Rajasthan Court November 1968 Judgments
Bhonreylal and ors. Vs. Kunj Beharilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj299b
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. The point for determination in this revision application by the defendants is whether the period of thirty days prescribed for presenting a list of witnesses under Order 16, Rule 1 as amended by the Rajasthan High Court can be extended by virtue of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, (Act 36 of 1963).2. The point is of some importance because the subordinate Courts generally are taking the view that they have no jurisdiction to extend the period prescribed by Rule 1 of Order 16 which requires the party to present in Court a list of witnesses whom it proposes to produce on such date as the Court may appoint and not later than 30 days after the settlement of issues. Sub-rule (ii) says that:'No party shall produce or obtain process to enforce the attendance of witnesses other than those contained in the list referred to in Sub-rule (1), except with the permission of the Court and after showing good cause for the same and the Court granting or refusing such per...
Tag this Judgment!Deepchand and ors. Vs. Lachhu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN201
D.M. Bhandari, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The case of the petitioners is that they were the creditors of non-petitioner No. 1 Lachhu. On 24th December, 1962, they filed a suit against him in the court of Munsiff City Bali on the basis of a promissory note of Rs. 680/- which the non-petitioner No. 1 had executed in their favour. On 3rd July 1963, non-petitioner No. 1 filed an application in the Debt Relief Court, Bali, under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter called (he Act), mentioning therein the debt relating to the promissory note only. Notice of this application was issued to the petitioners and they filed their claim of Rs. 1,325/3/3 under the following heads:(i) Rs. 821/- On the basis of the promissory note including the cost of the suit filed in the court of the Munsiff, Bali.(ii) Rs. 433/8/- On the basis of Khata executed on Jeth Badi 12 Samvat 2013 for Rs. 808/8/- fixing instalments f...
Tag this Judgment!Tejmal Vs. Mst. Varju and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN274
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by the decree-holder against an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Sirohi, holding that the attached property was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of his decree in view of proviso (c) to Section 60(1) C.P.C.2. The facts of the case are these. One Uma took a loan from Tejmal for the recovery of which Tejmal brought a suit against him. During the pendency of the suit Uma died and his legal representatives namely his widow Smt. Varju. respondent No. 1 and his minor daughter Kumari Jatan, respondent No. 2, were impleaded as defendants and a decree was passed against them. In consequence of the decree a house belonging to Uma which was in the possession of respondents No. 1 and 2 was attached. They filed an obejection that the house was exempt from attachment under Section 60 C.P.C. on the ground that Smt. Varju was dependent for her maintenance on her wages as an agricultural labourer and she is supporting her minor daughter Ku...
Tag this Judgment!G.A.G. Ayyar Vs. R.B. Seth Moolchand Nemichand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN261
Jagat Narain, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision application against an appellate order of the District Judge, Jodhpur, staying proceedings in the suit filed by him under Section 29 of the provincial Insolvency Act.2. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of money against the dependant on 4. 3. The suit was decreed on 21-12-59 for 3786-4-0 The defendant filed an appeal (No. 27 of 1966) against this decree. He was declared insolvent on 21-12-62. The plaintiff however recovered the whole of the amount of the decree which had been passed in his favour by attachment and sale of the defendant's properties. The defendant did not take any steps to implead the receiver as a party, to his appeal. at he was so impleaded on the application of the plaintiff dated 7-8-63. The appeal was heard and the case was remanded by the learned District Judge for evidence on 19-5-65. The defendant or the receiver did not ask the appellate court to stay proceedings under Section 29 of the Provincia...
Tag this Judgment!Poonamchand Vs. Bastiram Deokishan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj313
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision application against an order of the Senior Civil Judge No. 2. Jodhpur, holding that a document relating to the sale of a truck is inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Section 35 of the Stamp Act as it la not duly stamped.2. The case of the plaintiff with regard to this document is that it is an agreement or memorandum of agreement relating to the sale of goods and is exempt from stamp duty under Exemption (a) to Article 5 of the First Schedule of the Stamp Act. The trial court held that it is a conveyance which is chargeable with stamp duty under Article 23 of the First Schedule.3. On behalf of the defendants two preliminary obiections have been taken with regard to the maintainability of this revision application. The first objection is that the finding of the trial court is based on an interpretation of the document and an interpretation of the provisions of the Stamp Act and if there is any error it is an error of law which ca...
Tag this Judgment!Nag Raj Patodia Vs. R.K. Birla and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj245; 1968()WLN137
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J.1. By means of Miscellaneous Application No. 57 Shri Bobde appearing for the respondent No. 2 Shri Radhey Shyam Morarka has raised an objection of a preliminary nature relating to the non-maintainability of the recrimination petition filed on behalf of Shri R. K. Birla -- Respondent No. 1 --the returned candidate. The case of the respondent No. 2 is that the additional declaration sought by the election petitioner that the respondent No. 2 was duly elected, could not have been claimed by him. According to him, such a declaration could be claimed by a candidate petitioner and not merely a voter petitioner. Since the petitioner could not in law, claim such a relief, the respondent No. 1 did not acquire any right to file the recrimination petition and as such, the recrimination petition is not maintainable in law. The respondent No. 2 further submits that the question is purely of law and does not need any additional evidence and goes to the root of the Jurisdiction...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Bhola Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj219; 1969CriLJ1002; 1968()WLN159
Mehta, J.1. There lived one Nand Singh Sikh in the village Uttamsinghwala. He had had six sons, namely (1) Bhola Singh, (2) Gurdev Singh, (3) Darshan Singh, (4) Makhan Singh, (5) Raja Singh and (6) Gurmej Singh. The accused Bhola Singh had been separated from the joint family. He was living in the northern portion of the family house, in the Chak Uttamsinghwala. The rest of the brothers were living with their parents in its southern part. The other accused Kor Singh is the son of the accused Bhola Singh's wife's sister.It is alleged by the prosecution that on July 21. 1967, at about noon, when the deceased Makhan Singh and Raja Singh were irrigating their agricultural land, their brother Bhola Singh blocked the water course and diverted water towards his own land. Makhan Singh objected to it and turned water towards his land on the rear side, with the result that water stopped from flowing into Bhola Singh's field. This enraged Bhola Singh. He hurriedly went to his house and returned t...
Tag this Judgment!Choteykhan Vs. Mst. Zeenat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN270
Bhargava, J.1. This appeal by Chotey Khan is duected against the Order 30th January, 1967, of the learned District Judge, Ajmer rejecting appellant's application for grant of succession certificate in respect of the amount of provident fund and gratuity of Khudabux deceased who was an employee in the Railway Loco Workshop, Ajmer.2. The appellant on the death of Khudabux on 9.5.1963, claiming to be his brother applied to the District Judge. Ajmer for grant of a succession certificate. It was stated by the appellant that Khudabux deceased had married Mst. Zeenat who is the respondent in this Court, but subsequently divorced her by a written document on 12th January, 1963, and as such is not eligible for the provident fund and gratuity. His application was opposed by the respondent and she denied that she was ever divorced by Khudabux. It was further stated that the respondent both as a widow and a nominee was entitled to receive the provident fund and gratuity from the railway and that t...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad Choudhary Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN131
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. Petitioner Durga Pershad Choudhary was convicted by the Additional Munsif-Magistra+e, Ajmer City, Ajmer, of an offence under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- vide his order dated 29th March, 1965, in Criminal Original Case No. 24 of 1962. On an appeal, by the petitioner, the Sessions Judge, Ajmer, maintained the petitioner's conviction but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 250/-; in default, to one month's simple imprisonment. The petitioner has approached this Court in revision to challenge his conviction and sentenceThe relevant facts may be stated as follows:One Vishwadeo Sharma, proprietor, Aditya Mudranalaya, Ajmer, filed a complaint, on 21.6.1961, against the petitioner under Section 500 Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that the accused--petitioner, publisher, printer and editor of the daily 'Navjyoti' published, and printed certain matters concerning the complainant under th...
Tag this Judgment!Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Raj1
Bhandari, J. 1. All these three references under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales-Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) raise similar questions of law and are, therefore disposed of by one judgment. 2. We first of all take up Sales Tax Reference No. 41/67, Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan : 3. Messrs. Mewar Sugar Mills Limited (hereinafter called the Sugar Mills) is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacturing and selling sugar. The accounting year of the Sugar Mills begins from 1st August and ends on 31st July. This reference relates to the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. For the first two years th& Sugar Mills was assessed by the Sales Tax authorities of the State of Rajasthan both, under the provisions of the Act and also under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 1959-60, it was assessed only under the provisions of the Act. Thus there were five assessment proceedings u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »