Rajasthan Court December 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.
Seth Sobhag Mal Lodha and ors. Vs. Edward Mills Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1969
Reported in: [1972]42CompCas1(Raj); 1969()WLN498
L.S. Mehta, J. 1. On July 6, 1906, Seth Guman Mal Lodha, one of the proprietors and a nominee of the firm, Kamal Nayan Hamir Singh of Ajmer and Kunwar Ram Swarup, son of Rai Bahadur Seth Champalal of Beawar, executed an agreement. Its relevant terms and conditions were as follows:' It was executed for the purpose of establishing a cloth mill at Beawar. The concern was to be started in the name of the Edward Mills Company Ltd., Beawar. The two parties would invest the bulk of the money and the management would also remain in their hands. They would keep their shares separate which would not be of the value of less than rupees one lakh. The rights of both the parties would be equal and both the parties would have jointly and severally the rights of becoming manager, chairman, secretary, treasurer, etc. These rights would be exercised half and half by both the parties and they would be entitled to get the income in equal shares in respect of all the commissions, salary or any other kind o...
Jankilal and ors. Vs. Hanuman and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN568
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for money based on a promissory note for Rs. 1451/- alleged to have been executed by one Ram Singh, father of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and husband of defendant No 6. The plaintiff's case was that there were dealings between the plaintiffs and the decased Ram Singh on account of which a sum of Rs. 1451/ remained outstanding against Ram Singh for which he executed the promissory note in question. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 101 25 paisa was repaid and after giving credit for this amount the plaintiff filed a suit for Rs. 1259 75 paisa principal and Rs. 226.62 as interest at the rate of Rs. 6/- percent., per annum, total Rs. 1486.37. The defendants denied the plaintiff's suit and pleaded ignorance regarding the execution of the promissory note by Ram Singh.2. After recording the evidence led by the parties the trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 1259. 75 paisa and further directed that the defendants...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Prem Nath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN607
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This second appeal is by the defendant, the State of Rajasthan, and it is directed against the appellate judgment and decree of District Judge, Ganganagar, dated June 2, 1962. The facts of the case are quite simple and to the extent they are stated in this judgment they are not in controversy before me. The plaintiff last held the post of lower division clerk in the office of Block Development Officer, Padampur, Ganganagar District, as a temporary employee. A charge sheet was served on him on June 5, 1958. and he was required to file a reply by June 19, 1958. It was received by the plaintiff on June 10, 1958 and he sent his reply on June 18, 1958. But before the receipt of his reply he was removed in pursuance of an order of the Collector of Ganganagar dated June 12, 1958, which was conveyed by the District Development Officer vide order Ex. 7 dated June 19, 1958. That order merely stated that the temporary services of Shri Premnath L.D.C. of your office are termina...
Municipal Council, Jaipur and anr. Vs. Sewan Das
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Raj5; 1971CriLJ85
Jagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the Municipal Council, Jaipur, against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, acquitting Sewan Das, respondent, of an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. The respondent was convicted by the Magistrate and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment , for two years and to pay a fine of Es. 2,000/- only. He had earlier been convicted of the same offence and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- only.2. On 3-10-1963 the Food Inspector called upon the respondent, who is a milk vendor, to sell milk to him. The Food Inspector paid 37 Paise as price of the milk. He then filled this milk in 3 bottles and sent one of them for analysis to the Chief Public Analyst. This milk was found to be adulterated by reason of its containing about 13% of added water.3. The Food Inspector was authorised by a general order of the Municipal Council, Jaipur, under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,...
Hospital Employees Union, Bikaner Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Raj66; [1971(22)FLR237]
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. The Hospital Employees union, Bikaner (hereinafter referred as the Union) has filed this writ application challenging the correctness of the order of the State Government refusing to refer the dispute raised by the union to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the hospitals attached to the Medical Colleges, which are usually termed as teaching hospitals, will not fall within the category of 'industry' as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This order of the Government Is dated 27-5-1966 and is annexed to the writ petition as Ex. 3.2. There is a Medical College established at Bikaner which is known as Sardar Patel Medical College. The main hospitals in the associated group of hospitals under the management of the Principal of the said Medical College are attached to the Medical College, Bikaner. The workmen of the said hospitals raised certain demands with regard to the confirmation of the employe...
Ram Kripal Vs. Radhey Shyam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj234; 1969()WLN464
Chhangani, J.1. This is an application by Radhey Shyam praying that the cross-objections filed by him should be heard on merits. The application has come for decision in the following circumstances:2. In S. B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 126 of 1958, Ram Kripal v. Seth Radhey Shyam, a learned Single Judge of this Court pronounced his judgment on 10th July, 1969. By that judgment Ram Kripal's appeal was partially allowed and the decree of the trial Court was modified. Radhey Shyam did not choose to prefer any appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge, although the limitation for presenting the appeal expired on 9th August, 1969. Ram Kripal however, preferred an appeal on 9th September, 1969. 'After the usual checking by the office the appeal was registered on 16th September, 1969, and was fixed for a preliminary hearing on 21st Octo-ber, 1969. On 21st October, 1969, Radhey Shyam filed cross-objections. The preliminary hearing fixed for 21st October, 1960, was...
Manidevi and ors. Vs. Ambadan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN560
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This second appeal was filed initially by defendant Mahadev. He died thereafter and it is not dispute that his legal representatives Smt. Manidevi, Loonkaran. Mahaveer and Gitadevi have been brought on the record according to the law. Plaintiff-respondent Ambadan died on February 2, 1965, in the life-time of Mahadeo, and a great deal of controversy has been raised on the question whether his legal representatives have been brought on the record in time. The fate of the appeal therefore depends on the answar to the question whether it has abated against the deceased Ambadan and cannot be continued in the circumstances of the case and must be dismissed as a whole.2. To appreciate the controversy, I shall state the relevant facts bearing on the question of abatement and, as it happens, they are not in dispute.3. The suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted by Ambadan, his brother Godudan and Ambadan's son Rughdan. They claimed that the suit house was their proper...
Hanumat Singh and ors. Vs. Mst. Phuna and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1969
Reported in: 1969()WLN565
V.S. Bhargava, J.1. The facts which have given rise to these appeals are that Thakur Ranvijai Singh of Sarana, the predecessor of the appellants instituted a suit for ejectment against Sualal, Laxmi Narain. Kanhaiyalal and Mohanlal, sons of Baluram in the Court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Kekri, for recovery of possession of land which was decreed in his favour on 8th May, 1952, This decree was upheld both by the District Judge, Aimer and the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer.The decree was in the following terms:--(i) A decree is passed for vacant possession of the land in suit with costs in favour of the plaintiff.(ii) The defendants, who are entitled to remove their 'malba' would deliver vacant possession of the land after removing their 'malba' within 15 days from today;(iii) They are also restrained by means of a permanent injunction from making any further encroachment on the suit land and constructing upon it. The decree-holder took out execution proceedings on 1-5-57 but during the p...
Trilok Chand Dilsukhrai Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN582
L.N. Chhagani, J.1. This is a reference by the income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'C') under Section 256(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) stating the following question for our answer:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on correct interpretation of the lease deed dated 13-9-1954, the assessee has been rightly assessed under the head 'income from property' in respect of the income received by it from the Syria Market? The material facts may be shortly stated as follows: The assessee is a Hindu United Family represented by its Manager Trilokchand and the assessement relates to the years 1961-62 and 1962-63 in the previous years being the years ending Deepawali Samvat year 2017 and 2018 respectively. The assessee derives income from share in registered firm Prabhat Takies, Ajmer, and also from immovable properties including the property known as 'Syria Market'.' The position with regard to Syria Market is as follows:2. T...
Hukmi Chand Vs. the Jaipur Ice and Oil Mills Co. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN570
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendants's second appeal arising out of a suit]for injunction.2 The respondent-plaintiff the Jaipur Ice and Oil Mills, Company filed the suit through its partner Mahadeo Prashad out of which this second appeal aries on 31-3-69 against Kalicharan, his son Hukmichand, his father Ramniranjanlal, his wife Smt. Geenia and his minor son Rajgopal for issuing a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up an ice factory on the disputed land shown in green colour in the plan Ex. 3 and for prohibiting them to do any business on it pertaining to manufacture of ice. The Jaipur Ice Oil Mills Company was originally composed of six partners, viz. Kishenlal, Mahadev Prasad, Satyanarain Kalicharan, Bishamberedas. and Jeewan Prasad and a partnership deed between them was executed on 28-2-1947. It started manufacturing ice, oil and soap in Bani Park, Jaipur. Bishamber Das and Jeewan Prasad left this firm on 27-4-49 and the rest of the four partners continue...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »