Rajasthan Court January 1970 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.
Tikam Chand Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN52
Kan Singh, J. 1. I have before me 10 writ petitions which arise out of or pertain to a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur dated 8th to 11th May, 1967, granting permits one each to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in writ petition No. 364 of 1967, that is, Tikamchand v. Regional Transport Authority and others. It appears that there were a number of applications pending before the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur for grant of permit over the route Udaipur-Kota via Fatehnagar, Kapasani Chittorgarh, Begun, Mandalgarh, Bijolia Neleshwar, Dabi. Petitioner Tikamchand was also an applicant for grant of a permit over this route. He has approached this Court challenging this resolution inter alia on the ground that his application was not simultaneously considered and disposed of along with the applications of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to whom the Regional Transport Authority granted the permits. Petitioner Gopal Das in writ petition No 542 of 1967, who was an existing operator on...
Nandlal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN90
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The plaintiff Nandlal filed a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur, in forma pauperis against (1) The State of Rajasthan, (2) Shri Jainarain Vyas, its Ex-Chief Minister, and its two other Ex-Ministers (3) Shri Tikaram Paliwal and (4) Shri Ram Karan Joshi, for the recovery of Rs. 1.25;000/-, as general damages and Rs. 500/-, as special damages for malicious prosecution.2. The material facts of the plaintiff's case are that he was appointed as an Adviser to the former State of Rajasthan, with its capital at Udaipur, in August 1948, on an honorarium of Rs. 1200/- p.m., and an allowance of Rs. 30/-, per diem. The plaintiff prepared several schemes for the development of agriculture, forest, industries, secondary education etc. His plan for the advancement of agriculture was approved by the then Government and steps were taken for its implementation. As his varied activities made him popular, some high officers of the State having become jealous wanted to get ri...
Hari NaraIn Natani Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Raj200; 1970(3)WLN48
Jagat Narayan, C.J. 1. These two special appeals against a judgment of a learned Single Judge can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment. 2. The Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, formed a route called Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route consisting of numerous routes in 1955 and granted 56 permits on this route. Some of the unsuccessful applicants filed appeals and the Transport Appellate Tribunal granted 6 more permits on this route in 1956. There were thus 62 permits' on this route. Seven of the permit-holders ceased to ply their vehicles on this route and since the year 1962 or near about only 55 buses had been running on it. 3. On 21-1-1965 the Regional Transport Authority published a general notification (Annexure 2) expressing an intention to increase the limit of permits on allroutes within the Jaipur Region and invited objections. The operators of the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route filed objections. But no decision was taken on these objections and the limit was not revised ...
Jiwan and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Raj243; 1970CriLJ1558; 1970(3)WLN449
ORDERS.N. Modi, J.1. This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by convict Lalia,, Jagan Nath and Jiwan praying that the sentences imposed upon them in the three cases be ordered to run concurrently. In Sessions case No. 55 of 1964 decided on 27-11-65 the petitioners have been convicted under Section 396 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. In Criminal case No. 18/897 of 1966 decided on 23-9-66, they have been convicted under Sections 224, 332 and 379 IPC by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alwar and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment under each count for one year, six months and six months respectively. All the three sentences have been made to run concurrently. In Criminal Case No. 18/230 of 1965 decided on 3-2-68, the petitioners have been convicted under Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act by the First Class Magistrate Rajgar...
Ram Dayal and ors. Vs. Smt. Kisturi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Raj246; 1970(3)WLN83
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This civil execution appeal raises an interesting and a ticklish question. Though Sections 37, 38, 39 and 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been discussed in so many decisions, learned counsel for the parties have not been able to bring to my notice any decision which is directly applicable to the facts of the present case.2. The appellants-decree-holders, instituted a suit for recovery of money in the Court of Munsif, Shahpura, within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arose and the defendants had their residence. It seems that because of the heavy work on the file of the Munsif, Shahpura, this suit was transferred for disposal by Order No. 1528 dated 26-7-1955 (see Order-sheet dated 8-8-1955 --Civil Suit No. 290 of 1954) of the District Judge, Jaipur District to the Court of Munsif at Kotputli where a decree was passed in favour of the appellants on 5th January, 1956. The appellants straightway levied execution in the Court of Munsif, Shahpura, praying f...
Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj226; 1970(3)WLN45
Jagat Naeayan, C.J.1. This is a special appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge allowing a writ petition filed by Shyam. Sunder Azad respondent and cancelling the permit granted to Smt. Shakuntla Devi appellant by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting dated 6-3-1969.2. On 22-2-1967 the appellant applied for a permit on Bharatpur-Govindgarh direct route, which was a new route, the scope of which had not been fixed under Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The application was published in the Gazette dated 6-44967 and objections were invited within 30 days. It was published again on 13-7-1967 by mistake and objections were again invited. Shyam Sunder alleges that he filed an objection when the application was published for the second time in the Gazette dated 13-7-1967. He has filed an uncertified copy of that objection as it is not to be found on the record of the Regional Transport Authority. Shyam Sunder's ...
Gyarsilal Vs. Firm Ramgopal Radheysham
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN43
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal by Gyarsilal one of the Judgment-debtors, is directed against the order dated 18th April, 1986, of the District Judge Partabgarh.2. Firm Ramgopal Radheshyam obtained a decree for Rs. 10027/2/9 against the appellant from the court of Senior Civil Judge, Kishengarh on 31st July, 1952. The decree-holder got the decree transferred for execution to the court of District Judge, Partabgarh. When the decree-holder took out execution proceedings, the appellant raised two objections, namely, (1) that there had been an adjustment of the decree due to which it had become inexecutable and (2) that it was barred by limitation. These objections were disposed of by the learned District Judge Partabgarh on 9th July, 1930, in execution case No. 43 of 1958. Judgment-debtor's appeal against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 6th August, 1962, in D.B. Civil Execution First Appeal No. 29 of 1960. The decree-holder took out fresh execut...
NasirudIn Vs. Noor Mohammad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN190
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration and possession.2. A preliminary objection has been raised against the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that all the legal representatives of the deceased appellant Abdulla have not been brought on the record, and, therefore, the whole of the appeal abates.3. For the decision of the preliminary point also it is necessary to narrate the facts in brief giving rite to the appeal.4. Alibux, Khudabux, Nabibux and Hassainbux purchased a piece of land measuring 14 yds x 15'9 Girah by a sale deed Ex. 2, dated 7-2-1893 Nabibux died leaving behind three sons Mohammad Bux, Mahboob and Peerbux. Khudabux also died leaving behind three sons Molabux, Kalia and Alladir. Molabux died issueless. Kaliya died leaving behind 2 sons and one daughter. They are Abdulla (Defendant No. 1) Munir (defendant No. 2) and Mst. Muniran (defendant No. 3). Alladin died leaving behind one son Noor Mohammed, who is the pla...
Mool Chand Vs. Manak Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN203
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff Moolchand whose suit has been dismissed by the District Judge, Ajmer on the ground that it is not maintainable under the provisions of the Arbitration Act no 10 of 1940.2. The facts of the case may be stated within a short compass. The respondent Manakchand obtained a decree for Rs. 8000/- against the appellant Moolchand from the Court of Sub Judge, First Class, Beawar on 10-5-1954 on the basis of an award dated 26-4-1254, The decree was subsequently amended on 30-12-1254. The present suit was filed by Moolchand on 9-5-1955 for setting aside the decree dated 30-12-1954 as being fraudelent, null and void. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff Moolchand had neither executed any arbitration agreement in favour of the alleged arbitrator Shri Jagdish Prasad nor theere had been any valid award against him. He stated that he was a servant of the defendant at his shop on a monthly salary of Rs. 35/- and had not borrowed any mo...
Roop Chand Basu Deo and ors. Vs. Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj119; 1970(3)WLN62
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. These are 19 connected special appeals arising out of judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing their petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal summarily.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of these appeals are that applications for grant of permits on a new directroute from Jaipur to Khetri Copper Mines (Singhana Copper Project route) were made and the existing operators of the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route also applied for extension of their route by including the direct route Jaipur-Khetri Copper Mines in their permits. These applications were considered by the Regional Transport Authority simultaneously at its meeting held on 22nd/23rd December, 1967. The applications of the existing operators of the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route for extension of their route were rejected and 18 fresh permits were granted to 18 applicants on Jaipur-Khetri Copper Mines direct route which was opene...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »