Rajasthan Court October 1968 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.
Sukanraj Vs. Nokarchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN212
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendant have filed appeals against the appellate judgment and decree of the Civil Judge of Jalore dated October 7, 1965. The plaintiff's 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.R. Mehta, learned Counsel for the defendant, has not pressed the defendant's appeal. Only the plaintiff's 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 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/- calcul...
Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur Vs. Hindustan Brown Boveri L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj212; 1968()WLN83
ORDERKan Singh, J. 1. This is a revision application by the Rajasthan Stale Electricity Board, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Board', and is directed against an order dated 28-8-68 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur on an application by the respondent Messrs. Hindustan Brown Boveri Limited, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Company' for grant of a temporary injunction in certain proceedings instituted by the Company against the petitioner Board under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act. By his order under challenge the learned Additional District Judge directed the petitioner Board 'to refrain itself from making purchases of the material of the specifications for which order was placed with the Company bv the Board to the extent of 9000 kilometers of All Aluminium Conductors till the matter was disposed of through arbitration.' The relevant facts are briefly these: 2. According to the Company, the Board had invited tenders sometime in the early part of 1965 for t...
Jupiter Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohammad Malik and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj315; 1968()WLN108
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by the Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd., defendant No. 3 against an order of the Senior Civil Judge No. I, Jaipur City, refusing to allow it to defend the suit in the name of Shri Beharilal defendant No. 1.2. The 10 year-old-son of the plaintiff was run over by a truck belonging to Beharilal and was killed on the spot on 14-7-59. The present suit for the recovery of damages was filed on 13-7-60 against Beharilal, the owner of the truck. Lallu, driver of the truck, the Jupiter General Insurance Co., the Insurer of the truck, and M/s. Prakash and Co. the financier who advanced money for the purchase of the truck. The Insurer and the financier filed separate written statements on 30-5-61.Shri J. K. Gupta who appeared on behalf of defendant No. 3 also filed a power on behalf of Beharilal defendant No. 1. But no written statement was filed on his behalf. On 18-8-61 the Insurer filed an application to the court for permission to defen...
Kalusingh and ors. Vs. Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Raj149
Bhandari, J.1. These four cases raise similar questions of law in one form or the other and, therefore, they are deciued by one single judgment. The first three cases are the writ applications under Article 226 of the Constitution and the fourth case is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance from the judgment of a Single Judge.2. We first take up Civil Writ Petn. No. 465 of 1967 viz. Kalu Singh v. Transport Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan and others. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the petitioner is an operator on Bikaner-Nokha-Salasar route -- 128 miles in length. His contention is that there are twelve non-temporary stage carriage permits granted to various operators including the petitioner on the aforesaid route who run four return services per day according to the time-table approved by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner. The non-petitioners Nos. 3 to 22 are the operators of Bikaner-Nokha route of 40 miles in length and is comple...
Nathuram Mirdha Vs. Gordhan Soni and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN61
ORDER67. I dismiss the election petition with costs in favour of respondent No. 1 Respondent No. 2 will bear his own costs.68. I assess the legal fees at Rs. 2000/- subject to the filing of a certificate in accordance with the High Court Rules. Respondent No. 1 is further entitled to the costs of the trial as well as the costs of the appeal filed by the petitioner in the Supreme Court.69. The substance of the above order shall be communicated forth with to the Election Commission and the Speaker of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. An autthentiacted copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Election Commission as soon as it is prepared....
Rahima Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ831; 1968()WLN45
ORDERD.S. Dave, C.J.1. This is a revision application by one Rahima against the order of the-Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated 6.11.67, upholding the order of the Magistrate First Class, Bhim, dated 20.1.67.2. The facts giving rise to this application may be briefly stated as follows:The Up-Zila Vikas Adhikari, Udaipur, sent a report dated 19.7.65 to the Assistant Secretary, Enquiry Wing (Panchayat) Rajas-than, Jaipur, to the effect that on 6.5.65 Shri B.K. Binju, Up-Zila Vikas Adhikari, made an inspection of the Panchayat and found that a cash balance of Rs. 580.02 P. was shown in the cash book, but when the-cash was checked, the said amount was not found at the office. The petitioner, who was Sarpanch at that time, was reported to have informed the Inspecting Officer that the said amount was placed at his house and he sent one man to bring it from that place. When that man did not return by the time the inspection was over, the Inspecting Officer went to the petitioner's hous...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›