Rajasthan Court April 1968 Judgments
The State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Sawai Tejsinghji Maharaja of Alwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj52
Bhandari, J.1. These two cases have come before this Court under the following circumstances.2. On 12th October 1963, Colonel His Highness Maharaja Sawai Tejsinghji of Alwar filed Civil Suit No. 5 of 1963 in the court of the District Judge, Alwar, for a declaration that the properties detailed in paragraph No. 4 of the plaint were the private properties of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2, the State of Rajasthan, be ejected therefrom, or, in the alternative, ordered to pay rent at Rs. 1000/- p.m. A decree for Rupees 36,000/- was also claimed for mesne profits. These properties may be briefly described as (1) The stable of the City Palace known as Secretariat these days; (2) Daulatkhana and (3) Indraviman Station. The plaintiff's case is that he was the Ruler of the erstwhile Alwar State on the 1st April, 1948, and till then he was the owner of all the properties belonging to the State of Alwar. On 1st April, 1948, the Alwar State merged into the State of Matsya and thereafter in t...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council, Ajmer and anr. Vs. Sadulla and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj39; 1969CriLJ308
Tyagi, J.1. Both these appeals, one filed by the Municipal Council, Ajmer and the other by the State of Rajasthan are directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Aimer dated 6-9-1967 whereby the respondent Sadulla has been acquitted of the charge under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and it raises an important question about the interpretation and the scope of Section 20 of the said Act.2. On a complaint filed by the Law Superintendent and Municipal Prosecuting Inspector against respondent Sadulla the trial court recorded a finding that the milk sold, by Sadulla had 53% of water in it, and, therefore, he was guilty of an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The learned Judge on an appeal set aside the conviction of the respondent on the ground that the complaint was filed against the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Habib HussaIn and ors. Vs. Kamal Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj31
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This second appeal arises from the judgment and decree of Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City, dated October 5, 1960.2. The parties own properties on Mirza Ismail Road, in Jaipur City. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Hamid Hussain who, according to them, was the owner of their house under gift deed Ex. 6 dated January 1, 1931 made by Nawab Mukarram AH Khan (D. W. 2) in favour of Hamid Hussain. Adjacent to it, towards the east, is a piece of open land (AMNY) measuring 83' x 16', and the plaintiffs claim that it also belonged to them as it was a part of the gifted house. The property of the defendant is situated along the eastern boundary of this open piece of land, and the defendant claims to be the owner of that property on the basis of a purchase from the 'Nawab to whom both the properties once belonged. The defendant constructed a building on the plot of land purchased by him from the Nawab, and as he opened a number of doors and windows on the ground and the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Shekhawati General Traders Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Company Circle ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR120(Raj)
G. M. MEHTA J. - These two writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution by Shekhawati General Traders Ltd. (hereinafter called the assessee) are a sequel to the notice in each case under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act), by the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle No. 1, Jaipur, praying for quashing the notice s and for restraining the Income-tax Officer from taking proceedings in pursuance thereof. The points involved in both the writ petitioners are common. They are, therefore, being decided by this judgment.We would first state the facts of Writ Petition No. 105/67. The assessee is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, having it s registered officer at Jaipur. For the assessment year 1962-63 relevant to the previous year ending 31st March, 1962, the assessee filed its income-tax return before the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle No. 1, Jaipur, respondent, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. On or about March 2...
Tag this Judgment!Keshari Lal Kavi and anr. Vs. NaraIn Prakash and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj75
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a miscellaneous petition by Shri Keshar Lal Kavi and Shri Radha Kishan Goyal (who shall hereafter be referred to as applicants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) under Order 9, Rule 8 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code (which shall hereafter be referred to as the Code) and Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (which shall hereafter be referred to as the Act) containing a prayer in the following terms:--'It is therefore prayed that the applicant No. 1's absence may kindly be excused and the order of taking proceedings ex parte against him may be set aside and further restore the petition to its original number and allow the applicants to be substituted in place of the petitioner and be allowed to prosecute the petition.'2. The material and relevant facts under which this application has arisen may be given as follows:--In the fourth, general election for the Lok Sabha that is, House of People, held in February, 1967, six persons inc...
Tag this Judgment!Hardayal and anr. Vs. Jaggasingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj89
ORDERKan Singh, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two points to start with-(1) that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff respondent was not sufficient. (2) that the trial Court was in error in holding that the suit was triable by it and therefore, it was not necessary to return the plaint. 2. In the light of Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299, learned counsel very rightly did not press the first point. 3. Regarding the second point he submitted that as the plaintiff had sought a declaration for his being a khatedari tenant of the land the suit was not cognisable by a civil Court and could be tried only by a revenue Court according to the provisions of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. He referred me to the analogous provisions in the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 which governed the procedure for suits triable by revenue Courts before the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came to be passed. Learned counsel pointed out that Section...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Bhagwani Vs. Harlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Raj324; 1968CriLJ1578
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. There is agricultural land, Khasra No 30, measuring 12 Bighas and 15 Biswas, situate on the precincts of village Khalasi, Police Station, Mandawa, District Jhunjhunu. Joraram, party No 1 it appears, made first information report in the above Police Station against Harlal, party No. 2, under Section 447, I. P. C. on May 13, 1966, in respect of the above land. Thereafter Joraram submitted another application to the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu, against Harlal and others under Sections 107 and 117, Cr. P. C., stating therein that there was apprehension of breach of the peace. That application was transmitted to the Station House Officer, Mandawa, for investigation. Party No. 2 Harlal also submitted an application against party No. 1 Joraram to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu. under Sections 107 and 117, Cr. P. C. That application too was sent to the Station House Officer, Mandawa, for investigation. The Station House Officer inquired into the matter a...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdayal Vs. Kishorilal Chaudhary and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj24
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This second appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Bikaner dated January 9, 1961, in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction. 2. The facts are quite simple. Plaintiff Ramdayal, and before him his pre-decersor Ram Ratan pass, were 'mahants' of the Dadoo Panthi 'math' at Sardar-sahar. They owned a 'nohra' and a 'Kothri' shown in the site-plan. Ram Ratan Dass let out these premises to the defendants for the residence of defendant Shobhachand and staging of dramas by the Manoranjan Natya Parishad of which defendant Shobhachand was the President, while defendant Himkar was the Secretary. The premises were taken on an annual rent of Rs. 150. The plaintiff pleaded that it was agreed between the parties that the rent would be payable in advance, but that the defendants did not pay the rent after Chaitra Sud 8, S. 2011, and that after calculating the rent for the intercalary month a total sum of Rs. 156/4 was recoverable from the defe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›