs from the society. This account stated was signed by defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who undertook personal liability to pay the amou...
Tag this Judgment!Sukanraj Vs. Nekarchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Raj17
P.N. Shinghal, J. 1. The plaintiff and the defendant have filed appeals against the appellate judgment and decree or the CivilJudge of Jalore dated October 7, 1965. The plaintiffs appeal is No. 41 of 1966, while appeal No, 512 of 1965 has been filed by the defendant I shall dispose them of by this judgment. 2. Mr. L. Rule Mehta, learned counsel for the defendant, has not pressed the defendant's appeal. Only the plaintiffs appeal therefore remains for consideration. In that appeal also, the controversy in this Court has been confined to the question whether the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by a valid notice. This was the subject-matter of issue No. 8 and it will be enough to state those facts which have a bearing on it. 3. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit house which is situated in Jalore. He stated in the plaint that he let it out to the defendant on Kartik Bad 10, Section 2006 (October 17, 1949) on an annual rent of Rs. 210 calculated at the rate of Rs. 17/8/-per mont...
Tag this Judgment!Chhogalal Vs. Dhanraj and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN94
Jagat Narain, J.1. This is a revision application by Chhoga Lal against an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Sirohi, directing him to pay Rs. 250/- as court fee.2. There was a dispute between Chhogalal and Ganeshtnal which was refer red to the arbitration of Dhanraj. Dhanraj filed an award in the court of the learned Senior Civil Judge on 24-5-66. On this notices Were issued to the parties under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act. Ganeshmal accepted the award. But Chhogalal filed objections against it. These objections are under Section 14(2) of the Act. He did not file an application under Section 33 of the Act for setting aside the award. The following two provisions appear in the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act under Schedule II Article 11:Proper fee(1) Application to set aside an award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Central Act 10 of 1940)-(1)if the value of the subject matter of the Twenty-five rupees award does not exceed Rs. 5,000(2)if such value exceeds Rs. 5,00...
Tag this Judgment!Ladhu Saha and anr. Vs. Champalal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN97
Jagat Narain, J.1. This is a revision application by the defendants against an order of the Civil Judge, Merta holding that the damages for breach of contract are not covered by 'debt' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act 1957.2. The defendants entered into a contract with the plaintiffs for the supply of 85000/- bricks for a price of Rs. 1000/- by. Chet Sudi 15, Section 2017 The price was paid in advance. It was stipulated that on the failure of the defendants to supply the bricks by the due dated they will have to pay damages to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 20/- per thousand bricks in addition to interest at 12 percent per annum on the sum of Rs. 1000/-. The defendants faild to supply the bricks and the present suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2300/- by way of damages and interest was instituted in the court of the Civil Judge, Merta. The defendants filed an application under Section 6 of the Act for the abatement of the suit o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »