Rajasthan Court September 1968 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kesarsingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN35
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This in an appeal by the State from an order of acquittal passed by the Munsiff Magistrate Mavli under Section 408, Indian Penal Code. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated in a narrow compass.2. The accused respondent Kesar Singh was the Superintendent of Naharmagra Palace be longing to His Highness Maharara of Udaipur. The prosecution case is that it was the duty of the accused to look after the Palace buildings including the furniture as well as the agricultural operations carried on behalf of His Highness in the lands apretinent to the Palice. The accused was appointed in this post with effect from 1-11-55 by the the appointment order dated 27-10-1955 and the charge of the Palace was handed over to him on 29-10-1955. The charge list has been placed on the record and marked Ex. P. 7. On 19-6-1957 the accused made a request in writing to the Master His Highness Household that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- be sanctioned for the purpose of purchasing 1000 Mds....
Kashinath Vs. Bal Swarup and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN53
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. These two revision applications arise out of the same Civil execution case No. 122 of 1964. The facts and the points involved in the two cases are similar and, therefore, they will be disposed of by one order.2. The relevant facts are these:The opposite party No. 1 Bal Swaroop son of Bishan Swaroop filed a suit for rent and ejectment against Jankilal and Baluram opposite parties Nos. 2 & 3 in respect of property bearing A.M.C. No, VI/94 and obtained a decree on 15-4-1964 for ejectment of Baluram and Jankilal from the suit premises on the basis of a compromise. It may be mentioned here that the suit property initially belonged to Shri Bhag Chand Soni from whom Baluram and Jankilal had obtained a lease. Bal Swaroop subsequently purchased the property and brought the suit as transferee of the original landlord. The decreeholder applied for execution of the decree and wanted delivery of possession of the suit property. Chandra Bhan and Kailash Nath Bhargava, who are th...
Mahadeo Vs. Hanumanmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj304; 1968()WLN11
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's revision, arising out of a suit for partition.2. The case has a chequered history. Defendant Mahadeo petitioner is the father and the plaintiff Hanuman Mal (who has died since the institution of this revision petition and is now represented by respondents Nos. 1(a) to 1(j) was the son of Mahadeo. Baboolal respondent is the second son of Mahadeo. Mahadeo had two brothers Chaturbhuj and Kaluram. Chaturbhuj left no issue and Kaluram had one son Gordhan Prasad, who is also one of the respondents before me. Hanumanmal filed the suit for partition in the Court of Civil Judge, Ratan-garh on 13-1-1953 against Mahadeo, Baboolal and Gordhan Prasad alleging that his grand-father Chandanmal had left a 'Haveli' in Ratangarh in which Gordhan Prasad had half share which had already been partitioned by metes and bounds and thus there remained the other half share in which he, his brother Baboolal and his father Mahadeo were entitled to get 1/3rd share each. ...
Babroo Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN6
L.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a revision-petition filed by Babroo against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh, dated August 29, 1967 The petitioner was convicted by SubDivisional Magistrate, Partabgarh, for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a month. Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate also directed that 42 quintals of wheat, recovered from the possession of the accused Babroo, should be confiscated.2. The case against the petitioner is that he is a licensed dealer of food grains. He was required under the licence to maintain stock register and submit its authenticated copy to the authorities concerned within the prescribed time On April 30, 1967, Enforcement Officer, Ramjilal and Niab Tehsildar, Ugar Singh, checked the petitioner's register and found that the entries in the register were made only upto Aprial 1, 196...
Shiv Dayal Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN1
L.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a criminal appeal preferred by the accused Shiv Dayal against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated July 25, 1968, convicting the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer four years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused Shiv Dayal is a distant relative of the complainant Sohanlal, P.W.I. Shiv Dayal was a teacher. He used to purchase betels from the shop of Dev Kishan injured. Shiv Dayal owed a sum of Rs. 10 or Rs. 12/-to Dev Kishan. Ihe said amount was demanded by Dev Kishan from Shiv Dayal from time to time. The debtor-promised to make payment of the amount in question several times, but he failed to do so. A day prior to the occurrence the creditor again, asked the debtor to clear off his account. Thereupon Shiv Dayal told him that he would do so next day. In the morn...
Dwarka Das and Sons and ors. Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj173
Lodha, J. 1. These four special appeals filed under Section 18(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance No. 15 of 1949 are directed against the judgment of Hon'ble Kansingh J dated 11-7-68 by which the learned Judge allowed the writ application filed bv M/s. Martinhail Ex-Service-men Cooperative Transport Society Ltd., Khetri (which is the only contesting respondent before us) and which will be referred to as 'Society' hereinafter for the sake of brevity). The resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, Jaipur (Item No. 2/109) dated 22/23rd December, 1967, has been setaside and the permits for stage carriage granted to the appellants in appeals Nos. 33, 34 and 35 on Jaipur-Khetri route have been cancelled by the judgment under appeal, and the Regional Transport Authority has been further directed 'to decide the application of the Society, as also of other applicants like the Society, if pending, along with the applications of the appellants and others like them. Appe...
Lt. Col. U.G. Menon and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Raj115
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a revision-application filed by Lt. Col., U. G. Menon, and Lt. Col., S. K. Kashyan, against the order of learned Additional Special judge for Rajas-than, Jaipur, dated April 5, 1968.2. A charge-sheet, it appears, was put up by Special Police Establishment, Jaipur Branch, on January 27, 1966, in the Court of Additional Special Judge, Jaipur, against 8 persons, accusing them of offences under Sections 120B, 161, 165 and 409, I. P. C., as also under Section 5(2), read with Section 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. One of the accused persons, namely, U. S. Oberoi has turned an approver. Of the remaining seven accused, 3 are civilians and 4 are officers of the Indian army. The 4 army officers moved a joint application on 13th September, 1966, in the court of Additional Special Judge, Rajasthan, to the effect that in view of Criminal Law Amendment (Amending) Act, 1966, they, being commissioned officers of the Indian army, were entitled to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›