Rajasthan Court November 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.
Bhatt Shailesh Kumar Vs. Sampat Mal Lodha and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj276; 1969CriLJ1272; 1968()WLN170
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a revision application submitted by Bhatt Shailesh Kumar against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Kotah, dated November 29, 1966. It appears that Bhatt Shailesh Kumar filed a complaint on April 16, 1965, against Shri Sampat Mal Lodha and four others in the Court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate No. 1, Kotah, under Sections 457, 341, 380/114, I.P.C. The complaint was registered. The complainant was present in. the Court on 3rd February, 1966, but on account of the absence of his counsel, he could not be examined then. Similarly, he was present on the next date falling on March 23, 1966, but that day also, on account of his indisposition, he could not be examined.On April 26, 1963, he was not present at the time when the case was put up. Thereupon the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 253 (1), Criminal P. C., for want of evidence and the accused were discharged. A revision application was directed against that order in the Court of learned...
Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN285
D.M. 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 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 Ltd. (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 the 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 undert...
Premchand Vs. Bajrangibai and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj270; 1968()WLN253
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. The facts giving rise to this revision application which was originally registered as Civil Exe. Second Appeal are as follows :--2. Final decree in a mortgage suit was passed in favour of Anandilal on 28th May, 1952, against the petitioner-judgment debtor. In execution of that decree, the judgment-debtor's house was put to auction and was purchased by the auction purchaser M/s. Jankilal Gorilal Mahajan of Rampura, Kotah, through Seth Puranmal of Kotah on 18th March, 1953, for Rs. 6601. On 26th March, 1953, the judgment-debtor moved the Court under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C., to set aside the said sale on the ground of material irregularities in conducting the sale. The executing Court held an inquiry in regard to the above application and it was posted for arguments on 20th February, 1954. On that date the judgment-debtor submitted an application (Ex. 2) expressing his willingness to deposit a sum equal to 5% of the purchase money for payment to the purchas...
Sardar Manmohansingh Nagpal Vs. Manakchand Kothari and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN174
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. The point for determination in this revision by the defendant is whether a party who has not examined himself as a first witness and has not obtained permission of the court to appear as his own witness at a later stage as required by Order 18, Rule 2(4) as amended by Rajasthan High Court, can be examined as a witness or not.2. Sub-rule (4) made by the Rajasthan High Court, is as follows:Where a party wishes to appear as a witness he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined; provided that the Court may on an application made in this behalf and for reasons to be recorded, permit him to appear as his own witness at a later stage.3. Plaintiffs-non-petitioners filed a suit for ejectment, rent and damages against the petitioner on 3rd January, 1962 in the court of the Additional Munsif, No. 2 Jaipur City. After the written statement had been filed, issues were framed on 26th July, 1962, and the case was adjourned for plaintiffs' evidence t...
Bhikha and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN125
L.S. Mehta, J.1. This appeal emerges from the judgment of Shri B.K.D, Badge, the then Additional Sessions Judge No, 1, Jodhpur, dated July 20, 1966, convicting the accused Bhikla, Roopla, Lachmaina and Kishnia, sons of Bhera, Jat, residents of Abu, under Section 302, read with Section 34 IPC, and sentencing them each to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution story is like this. Maharaj Bhaktiram, a Guru of the Jat community, lived in the village Ahu, Police Station, Bhojasar. His servant, P.W. 4. Nahera Ram also resided with him. The accused Lachmania was alleged to have kept his own sister, as his mistress. This act of Lachmanina enraged the Jat community. Subsequently, the Jats of the surrounding villages assembled together, Maharaj Bhaktiram also praticipated in the deliberation of the community meeting. The Jats eventually excommunicated Lachmania along with his three brothers, Bhikla, Roopla, and Kishnia. For this reason the accused persons began to bear grudge against Maharaj B...
Guman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Raj173
ORDERKan Singh, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner Guman Singh seeks to have declared Rule 28-B and Rule 32 of the RajasthanAdministrative Service Rules, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', and also a circular issued by the Chief Secretary on 27-8-66 as null and void. He further seeks to have declared the appointments made by the Government in the senior scale of Rajasthan Administrative Service in respect of respondents Rajeshwar Dayal Mathur, Surendra Chandra Pagoria, Mannalal Goyal and Prithvi Singh who were members of the Rajasthan Administrative Service as null and void. He has also prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order against the State Government. The relevant facts are briefly these :--2. The petitioner was an Arts Graduate having taken his degree in the year 1947. He graduated in Law in the year 1961 and was placed in the first division. He joined the service of the former Jaipur State as Inspector of Customs and ...
Gumansingh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN145
Kansingh, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner Guman Singh seeks to have declared Rule 28 B and Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 hereinafter to be referred as the 'Rules' as also a circular issued by the Chief Secretary oh 27.8.66 null and void. He further seeks to have declared the appointments made by the Government in the senior scale of Rajasthan Administrative Service in respect of respondents Rajeshwar Dayal Mathur, Surendra Chandra Pagoria, Mannalal Goyal and Prithvi Singh who were members of the Rajasthan Administrative Service as null and void, He has also prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order against the State Government. The relevant facts are briefly these:2. The petitioner was an Arts Graduate having taken his degree in the year 1947. He graduated in Law in the year 1951 and was placed in the first division. He joined the service of the former Jaipur State as Inspector of Customs and Excise in t...
Hari Kishan and ors. Vs. Shamlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN120
Jagat Narain, J.1. This is a revision application by the decree-holders against an order of the executing court abating execution proceedings.2. The judgment-debtor executed a possessory mortgage in favour of one Motimal Bhandari in respect of his house on 1-1-45. On 23-4-49 he executed the present possessory mortgage in favour of the decree-holders partly to pay off the earlier mortgage and partly to defeay the expenses of the marriages of his daughters. The mortgage amount was Rs. 6,000/- out of which Rs. 4,000/- were paid to the earlier mortgagee and Rs, 2000/- were borrowed for celebrating the marriages of the daughter. The contention on behalf of the decree-holders is that the case falls under Section 4(h) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 and the provisions of the Act are therefore not applicable. The sub-section runs as follows:4. The provisions on this Act shall not affect claims due in respect of-(h) a mortgage-claim against property in the hands o...
Aditya Mills Ltd., Madanganj-kishengarh and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State E ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj254; 1968()WLN181; 1968()WLN181
Lodha, J.1. The above four writ applications under Article 226 of the Constitution raise identical questions and therefore can be disposed of conveniently by a common judgment and we accordingly do so.2. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1 of 1968: M/s. Aditya Mills Ltd., Madanganj-Kishengarh, District Ajmer is a public limited company and carries on business of manufacturing yarn etc. In exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (which will hereinafter be called 'the Supply Act') the Government of Rajasthan constituted a State Electricity Board under the name, the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (which will hereinafter be called 'the Board'). An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Board on 29-10-1963, for supply of high tension electricity to the petitioner by the Board, a copy of which has been placed on the record and has been marked as Ex. A. Clause 16 of the agreement consisting of three Sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c...
Smt. Panbai and ors. Vs. Sajjanraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj278; 1968()WLN238
Jagat Narayan, J.1. These 14 connected second appeals arise out of 14 suits for recovery of money brought by 14 creditors against defendants 1 to 4, the four sons of Sensmal who was the owner of the joint family firm Shermal Sultanmal. All these suits were decreed by the trial Court, but were dismissed by the appellate Court.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are these. The joint family of the debtors became heavily indebted in the year 1951. It owed a sum of Rs. 1,19,000 to 56 unsecured creditors on 20-12-51. It entered into an agreement with them for the compounding of the debt owed to them. This agreement was described as a deed of composition and was stamped with Rs. 10 which was the duty payable under Article 22 Schedule I of the Stamp Act on a composition deed at the time of its execution. In this deed the four brothers who were members of the joint family were described as party No. 1 and the 56 creditors were described as party No. 2. All the 56 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »