Rajasthan Court August 1968 Judgments
Vinod Kumar Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj266; 1969CriLJ1268
ORDERD.S. Dave, C.J. 1. This is a revision application by one Vinod Kumar, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it arises in the following circumstances. 2. The non-petitioner No. 2 Prabhudayal filed in the Court of Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Bikaner, a complaint against non-petitioner No. 3 Rakesh Kumar on 5-11-1965. It was stated by him that on 24-7-1965 Rakesh Kumar had obtained from him one transistor on hire on the condition that he would pay Rs. 5 per day for its use, but he failed to pay the amount which was due from him and further failed to return the transistor. It was alleged by the complainant that when he demanded the amount and asked for the return of the transistor from Rakesh Kumar, the latter replied that he had pledged it with one Nathmal Bubna, Proprietor, Sharda Hotel, Chandpole Gate, Jaipur, since he was in need of money. It was, therefore, prayed by the complainant that since the accused had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of th...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevraj and anr. Vs. Lalchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj192
Dave, C.J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs whose money suit was decreed by the trial court, viz., CivilJudge, Sojat, but dismissed by the District Judge, Pali, on the defendants' appeal.2. The suit was based on a Khata-entry Ex. 1 appearing in the plaintiff's account books. The said entry was in the following language:--[Original in Marwadi Omitted -- Ed.Rendered in English, it would read as follows:-- 'Account of Shah Kunanmalji Lalchandji of Marwar Junction of the year S. 2009.6022/-Balanceto be received as per account givenabove. Rs. 6022/-in figures Rupeessix thousand and twenty-two only.Kati Sudi 1 Smt. 2009. Signed Bhandari Jeevraj. Balance struck in thepresence of Kunanmal Lalchand. SignedLalchand For Kunanmal Lalchand. Rs. 6022/- in figures Rupees six thousand andtwenty-two are to be paid. Signed Misrimal KunanmaL Signed Premraj.Witness- Sewag Pukhraj atRanawas at the instance ofMishri Mal of Marwar Junction in his presence.'The defendants contested the suit on seve...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Parasmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj65; 1969CriLJ437
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J. 1. This is a revision application filed by the State against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, dated 1st December, 1966, whereby, the learned Judge dismissed the revision application of the State which was filed to challenge the order of the Munsiff Magistrate, Bilara, dated 27th June, 1966 discharging accused Purasmal, Shantilal, Durga Ram and Rooparam of the chargesunder Section 420 read with Section 513 and Section 23(c) of the Petroleum Act 1934.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation are as follows:Pukhraj, father of accused Shantilal and Parasmal, had a diesel pump at Bilara. Prahlad Ram, resident of Lamba village went to purchase diesel from that pump on 22nd July, 1965. He was told by Shantilal that the diesel was not available as the tank was empty, but he asked Prahlad Ram to come next day when he would make a supply of diesel to him. It appears that Prahlad Ram suspected a foul play to be practised by the dealers and, therefore, he cho...
Tag this Judgment!Walkar Anjaria and Sons Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj162; [1969]23STC74(Raj)
Lodha, J.1. These four writ applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. By all these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutionality and validity of Section 5-A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act No. XXIX of 1954.2. The petitioner in writ petition No. 568/1966 is Messrs. Walkar Anjaria, and Sons Private Ltd., Beawar, which is a registered dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act No. 29 of 1954 (which will hereinafter be called the Act). It deals in purchase of raw wool and export of the same to foreign countries. Its head office is at Jamnagar in the State of Gujarat. The main places of business of the petitioner in Rajasthan are Beawar, Bikaner and Kukri. For the assessment year 1963-64 (corresponding accounting period being from 1-9-1962 to 31-8-1903) the petitioner claimed deduction of Rs. 77,29,254 25 paise on account of purchase of raw wool by the petitioner in the course of export outside India on ...
Tag this Judgment!inderjit Singh Vs. Sunder Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj155
P.N. Singhal, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree of District Judge, Bhilwara, dated December 23, 1961, and will be disposed of together. 2. Defendant Sunder Singh held a permit for plying a bus on the Shahpura-Bhilwara route, but he was apprehensive that the permit might be cancelled because he could not run the bus for some time. He thought it necessary to secure another bus for his permit and obtained a vehicle for that purpose from the New Laxmi Finance Company Ajmer, for Rs. 21,000, on hire-purchase. The New Laxmi Finance Company asked for security for the arrangement, and it was furnished by the plaintiffs father Cyan Singh at the instance of the plaintiff and the defendant. It was however realised that some more expenditure would have to be incurred in building the body, insuring thevehicle and meeting the registration and other charges which Sunder Singh was unable to finance. He therefore entered into agreement Ex. 1 dated December 28, 1958 for a partn...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Udhyog Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj281
Lodha, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutionality and validity of the Cement Control Order. 1967. 2. The petitioner is a Limited Company, it is carrying on business in the manufacture of cement and has a factory at Sawai Madhopur in the State of Rajasthan. 3. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 18G and 25 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 65 of 1951 (which will hereinafter be called 'the Act') and other powers enabling it in that behalf, the Central Government made the Cement Control Order, 1967, (which will hereinafter be called 'the Order'), Section 18G of the Act, which deals with the powers of the Central Government to control supply, distribution, price, etc., of certain articles, reads as follows:-- ' 18-G. (1) The Central Government, so far as it appears to it to be necessary or expedient for securing the equitable distribution and availability at fair prices of any articl...
Tag this Judgment!Harishchander Singh Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj228
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, Udai-pur No, 86 passed in the meeting held from 15th to 18th March, 1967 granting three permits to each of the non-petitioners Nos. 3, 4 and 5 viz. Bhawanishanker, Kanaiya-lal and Laxmi Trading Company respectively on Ghatol-Kushalgarh route via Surpur, Banswara, Kalinjra, Sajjangarh, Doongra for a period of three years. 2. The petitioner held a stage carriage permit on Banswara to Kushalgarh route and subsequently this permit was extended from Banswara to Ghatol. by a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur dated 25/26 October, 1963 and since then the petitioner has been plying his bus on the Ghatol-Kushalgarh route. It may be stated that Ghatol-Kushalgarh route is 68 miles 'A' Glass route and the petitioner pliesone return service daily. It appears that subsequently Hazi Moola Rasool Bhai Abdul Husaain and Brothers and Saiyed Niyamalulla...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1461
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. Party No. 1, Bheraram and three others, made an application under Section 133, Criminal P.C. in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deedwana, on May 16, 1967 stating therein that there was a public way 16 ft. wide, in village Ransisar. Party No. 2, Gangaram and Khemaram, committed encroachment thereon on May 12, 1967, reducing its with to about 5 ft. This obstruction caused a great deal of inconvenience to the general public Besides, there was every possibility of breach of the peace. The petitioners, there fore, prayed that the obstruction should be ordered to be removed in accordance with Section 133, read with Section 137, Criminal P.C.On receipt of the above application, Sub. Divisional Magistrate inspected the site that very day and issued an order that the obstruction should be removed by party No. 2 within 3 days, failing which the same would be got removed by the Court. On May 22, 1967, Gangaram filed a reply, denying the fact; that the width of the pu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›