Rajasthan Court May 1968 Judgments
Shyamesh Vs. Public Prosecutor, Pali
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj61; 1969CriLJ314
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J. 1. These are two connected revisions arising out of the orders of thelearned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 14th December, 1967 in Criminal Original cases No. 5 of 1964 and No. 6 of 1965.2. In view of the short point involved in these cases it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the petitioner Shyamesh who is an editor and publisher of a weekly newspaper 'Karwat' published an alleged defamatory article against Shri Gumansingh, the then Superintendent of Police, at Pali. After obtaining the previous sanction of the Government of Rajasthan in this behalf, the Public Prosecutor, Pali filed a complaint under Sections 500, 501 and 502, Indian Penal Code on 6-7-1964 in the Court of Sessions Judge. Pali against the accused petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 198-B, Criminal Procedure Code.3. It appears that the accused petitioner moved an application before this Court for transfer of the case to some other Court for re...
Tag this Judgment!The Mahalaxmi Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Raj331; [1969]39CompCas347(Raj)
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by Mahalaxmi Mills Company Limited. Beawar, its four Directors viz., Pannalal Kothari, Navratanmal Kothari, Kastur Chand Mehta, Amarchand Kothari and Deo Dutt Takiar. Secretary against the order of the City Magistrate, Jaipur dated 27th August, 1966, by which they with the exception of Amarchand, were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200 each for their default in giving notice of increase in share capital to the Registrar as required under Section 97(1) and (2) of the Companies Act (hereinafter called the Act) and which is punishable under Clause (3) of the said section.2. The Company was registered under the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913 with the authorised capital of Rs. 25,00,000 divided into 25,000 shares of 100 each. According to the Articles of Association of the Company, its capital could be increased in accordance with the regulations of the Company and the Legislative provisions for the time being in force in this behalf...
Tag this Judgment!The Mahalaxmi Mills Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1968
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1581
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by Mahalaxmi Mills Company Limited, Beawar, its four Directors viz., Pannalal Kothari, Navratanmal Kothari; Kastur Chand Mehta, Amarchand Kothari and Deo Dutt Takiar, Secretary against the order of the City Magistrate, Jaipur dated 27th August, 1966, by which they with the exception of Amarchand, were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200 each for their default in giving notice of increase in share capital to the Registrar as required under Section 97(1) and (2) of the Companies Act (hereinafter called the Act) and which is punishable under Clause (3) of the said section.2. The Company was registered under the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913 with the authorised capital of Rs. 25,00,000 divided into 25,000 shares of 100 each. According to the Articles of Association of the Company, its capital could be increased in accordance with the regulations of the Company and the Legislative provisions for the time being in force in this behalf...
Tag this Judgment!Good Year India Ltd., Jaipur Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj95; (1968)IILLJ682Raj
Mehta, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Good Year India Ltd. praying for quashing the order of reference dated 16th May, 1967 by the Government of Rajasthan to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and for an injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the purported adjudication.2. The petitioner, Good Year India Ltd., is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Head Office at 225-C Acharya Jagdish Bose Road, Calcutta with branches at many places in India including the one at Swastika House, Station Road, Jaipur. Shri A. A. Dhingra; respondent No. 4 was previously sales representative of the Company at Jullunder. In January, 1954, he was posted at Jaipur in the same capacity. On April 1, 1964 he was made sales assistant and on 1st January, 1966 he was made area supervisor. As an area supervisor, Shri Dhingra was in charge of the whole of the State of Rajasthan and a few towns of Madhya Pradesh. On 16-12-66,...
Tag this Judgment!Shitabkhan Vs. Bar Council of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj136
Lodha, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order against the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Rajasthan calling upon them to enrol the petitioner as an Advocate.2. The facts giving rise to this petition lie within a narrow compass. The petitioner passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajas-than, in the year 1960 and thereafter joined three years diploma course in Rural Services of the National Council for Rural Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India, in the Jamia Rural Institute, New Delhi and obtained the diploma in the year 1963. He took LL. B. Degree from the University of Rajasthan in the year 1965. The petitioner wanted to be enrolled as an Advocate and therefore, he got himself registered as a candidate for training in law with the Rajasthan Bar Council in 1965. Subsequently the Central Government in exercise of the powers confe...
Tag this Judgment!Automobile Transport Rajasthan (P) Ltd., Ajmer Vs. the Regional Transp ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Raj334
Bhandari, J.1. This is a special appeal against the judgment dated 29th March, 1967, of Jagat Narayan J. quashing the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, by which it allowed the replacement of the bus RJZ 203 by another bus of 1958 model on payment of Rs. 250 as composition fee. The learned single Judge further remanded the case to the Regional Transport Authority for reconsideration after issuing notice under Section 60(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter called the Act. This order was passed by the learned single Judge on the writ petition filed by Messrs. Ganesh Bus Service, Beawar, under Article 226 of the Constitution. It had a stage carriage permit from Beawar to Pisangan route. The appellant tn this appeal who was the contesting party in the writ petition had also a non-temporary stage carriage permit No. B. P. 1157 on the same route and this permit was valid upto 7th February, 1965. Bus No. RJZ 203 was covered by this permit. It is not in dispute that th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›