Rajasthan Court February 1968 Judgments
Ganeshmal Vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Raj273
D.S. Dave, C.J.1. This is a special appeal fay the judgment-debtor Ganeshmal against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 26th July, 1961 dismissing his execution first appeal in limine.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:One Raj Narain Mathur obtained a money decree for Rs. 37,086/15/- from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, on 29-4-60 against the present appellant Ganesh-mal. He took out execution of the said decree, but before it could be satisfied, he expired on 16-12-60. Thereafter an application under Section 146 read with Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 7-1-61 by his widow Smt. Anand Kanwar, his seven sons and two daughters and another similar application was filed by his remaining three daughters on 18/2/ 61 and therein it was prayed that they be substituted as the legal representatives of the deceased and they also be allowed to proceed with the execution petition filed by Rajnarain. These applications we...
Tag this Judgment!Bhopal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Raj305; 1968CriLJ1572
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This appeal has been tiled by eight accused -- Bhopalsingh, Kalyansingh, Richpal Singh, Bhanwarsingh, Roopsingh, Ratansingh, Chander Singh and Mal Singh who have been convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Sections 149 and 148 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years' and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar by his judgment dated 23rd December, 1967. The sentences under both the counts have been made to run concurrently.2. All the eight accused are related to each other though the distinct relationship among them has not been brought out on the record. They have got their houses in the same Gowadi in village Hirna, Police Station Fatehpur, District Sikar. Deceased Bhoorsingh has also his house in this very Gowadi. There is a 'chowk' in this 'Gowadi' regarding the use of which there was a dispute between Bhoorsingh and the accused. Deceased Bhoorsingh was a cousin of the accused Bhopalsingh and, it appears, tha...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Datta Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ114Raj
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 123 of the Constitution by one Ganesh Datta and by it he seeks to question the validity of a Government order dated 19 June 1967 superannuating the petitioner consequent to the reduction of the age of superannuation from 58 to 55 years as a result of an amendment of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The relevant facts are briefly these:The petitioner entered the service of the former Jodhpur State as a permanent clerk on 21 February 1931. In his application for employment according to him, he gave his age as either 19 or 21 years. He takes the positions that this was gives under a mistaken advice as he thought than persons below 18 years of ago were not eligible for appointment. The petitioner then applied before the then Chief Minister of Jodhpur State for correction of his age. The Chief Minister did pass an order on 28 August 1935 (Ex. 4) to the effect that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 7 July 1914 and not 4 June 191...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council, Jaipur Vs. Laxmi NaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj16; 1969CriLJ233
B.P. Beri, J.1. The aforesaid three criminal appeals instituted by the Municipal Council, Jaipur, in cases relating to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, raise an identical point and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Criminal Appeals Nos. 91 of 1965 and 107 of 1965 Shri Shyam Beharilal Saxena, President, Municipal Council, Jaipur, had made a complaint before the Municipal Magistrate No. 2, First Class, Jaipur. In Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 19G5 the complaint was made before the Municipal Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur by Shri Jagat T. Bhatia, President, Municipal Council, Jaipur. In all these three cases the accused were acquitted and the Municipal Council, Jaipur, after obtaining leave under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure presented appeals against the acquittal.3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of these appeals. They urged that an appeal against an acquittal is only ...
Tag this Judgment!Mithukhan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj121; 1969CriLJ515
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by Mithukhan against his conviction under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the prosecution Is that on 31st October 1963. at about 7 p.m. Shri Govind Gurnani, Inspector Narcotics on the information of an informer that the petitioner had contraband opium in his house, reached there along with members of his party. The petitioner was then present at his house. Panchas were called and his house was surrounded and while the search party was attempting to enter the house, the petitioner resisted the attempt and struck lathi blows on Amir Mohd. Constable and Shafiq Ahmed, the informer, and thus the attempt of the raiding party to enter the petitioner's house was frustrated. Shri Gurnani called help from the police. But by the time the police arrived the petitioner had escaped.Thereafter search of the house was taken by Shri Gurnani with the help of the police, but nothing incriminating was found inside the...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Mst. Meera
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ958
L S. Mehta, J.1. The accused Mst. Meera, widow of Ganesh Rawal, was prosecuted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7(1), Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act, 1954, in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalore. She was convicted under the aforesaid provisions of law and was, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51, in default; of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week.2. It is alleged that on June 3, 1963, at about 6.30 a.m., Food Inspector Mohan Kishan, P. W. 2 had been on his usual round towards Surajpol gate, Jalore. He found Mat. Meera selling milk in the bazaar to the public. He gave a notice to Met. Meera in form No. VI for purchase of milk for the purpose of its test. He then bought milk worth annas sevan. He put that milk in three bottles, which duly sealed. One of those phials was given to Mst. Meera, the other was sent to the-Public Analyst, Jodhpur, for laboratory test, and the third one was retained by the Food Insp...
Tag this Judgment!Vishweshwarlal Vs. Bhuramal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Raj277
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant feels aggrieved by the appellate judgment of the District Judge of Bikaner, dated November 13, 1961, by which his suit has been dismissed2. The facts are quite simple and are not in dispute. Kistoorchand had two sons, Bhuramal and Manmal, who an- the defendants-respondents. The plaintiff obtained a decree against Manmal and, in execution thereof, he secured the attachment of Manmal's share in the suit house. Bhuramal objected to the execution of the decree and his objection was upheld. The decree-holder raised a suit under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is this suit which has given rise to the present appeal. It was claimed in the suit that the house belonged to Kistoorchand and that Manamal had a half share in it which was liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree against him. That claim was resisted by Bhuramal on the ground that Manamal had separated himself from the joint family in the life-time of...
Tag this Judgment!Viney Kumar Majoo Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Raj227; (1968)IILLJ398Raj
ORDERKan Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Viney Kumar Majoo and say it he questions the validity of an order dated 8-9-67 (Ex. 6 on record) passed by the Chief Engineer Project, Public Works Department (B. & R.), Rajasthan, retrenching certain Engineering Subordinates including the petitioner. In this order the petitioner's name occurs at serial No. 3. The relevant facts emerging from the writ petition are briefly these: 2. Petitioner was an Engineering Graduate having obtained his degree in the year 1966. He came to be appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (B and R). Project Organisation under an order of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (B and R) Rajasthan dated 25-7-66. He was appointed in the grade of Rs. 120-5-155-10-185-205-10-225 EB 22B 10-285-335-124-385. He was given a starting salary of Rs. 225/- per month and he joined the appointment on 28th October, 1966. Being a Junior Engineer the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Nand Kishore
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ582
L.S. Mehta, J.1. Civil Suit No. 206 of 1957, Balaknath v. Parbhati Nath and Ors. had been pending in the Court of learned 'Munsiff-Magistrate, Thana Gazi, District Alwar. In that case Shri N.K. Sharma, Advocate, had been engaged by the plaintiff Balak Nath. On April 16, 1964, the defendant Parbhati Nath had been examined. In the course of his cross-examination, a transfer application had been moved before the trial Court on behalf of the plaintiff. Consequently, the case had been adjourned for about a month. That day Shri Nand Kishore, Advocate, is alleged to have caused interruption in the judicial proceeding and offered insult to the Presiding Officer of the Court Shri D.C. Hagela. He is alleged to have remarked that he would move, either personally or through his clients, transfer applications in each and every case and that tie would see the Presiding Officer. He is also alleged to have made certain gestures with his hands and face and a threatening voice at the presiding officer. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›