Rajasthan Court February 1969 Judgments
Ratanlal Vs. the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Regio ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj125
ORDERKan Singh, J. 1. By this writ petition the validity of a resolution of the State Transport Authority, Jaipur (Annexure-8) is questioned. I may read that resolution: 'In exercise of the powers under Section 44 Sub-section (3) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act the State Transport Authority Rajasthan resolves that with effect from the date of the publication of this resolution in the Official Gazette (1) the State Transport Authority shall hereafter grant all types of permits, renewals, transfers etc., on Inter-Regional and Inter-Statal routes. In respect of these routes S.T.A., shall perform all the duties, hitherto being performed by the Regional Transport Authorities. (2) All types of permits on Inter-Statalroutes shall be countersigned by the S. T. A.' Sd/- Inder Singh Shekhawat Secretary State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur.' The petitioner contends that this resolution is bad, because according to the provisions of Section 44 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereina...
Tag this Judgment!Dhiria and ors. Vs. JainaraIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj102; 1970CriLJ729; 1969()WLN99
ORDERB.P. Beri, J. 1. This is a criminal revision application against an order whereby the bail-bonds and surety-bonds of 29 petitioners have been ordered to be forfeited by the Munsif Magistrate, Pali.2. The Munsif Magistrate Pali took cognizance of an offence under Sections 430/147 I.P.C. against 30 accused persons on a complaint moved by Jainarain. Warrants were issued for the appearance of the accused on the 23rd January 1968. One of the accused persons Sawaram appeared before the Munsif Magistrate but on behalf of the other 29 accused persons an application was made praying that their personal presence be dispensed with under Section 540A, Cr. P. C. and they may be permitted to appear through their pleader because it was sowing season and these 29 agriculturists were required to be present on their fields. The Magistrate dismissed the application by saying that there were no appropriate grounds for granting the applicants an exemption and simultaneously ordered the forfeiture of t...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1969
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1324; 1969()WLN87
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This case involves interpretation of Section 12 of the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Places Act, No. 18 of 1954, which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'.2. The following question has been referred to Division Bench by Kan Singh J., whether the word shall' occurring in the words 'shall direct that any work which shall have been constructed in contravention of the provisions of this Act or of any permission granted thereunder shall be removed so as to restore the building or place in question to its original condition should be construed as 'may'. The circumstances in which this question has arisen may be set out briefly as follows:-The Station House Officer, Police Station, Malasisar, District Jhunjhunu, filed a complaint against Sardar Khan and five others under Section 6 read with Section 11 of the Act in the Court of Sub-divisional Magistrate Jhunjhunu on 7-5-1968 alleging that the accused bad constructed a mosque in village Dabri, District Jhunjhunu w...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Sitaram Agarwal Vs. Harnath and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj99; 1969()WLN91
P.N. Shinghal, J. 1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below.2. The two courts below have not gone into the merits of the controversy regarding the claim for the recovery of money, but have taken the view that the suit is barred under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, As this is the only point for consideration in this second appeal, it is not necessary to state all the facts. It will be sufficient to say that the plaintiff averred in paragraph 1 of the plaint that the plaintiff was a registered partnership firm of which Suraj Bux, Jagdish Narain, Nathulal and Sita Ram were the owners. This was denied by both the defendants. Defendant No. 2 pleadedthat the plaintiff was an unregistered partnership concern of which Murlidhar and Daluram were also partners. In paragraph 7 of the written statement it was stated that unless the plaintiff could establish that the firm was registered and the names of all its partners including Murlidhar a...
Tag this Judgment!Shivram Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN96
Kansingh, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner who claims succession to a Jagir in the former Alwar State whose last holder expired in 1916, questions the validity of an order of the Raj Pramukh of the former United State of Matsya dated 25-4-1949, by which the Raj Pramukh ordered that the Jagir has escheated to the State. He further challanges the orders disposing of his representations. The petitioner has also prayed that a direction be issued to the State Government to recognise the petitioner as successor of the Jagir of Thikana Khora in accordance with Rule 14 of the Alwar State Jagir Rules and in consequence the State be commanded to restore the properties of the aforesaid jagir as also the income thereof to t he petitioner.2. The order of the Raj Pramukh which is impugned has been quoted in para No. 8 of the writ-petition and it runs as follows:His Highness the Raj Pramukh has been pleased to order that Khora Thikana (Alwar Unit) may escheated to Matsya, with immediate effe...
Tag this Judgment!Ghisalal Vs. Seth Kanhaiyalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN95
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal from the order of the Senior Civil Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 24-5-67, in civil Execution Case No. 32 of 1966, by which the learned Judge rejected the objections of the appellant regarding validity and executability of the decree dated 30th August, 1960.2. The respondent Seth Kanhaiyalal obtained a compromise decree for Rs. 76,000/- on 30th August, 1960, from the court of Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City Rs. 20,000/- were paid by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder on i-il-60. On 18-8-61 the decree-holder levied execution for the rest of filed the decretal amount by sale of the judgment-debtor's immoveable property mortgaged with the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor filed objections on 30-11-61. These were dismissed in default on 11-10-62 and the execution proceeded against the Judgment-debtor. But ultimately for reasons, which we need not state here, the decree-holder got the execution application dismissed on 20th ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwarlal and ors. Vs. Raja Babu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj104; 1969()WLN201; 1969()WLN467
Bhandari, C.J. 1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the High Court Ordinance. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by Gaindilal against Mst. Rajbai, Rajababu, Mannalal and three other persons in the court of Civil Judge Jaipur. The case set up by the plaintiff is that one Motilal husband of Mst. Rajbai died in the Samwat year 1971 and that according to the pedigree-table submitted in the plaint, the plaintiff was the next reversioner. Gaindilal plaintiff further alleged that in his lifetime Motilal had made an oral will in his favour bequeathing all his property in favour of the plaintiff and that after the death of Motilal Mst. Rajbai continued to live with the plaintiff. On 20th December, 1941 she executed an adoption deed purporting to adopt Mannalal. On this the plaintiff filed a suit which was dismissed in the trial Court and in the Court of firstappeal but was decreed by the High Court of the former Jaipur State on 5th April, 1944. In spite of this, Mst. ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj89
ORDERKan Singh, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner who claims succession to a fagir in the former Alvvar State whose last holder expired in 1916, questions the validity of an order of the Rajpramukh of the former United State of Matsya dated 25-4-1949, by which the Rajpramukh ordered that the jagir has escheated to the State. He further challenges the orders disposing of his representations. The petitioner has also prayed that a direc-tion be issued to the State Government torecognise the petitioner as successor of the jagir of Thikana Khora in accordance with Rule 14 of the Alwar State Jagir Rules and an consequence the State be commanded torestore the properties of the aforesaid jagir as also the income thereof to the petitioner.2. The order of the Rajpramukh which is impugned has been quoted in para No. 8 of the writ petition and it runs as follows:'His Highness the Rajprarmikh has been pleased to order that Khora Thikana (Alwar Unit) may escheated to Matsya, with imme-diate ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramrakh and ors. Vs. Creditors, Rani Co-operative Society
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN193
D.M. Bhandari, C.J.1. These ten cases are references under Section 113 of the Civil Procedure Code. The first nine references have been made by the Judge, Debt Relief Court, Bilara, in cases in which various debtors had filed separate application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 7 Hereinafter called the Act,. In all these cases various co-operative societies registered the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953 were shown as creditors. It was argued before the learned Judge on behalf of these 30 societies that the Act does not apply to the liability in respect of any sum due to any society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Rajasthan co-operative Societies Act 1953 and as such the Debt Relief Court was not empowered to pass any order in respect of their debt under the provisions of the Act They also relied on Section 146(2) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act 1965 with lays down hat nothing contained in the Rajast...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Bundi Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Bundi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj36
Lodha, J.1. This first appeal by the State of Rajasthan (which will hereinafter be called the State) arises out of a suit filed by it against the defendant Bundi Electric Supply Company Limited, Bundi (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Company') in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bundi. The Company also filed a cross suit against the State. The suit by the State was filed on 4-7-1958 and was registered as Civil Original Suit No. 7 of 1958 and the suit by the Company was filed on 16-10-1958, and registered as No. 9 of 1958. The relevant facts giving rise to these two suits may be stated as follows :2. There was a commercial concern owned by the former State of Bundi called the Bundi Petrol Automobile Supply Agency (hereinafter referred to as 'the Agency') which used to carry on business of running buses and trucks and also dealt in petrol and spare motor parts etc. It is alleged in the plaint filed by the State that the Company was registered under the Bundi Companies Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »