Rajasthan Court March 1968 Judgments
Lajjaram Vs. Khubiram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj9
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This revision application has been filed by the plaintiff Lajjaram whose suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 572/- was decreed by the learned Munsiff, Dholpur, but on appeal by the defendant was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dholpur.2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 400/- as principal and Rs. 172/- as interest on the basis of a bond dated 13th October, 1961. The defendant denied the execution of the bond and also taking of any loan from the plaintiff on its basis. After framing issues the trial court recorded the evidence of the parties and decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal filed by the defendant, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dholpur came to the conclusion that the statement of the plaintiff Lajjaram (P. W. 2) could not be taken into consideration as it had been recorded in contravention of the provisions of Order 18, Rule 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus having excluded the statement of the plaintiff Lajjar...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Abdul Baqi Khan Vs. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs, Jaipur a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj1
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Mohammad Abdul Baqi Khan and by it he seeks to question the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs to take proceedings against him under Section 27 of the Wakf Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954 hereinafter to be referred as the Act). He also questions the appointment of certain members of the Wakf Board, respondents Nos. 2 to 4, as members of the Judicial Committee of the Board and he prays for quashing the various orders passed by the aforesaid Judicial Committee. 2. The relevant facts emerging from the writ petition are briefly these: The petitioner claims to be the ex-Jagirdar ofJagar in the former Jaipur State. According to him, besides the village Jagar, his ancestors were granted two plots of land contiguous to each other in the city of Jaipur. One plot measured 9 Bighas and 14 Biswas and this was said to be Inam land. The other plot measured 11 Bighas and 17 Biswas and it was said to be a ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Cotton Agents (Rajasthan) Ltd., Jaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Raj311; [1969]39CompCas663(Raj)
ORDERP.N. Shinghal, J. 1. These two petitions have been filed under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act (I of 1956), and as they relate to a scheme for the amalgamation of the two companies, they are being dealt with together. The Cotton Agents (Rajasthan) Limited, hereinafter called the 'transferor company', and Shree Vijay Luxmi Trading Company Limited, hereinafter called the 'transferee company' were both private companies at the time of their registration. They however became public companies by virtue of Section 43A of the Companies Act. Both the companies have a share capital of Rs. 5,000/- each, with shares of Rupees 100/- each. In the case of the transferor company, the shares have been paid to the extent of Rs. 50/- each, so that its subscribed capital is Rs. 2 1/2 lakhs. The shares of the transferee company have been fully paid up and its subscribed capital ic therefore Rs. 5 lakhs. The articles of association of both the companies prohibit an invitation to the publicto...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesharam Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1968
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1672
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. Ganesbaram has filed this application under Section 561-A, Criminal P.C. and it arises out of the following circumstances:2. Ganesharam petitioner, who was prosecuted in the Court of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Bikaner for an offence under Section 335, Penal Code, was acquitted by the learned Magistrate vide his judgment dated 28th March, 1966. An appeal was preferred by the State against the said judgment and this Court vide its judgment dated 18th January, 1968, set aside the acquittal and convicted the petitioner under Section 325, Penal Code and awarded him rigorous imprisonment for one year. Then an application under Section 561-A, Criminal P.C. was moved on behalf of the petitioner praying that the order of conviction passed by this Court be set aside and his counsel who could not attend the Court on the day when the appeal was decided be allowed to argue the appeal. By another application dated 18th February, 1968, it was further prayed that in the ex...
Tag this Judgment!Sudesh Kumar Vs. Mool Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj22
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a revision application directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur, dated 16-8-1967, in Civil Original Suit No. 2/1966, by which he decided preliminary issues Nos. 4 and 5 against the defendant-petitioner and held that the promissory note and receipt dated 22-12-65 and the agreement to let dated 20th December, 1965 were sufficiently stamped.2. The non-petitioner-plaintiff Moolchand filed the suit for arrears of rent and for award of future rent also against the defendant-petitioner Sudesh Kumar in respect of a shop situate on the High Court Road, Jodhpur. The plaintiff's case is that he rented out the half portion of the shop in question at a monthly rent of Rs. 150 to the defendant-petitioner on 20th December, 1965, and got a rent note executed by the defendant on the same day. It is further alleged that later on the defendant took the whole shop on rent at a monthly rent of Rs. 300 and agreed to deposit one year's rent in advance and i...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Sardara Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ558
L.S. Mehta, J.1. There is a village Jagtewala, Chak No. 27 H. in Tehsil Karanpur, District Ganganagar. In this village the accused Sardara Singh. Kela Singh, Jaila Singh and Pal Singh possessed certain Marrabas of land. Lal Singh and his son Jagtar Singh deceased also owned certain Murrabas there. All the accused were the real brothers of Lal Singh deceased. Their lands were, however, partitioned a few years back. Some litigation had been going on between Sardara Singh, Kela Singh, Jaila Singh and Pal Singh on the one hand and Lal Singh on the other about water. On June 17, 1964, at 11 a.m., when Mst. Punjab Kaur, wife of deceased Lal Singh, was coming with her son, Mukhtiar Singh, from her fields, Sardara Singh gave her a lathi blow on her leg at a distance of about 8 furlongs from the village Jagtewala, Mst. Punjab Kaur made a report of this happening (Ex. P-19) at the Police Station, Keshrisinghpura, that very day at 7-30 a.m. Next day, i.e., on June 18, 1964, Lal Singh had to take ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›