Rajasthan Court February 1969 Judgments
Manglaram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj32; 1970CriLJ300; 1969()WLN71
ORDERB.P. Beri, J.1. This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated the 11th December, 1967, passed by the City Magistrate, Jodhpur. The petitioner prays for the quashing of the order of his commitment to face a trial under Section 6(e) of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Act, 1950, hereinafter called 'the Act'.2. The circumstances which have led up to this application, briefly stated, are these. Manglaram applicant was appointed as a constable in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (R.A.C.) on the 20th of June, 1963. On the 10th of October, 1964, he was attached to the 5th Battalion stationed at Jodhpur, when he absented from duty. His case is that he had orally taken permission to leave the service from the Platoon Commander, whereas the case of the prosecution is that he absented without leave. It is not in dispute that on the 11th of October, 1964, he joined as a soldier in the Indian Army. On the 13th of October, 1964, a first information report was lodged at ...
Tag this Judgment!ShrinaraIn and ors. Vs. Lachhiram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Raj38
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The above three appeals arise out of suit No. 348 of 1964 instituted in the Court of Munsiff-Magistrate, Jaipur City (East), Jaipur by Lachhiram against Hari Narain, Shrinarain and Mohinuddin for redemption of a shop situated at Moti Cungari Road in the City of Jaipur. Since all these appeals are directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jaipur City, it would be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.2. The property in dispute belonged to Lachhiram, who mortgaged the same in favour of defendant No, 1 Hari Narain on 20-4-1956 by a registered mortgage deed for a consideration, of RS. 451/-. The possession of the shop was admittedly handed over to the mortgagee at the time of mortgage. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he gave a notice to the defendant No. 1, dated 31-12-63 to redeem the mortgage but the defendant No. 1 replied that the real mortgagee was defendant No. 2 Shrinarain and that a sum of Rs. 500/-had been spent on rep...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Alwar Iron Syndicate Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj86; 1969()WLN102
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was a partnership firm. A consignment which is said to have been purchased by it and was deliverable at Alwar, was lost in transit, Pleading that the Western Railway was responsible for the loss, the plaintiff raised the suit against the Union of India on December 3, 1955 through Mohanlal Lohia who signed the plaint as a partner and manager of the firm. The claim was denied by the defendant and a number of issues were framed for trial. It will be sufficient to say that the trial court took the view that the names of three partners Kunj Bihari Lal, Shyam Bihari Lal and Mansingh were not included in the Register of Firms and the suit was not maintainable under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. On appeal, the learned District Judge took a similar view in his judgment dated December 19, 1961 and this is why the plaintiff has preferred the present second appeal.2. The names of the partners of the plaintiff firm were not disclosed...
Tag this Judgment!Kotah Match Factory Kotah Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj118; 1969()WLN75
Mehta, J. 1. Kotah Match Factory brought an action for the recovery of Rupees 1,19,000 against the State of Rajasthan, on January 18, 1954, in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City. The plaint averments were that the plaintiff was a partnership firm and carried on business of manufacturing matches at Kotah. On December 23, 1935, the former Kotah State agreed to give a refund of a part of the excise duty paid on the stocks of matches produced by the plaintiff and consumed within the State territory for a period of 20 years. Subsequently on March 10, 1941, the said State entered the excise pool with the then British Government of India. Thereafter on April 21, 1941, the said State ordered to pay Rs. 14,000/-, per annum to the plaintiff for future years. On August 31, 1942, that order was modified and it was decided by the said State to refund half the excise duty paid, Later on the above State offered to the plaintiff that from August 16, 1944. Rs. 10,000/-, per annum woul...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Bux Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj216
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a writ petition by one Roshan Bux against an order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, issuing a permit in favour of Chatur Bhuj, respondent No. 2.2. This writ petition came up for hearing before Hon'ble Kan Singh J. on 6-9-67. After hearing the parties and perusing the record available before him on that date he passed a detailed order. The Secretary of the R.T.A. has filed an affidavit in compliance with that order.3. The petitioner is an existing operator on Kishangarh-Diggi via Pachawar route. Chatur Bhuj applied for a permit on Kishangarh-Diggi via Arain route. The petitioner filed an objection, Annexure 1 (page 19) against the grant of permit to Chatur Bhuj on the route. The R.T.A. however granted a permit to Chatur Bhui in its meeting dated 6th, 7th and 8th January 1966 imposing a peremptory condition that a vehicle should be employed on the route within 45 days failing which the permit shall stand revoked.Chatur Bhu.i filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Lajpat Rai Agarwal Vs. the Arya Samaj Shiksha Sabha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN177
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is plaintiff's revision application against an order of the Civil Judge, Ajmer, setting aside an award which was made in his favour. This order was confirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge, Ajmer.2. The material facts are these. Shri Lajpat Rai, plaintiff, was appointed a lecturer in the D.A.V. College, Ajmer on 16-7-51. He was confirmed on 16-7-53 and on 28-9-53 agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant incorporating the terms of his employment. The defendant is the Arya Samaj Shiksha Sabha, Ajmer. It is a registered body, which runs the D.A.V. College, Ajmer. Para 9 of this agreement provides for termination of the services of the plaintiff on the grounds enumerated in Clauses (a) to (f). Para 11 of the agreement provides for arbitration in case of any dispute arising from the termination of services, by a tribunal consisting of the Vice-Chancellor for the time being of Agra University, a judicial officer not below the rank o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›