Rajasthan Court April 1969 Judgments
Smt. Gopi and anr. Vs. Madanlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj190; 1969()WLN267
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This appeal was filed by plaintiff Shivchand against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Jodhpur dated October 21, 1965. Shivchand died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives are now on the record.2. There has been much controversy about the subject matter of the suit and it is necessary to state the facts but before doing so it will be better to mention the genealogy (for genealogy see below) of the parties so as to bring out their relationship. HATHI RAM | _____________________________________________________________________________________________ | | Gopinath Hardeo | | ________________________________ _______________________________________________________ | | | | | | Sawaldas Motilal Chandlal Banraj Chunilal Fatehraj | | | | ________________________ Meghraj Shrinath __________________ | | | | | | Mansaram Maidas | | Moolraj Deoraj | | | | Shivchand | | Gangshyam (Plaintiff) | ____________________________...
Tag this Judgment!Girdharilal and ors. Vs. Lalchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj145; 1970CriLJ987; 1969()WLN233
ORDERB.P. Beri, J.1. This is an application under sections 439 and 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed against the order of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur dated the 25th of July, 1968 and upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur by his order of the 15th March, 1969.2. Lalchand instituted a complaint against Girdharilal Mahajan, Administrator, Municipal Council, Jodhpur, Ramchander Mathur, Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jodhpur, Maghraj Agrawal, Health Officer, Municipal Council, Jodhpur, Laxman Singh Panwar, Sanitary Inspector, Hansraj, Jama-dar and the Municipal Council, Jodhpur, under Sections 268, 278 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code before the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur. The complainant alleged that he runs a shop in Manak Chowk, Jodhpur. On the other side of the road abutting his shop there is Moti Bai's temple. The Municipal Council, Jodhpur gets refuse collected in front of the shop of the complainant and thereby obstructs m...
Tag this Judgment!Umrao Singh Dhabariya Vs. Yashwant Singh Nahar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj134
Chhangani, J. 1. This is an election petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) by Shri Umrao Singh Dhabariya, a defeated candidate, calling in question the election of Shri Yashwant Singh Nahar respondent No. 1 to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Banera Constituency (No. 144) in the last general elections held in February, 1967, claiming prayers to - (i) declare the election of the respondent No. 1 to the a Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Banera Constituency (No. 144) void, and (ii) further to declare the petitioner duly elected from the aforesaid Banera constituency (No. 144) to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. There were three contesting candidates in the Banera constituency: (i) The petitioner Shri Umrao Singh, Dhabariya who was a sitting member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly contested the election as a Socialist Party candidate, (ii) The respondent No. 1 Shri Yashwant Singh Na...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj60; 1970CriLJ486; 1969()WLN215
Bhandari, C.J.1. Ramkumar appellant and Ramsingh were tried by the Sessions Judge, Kota, for causing the murder of Yuvrajsingh. Ramkumar has been convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, while Ramsingh accused has been acquitted. This appeal has been filed by Ramkumar challenging his conviction. 2. Briefly the prosecution case is that Ramsingh, Ramkumar and Yuvrajsingh went from Kota for a picnic on the morning of 21st November, 1985 to a Talai near village Sakatpur. Ramsingh had a licence for a muzzle loading gun and he carried it with him. At the Talai they took liquor and then food was prepared by Prabhulal P. W. 10 who also accompanied them and all of them had their lunch. Prabhulal P. W. 10 then left the place with the utensils, leaving Ramsingh, Ramkumar and Yuvraj at the Talai. At about 4 P. M. one gunshot was fired by Ramkumar appellant and it is alleged that it seriously injured Yuvrajsingh. The two ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rampuria Ice Factory Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN250
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This is a petition of the Rampuria Ice Factory Ltd. Bikaner, under Section 101 of the Companies Act, 1956 for an order confirming the reduction in its share capital by paying a portion of the paid up share capital which is paid to be in excess of the wants of the Company within the meaning of Section 100(1)(c) of the Companies Act.2. It has been stated in the petition that the capital of the Company is Rs. 8, 50,000 divided into 55,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10/- each and 33,000 cumulative preference shares of 4 1/2 cent of Rs. 10/- each. The subscribed capital of the Company is stated to be Rs. 3, 33,020/-. The Company commenced its business on April 9, 1946 and is reported to be carrying it on at present. The financial position of the company is reported to have improved to such an extent that the directors felt that the Company will have a surplus fund of about Rs. 100, 000/- which could conveniently be refunded to the share-holders without any loss to the Compan...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Moondra and Co. Vs. Mst. Bhanwari and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj111
C.B. Bhargava, J. 1. This appeal by the employer is directed against the judgment of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 15th May, 1967 allowing Rupees 7000 compensation to the widow of deceased Gordhansingh. 2. The material facts which have given rise to this appeal may he shortly stated thus. The deceased was employed as a driver on a truck of the appellant which used to carry petrol tank. The deceased reported to the appellant that the tank was leaking upon which the appellant got the tank partly filled with water at night and ordered the deceased to check it on the next morning. On the next morning i.e., on 10th November, 1963, the deceased entered the tank to see from where it leaked and lighted a match stick as a result of which it caught fire and the deceased received burns due to which he succumbed subsequently. 3. The evidence produced on behalf of respondent No. 1 was that the match box was supplied to the deceased by the appellant. But this fact was denied b...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Ram and ors. Vs. Smt. Chandravati Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN257
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is, a revision application by the defendants against an order of Munsif, Hindaun. striking out their defence under Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1950, which was confirmed on appeal by the Addl. District Judge, Gangapur city.2. Smt. Chandravati Devi, plaintiff, is the landlord of a shop situated at Hindaun and Mangal Ram and Kedar Nath defendants, are the tenants of the shop. The monthly rent of the shop is Rs. 10/-. In addition to it the tenants have to pay a shop tax at 50 Paisa per month. The tenancy is monthly in accordance with the Hindi calendar. Rent falls due on Sudi 1 of every Hindi month. The present suit was instituted on 18-9-67 for the recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction on the, ground of default in the payment of rent due for six months under Section 13(1)(a) According to the plaintiff rent was paid by the defendants up to 10th July, 1966. Rent for 12 months from 19-7-66 to 8-7-67 was neither pai...
Tag this Judgment!Premsukh Vs. Hanumandas and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN252
C.M. Lodha, J.1. Hanumandas-plaintiff-respondent No. 1 obtained a decree against the judgment--debtor Nathu-respondent No. 2 for Rs. 5588/- on 30-9-59 and in execution of that decree got the house in dispute attached and sold. Premsukh, a brother of Nathu, filed objections to the attachment on 18-7-1960 but the sale of the house, however, took place on 30-7-1960 and was knocked down to Pannalai for Rs. 2205/-. Before the sale was confirmed the objections filed by Premsukh was allowed on 21-12-1961 and the property was ordered to be released from attachment. Consequently Hanumandas filed the present suit on 1-5-1962 in the court of Civil Judge, Bikaner for declaration that the house in dispute belongs, to the judgment--debtor Nathu and was attached from his possession, and, therefore, it may be held to be attachable and liable to be sold in execution of his deer e Here, it may be held stated that the case put forward by Premsukh in the objection filed under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Pro...
Tag this Judgment!Heera Lal and anr. Vs. Harivallabh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN242
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for possession by redemption of mortgage of a house situated in village Phoolbaroda District Baran.2. It is common ground between the parties that the house in question belonged originally to one Birda, who died on 8.10. 1958. It is also not disputed at this stage of litigation that this house was mortgaged by Birda with the defendant-appellants Heeralal and his brother Kishanlal on Bhadwa Badi 1. S. 2015, i.e. in September 1958 for a consideration of Rs. 50/-. The plaintiff Hari Ballabh's cafe however is that after the death of Birda which took place of 8-10-1958, his brother Prabhu, who was his sole heir sold away the house in question to the plaintiff on 12. 10. 58 by an unregistered sale deed also handed over possession of the same to him but on the very next day, Heeralal dispossessed him. Hari Ballabh, therefore filed a suit for possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 on 18.10.58, but the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Vastra Vyopar Sangh Ltd. (In Liquidation) and anr. Vs. Shyam Su ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj91; 1969()WLN223
ORDERP.N. Shinghal, J.1. This is an application under Section 543 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, by the Official Liquidator of Messrs. Jaipur Vastra Vyopar Sangh Ltd., in liquidation hereinafter referred to as 'the Company', for examination of the conduct of respondent Shyam Sunder Lal Patodia, who is a past director of the Company, and for an order compelling him to restore the money, with interest at such rate as the Court thinks just, or to contribute such sum to the assets of the Company by way of compensation in respect of misapplication, retainer or breach of trust as the Court-may think proper.2. The Company was registered under the Jaipur Companies Act of 1942. It is not in controversy that the provisions of that Act were similar to those of the Indiars Companies Act, 1913, and that the respondent was the Managing Director of the Company from March 21, 1946 to December 31, 1948.3. The Company is a public company and it has been alleged that, taking undue advantage of his po...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »