Rajasthan Court October 1969 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.
Vishwa Nath Singh and ors. Vs. Gopilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1969
Reported in: 1970WLN466
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a tenant who had rented shop No. 2 in Saraogi Building situated inside Kote gate in Bikanker City.2. Non-petitioner is the landlord. The monthly rent of the shop is Rs. 14/- excluding electricity and other charges Prior to the institution of the present suit on 2nd January, 1981, two more suits were filed by the landlord for rent and eviction. The first suit was dismissed because no notice to terminate the tenancy was served upon the tenant. In the second suit the tentant deposited all the arraars of rent etc. in compliance of the provisions of Section 13A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act) which had come into force during the pendency of those proceedings.3 The present suit for eviction is based on the grounds mentioned in Section 13 (1) (a), (c), (d) and(f) of the Act. It is alleged that the tenant had made default in payment rent for 16-5-68 to 2-1-67, 14-2-67was the date ...
Brahmanand and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj220; 1970CriLJ1512
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. The prosecution story is that the accused Ramanlal bore enmity against Prakash Chandra Bansal of village Bhuswawar, District Bharatpur. On February 17, 1966. Ramanlal and his son Brahamanand caused injuries on the head of Prakash Chandra with a 'Pharsi' and a 'Tanchia' respectively. Haricharan, P. W. 3, and Kaila Prasad alias Natar, P. W. 1, witnessed the occurrence. Prakash Chandra was medically examined on the date of the incident at about 6.45 p.m. by Dr. Anant Narain Sharma, P. W. 6, Medical Officer, Bayana. Following injuries were found on his person:--1. Lacerated wound with contused edges and edima all round 2'x 1/4'x 1/2' on right side of scalp half an inch anterior to right parietal eminence obliquely;2. Lacerated wound with contused edges and surrounding edima exposing skull bone in all its length 1 3/4 x 1/2' x 3/4' on left side of scalp obliquely from left parietal eminence medially and backwards.Both the Injuries were caused with a blunt object and we...
Sohan Raj Taparia Vs. Mahendra Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj204; 1969()WLN400
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is an execution first appeal by one Sohan Raj Taparia, decree-holder. 2. Two contentions were raised before the executing Court. One was that the decree was barred by limitation and the other was that an assignee of a part of a decree could not put it into execution. The executing Court held that the decree was within limitation. But at the same time it was of the view that an assignee of a part of a decree could not execute it. The execution application was accordingly dismissed. 3. On behalf of the assignee-decree-holder Sohan Bai Taparia it is contended that the decision of the executing Court on the second point is erroneous and on behalf of the judgment-debtor it was contended that its decision on the question of limitation was erroneous. I shall first consider the question of limitation. I am of the opinion that the execution- application is within time. Thedecree was passed in 1885 A.D. by a Court in the erstwhile State of Jodhpur. At that time there wa...
Bhooramal Vs. Govind Dev and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN554
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for perpetual injunction instituted by them in the Court of Civil Judge, Neem-ka Thana on 14. 7. 1960 with a prayer that the defendants may be restrained from raising any construction on a piece of land lying contiguous to the plaintiff's house situated in the village Neem-ka-Thana.2. It appears that the village Neem-ka-Thana was a Jagir village of Bhomiyas Baldeo Singh. Bhoor Singh, Than Singh, Sanwat Singh and Narain Singh, who agreed to sell the land in question which is a small piece of land measuring about 210 sq ft. lying between the public road and the house of the plaintiff for Rs. 50/- but did not execute a sale deed in the defendant Govind Deo's favour nor handed over the possession of the same to him. Consequently Govind Deo filed a suit for specific performance against the aforesaid Bhomiyas in the Court of Civil Judge, Neem-ka-Thana, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 207 of 1957 and obtained an e...
Shyam Sunder Azad Vs. Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Raj97
ORDERKan Singh, J.1. The subject-matter of the present writ petition is a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur dated 6-3-69 granting a non-temporary stage carriage permit to respondent No. 3 Smt. Shakuntla Devi on Bharatpur-Govindgarh route as also the appellate order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 28-6-69 granting further extension to Smt. Shakuntla Devi for obtaining the permit. The relevant facts are briefly these:--2. The petitioner is an operator on Bharatpur-Deeg-Nagar route which is an 'A' class route, 35 miles in length. The route Bharatpur-Govindgarh over which permit was ordered to be granted to respondent No. 3 overlaps this route in part. It appears from the map placed on record, Annexure P/1, that Bharatpur is the common terminus of the two routes. Between Bharatpur and Nagar which is at a distance of 35 miles, there are two important towns, Kumer and Deeg. This is the route on which the petitioner is plying his bus. From Nagar one comes to Jal...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Chhaganmal Bastimal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC341(Raj); 1969()WLN393
D.M. Bhandari, C.J.1. By order dated 22nd December, 1967, this court directed the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question of law arising out of its order dated 19th March, 1964:-Whether the Board of Revenue was competent to entertain the assessee's revision from the order of the Sales Tax Officer, Ajmer, even though the assessee could have appealed from that order under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and no appeal had been filed by it2. The statement of case shows that the Assistant Commercial and Sales Tax Officer, Ajmer, imposed a penalty of Rs. 500 on the assessee under Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act No. 29 of 1954) (hereinafter called the Act) as it stood before 2nd May, 1969, as the assessee had failed to pay within the time allowed to it the amount of tax assessed on it. The assessee did not file any appeal from the order imposing penalty and filed a revision application before the Boa...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Rambilas Bhojnalaya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC344(Raj)
D.M. Bhandari, C.J.1. The assessee Heeralal carries on the business of serving meals at his Bhojnalaya at Ajmer. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Ajmer, by his order dated 16th August, 1955, imposed Appeal allowed penalty of Rs. 11 on the assessee under Section (16)(a) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act), as in his view the assessee failed to get himself registered as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. The assessee did not file any appeal against the aforesaid order, but filed Appeal allowed revision application before the board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. It was decided by a single Member of the Board. It was held that as the assessee was aggrieved against the order directing his compulsory registration, he could file a revision application and that the order of imposition of penalty should be treated as only consequential to his non-registration. Then the merits of the case were gone into and the learned Member came to the conclust...
Nathulal Vs. Smt. Mana Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Raj208
Modi J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal before us raises an important question under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and that question is whether a wife against whom a decree for divorce had been passed on the ground of non-compliance with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights for a period of two years, is entitled to permanent alimony.2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows:--The appellant Nathulal married respondent Mst. Mana Devi at Aimer on 21-4-50. The marriage gave birth to a son. About six months after the marriage, the respondent went away to her parents' house. The appellant made efforts for her return to his house but the respondent refused to live with her husband. On 12-1-53 the appellant sent a notice to the respondent requesting her to return to his house but to no avail. Ultimately, the appellant filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Additional Munsif, Ajmer, against the responde...
Johri Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj203; 1970CriLJ1259
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J. 1. On June 16, 1966, the complainant Ratna's cow entered the house of the accused John at about noon. This led to altercations between Ratna and Johri. The accused Kishanlal and Rewaria sided Johri. The accused Johri is said to have thrown a stone towards Ratna. The stone accidentally fell on Ratna's calf tethered nearby as a result of which it sustained an injury on its nasal region and died soon after. A report of this incident was made at the police station, Rajgarh, district Alwar. The police investigated the matter and put up a challan against the accused Johri, Kishan and Rewaria for offences under Sections 429, 448 and 323, I. P. C., in the Court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Rajgarh (Alwar), The prosecution examined six witnesses, including P.W. 5, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Dr. Parmeshwar Sahai. The accused denied to have committed the offence in their statements recorded under Section 342, Cr. P. C. They did not produce any evidence in their defence. The t...
Chandmal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1969
Reported in: 1971CriLJ137
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. On October 7, 1966, Mahendra Singh, Station House Officer, Chittorgarh, P.W. 7, in exercise of his powers under. Section 550, Criminal P.C., seized a number of gold and silver ornaments, cash amounts and other articles which were suspected to be stolen property, from the house of the accused Chandmal Chimpa, under memo Ex. P. 2. On November 5, 1966, Chhogalal, P.W. 5, made a report Ex. P. 4, to the Station House Officer, Chittorgarh, alleging that theft of gold and silver ornaments from his house had also been committed in the month of Bhado Smt. 2021. The accused Chandmal had created some doubt in his mind as also in the mind of his wife Mst. Ram Sukhi and, therefore, they took no prompt action against him. However, after the arrest of the accused Chandmal, it ap. peared that his ornaments from his house had also been stolen away by him. On receipt of the report, the polioe registered a ease and started investigation. In the course of investi-gation, Chhogalal an...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »