Rajasthan Court August 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.
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Ratanlal Sogani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Raj142; 1969()WLN339
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal by the State of Rajasthan and the Collector, Ajmer against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Aimer dated 6th October, 1959, arises out of a suit instituted by respondent Ratanlal Sogani for a declaration that the order of termination of his service No. 1544 dated 11-5-1950 (Ex, A-10) is null and void and as such he should be deemed to be in service of the Court of Wards. Further a decree for arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 11323A and Rs. 760/- spent by him in the defence of two criminal cases launched by the Court of Wards against him and a further sum of Rs. 2000/- as damages be passed in his favour.The respondent alleged that he was a permanent employee of the department of the Court of Wards, Aimer and was placed under suspension on 24th September, 1949 by the Additional Assistant Commissioner and Officer-in-Charge, Court of Wards, Aimer on the pretext of facilitating thorough investigation into the complaints of misconduct against...
Udai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN596
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Constitution of Panchayat on the ground that a part of a village was included in it in addition to two whole village which is not warranted by Section 3(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. Section 3(1) runs as follows:The State Government may by notification in the official gazette establish a panchayat for a village or a part of a village or a group of villages not included within the limits of a Municipality. 2. Under Section 3(1) a Panchayat may be established for a whole village or for a group of whole villages or for a part of one village. The intention is that if the village is a big one two Panchayats may be established for it. But there is no provision for including a part of a village in a PancK-ayat in which other whole villages are included, village Chandrai was not :j a village within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. 'Village' is defined in this sub-section as...
Sangram Singh Vs. Roop Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1969
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)454
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This is a second appeal which arises from the appellate judgment and decree of District Judge, Pratapgarh, dated March 22, 1963.2. As the appeal succeeds on the question of jurisdiction which was the subject matter of issue No. 5 in the trial court, it is not necessary to state the facts in any detail.3. The plaintiff claimed to be the adopted son of Bhooralal defendant No. 1. This Bhooralal sold the lands and the well described in paragraph 4 of the plaint to Sangram Singh defendant No. 2, the present appellant, under sale deed Ex. 2 dated August 18, 1957 and delivered the possessor also to him, In his turn, Sangram Singh sold a portion of the suit lands to Madanlal defendant No 5 on September 25, 1957. He sold the rest of the lands to Mohan Lal defendant No. 3 on November 22, 1957. The plaintiff therefore raised the present suit on April 16, 1958 alleging that the suit lands were ancestral agricultural lands which were in the joint possession of his father Bhooral...
Ganesh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN418
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff s second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction for restraining the Government of Rajasthan from deporting the plaintiff from India to Pakistan in pursuance of the Government order notice dated13th June, J 952.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated in a narrow compass, the plaintiff s case is that he was born at Chittorgarh on 15th February 1929 and was married at village Babrana District Udaipur, in 1940 A.D. It is alleged that sometime in the year 1942 he went to Karachi in sreach of livelihood and used to work in Military cantonment upto 30th March, 1946. His case is that he wanted to return to India, and for that purpose, approached the High Commissioner for India in Pakistan but could not get permission and therefore by force of circumstances he obtained a passport from the Pakistan Government and came to India in 1952 It is stated by him that his parents as well as his wife have been throughout residing in India and he had ...
Mohammad Safi Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN435
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Mohammad Safi and by it he questions the validity of a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority. Udaipur, dated 8/11-5-1967 granting permits one each to respondents Nos. 2 to 15 on Chitorgarh-Bundi via Bijolia-Mandalgarh route. The petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, directions or order against the respondents.2. The relevant facts appearing in the writ petition are briefly these. The petitioner is an existing operator over the route in question which is 123 miles long A class route. It is an inter-regional route. A part of this route lies in Udaipur Region while another part lies in the Kota Region The petitioner is plying his vehicle on this route in rotation with other permit-holders. This route was overlapped by several other routes. In November 1984, the R.T.A. decided to revise the scope of permits over this route under 47(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Hereinafter to be referr...
Ganga Ram Vs. Jeewan Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN391
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution by one Ganga Ram whose election to the office of Sarpanch was set aside by the Tribunal as a result of recount on the petition of two voters Jeevan Ram and Bhaguram.2. According to the counting made by the Returning Officer Ganga Ram polled 431 votes and Baluram polled 429 votes. It is not disputed that on account of a very narrow magin between the votes polled by the two respective candidates the Returning Officer scrutinised and counted the votes four times before declaring the result.3. In the election petition all that was alleged by the petitioners was that the counting was not proper. No particulars were at all given. Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules. 1960 lays down that the petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies.4. An objection was taken on behalf of Ganga Ram on the strength of various decisions of this Court an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›