Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1971Raj247; 1970(3)WLN550
Beri, J. 1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, directed against the rejection in limine of a civil writ petition by a learned single Judge of this Court In a matter relating to the declaration of the petitioner as a tout under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879.2. The petitioner is a citizen of India and claimed to be employed as a clerk to an Advocate at Jodhpur. Mr. O. C. Chatterji, Advocate and 14 others made an application to the District Judge, Jodhpur, that some 8 named persons be declared as touts. The petitioner was not included in that list. The learned District Judge acting under Section 36(2A) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 asked the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, to inquire into the matter and report. During the pendency of this inquiry the allegations against the 8 persons named by Mr. Chatterji received the consideration of the Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, Jodhpur. The Association appointed a Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1972Raj6
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a decree-holder's second appeal arising out of an application filed under Order 21, Rule 50 (2) Civil P. C. for grant of leave to cause the decree to be executed against Phoolchand, one of the partners of the judgment-debtor-Firm Jiwanlal Kailashchand.2. The appellant Firm Motilal Lalchand obtained an ex parte decree for Rs. 2,899/- on 4-2-1950 from the Court of Sub-Judge. First Class. Ajmer against the firm M/s. Jiwanlal Kaiiash-chand. On 10-4-1950 Phool Chand, Jiwanlal and Kailashchand partners of the defendants' firm Jiwanlal Kailashchand applied for setting aside the ex parte decree but this application was dismissed on 17-10-1952. The order dismissing the application was upheld right upto the Court of Judicial Commissioner. Ajmer by the latter's order dated 28-1-1954. On 29-6-1954 the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree to the Court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Ajmer praying that the decree be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Muzaffarn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1971CriLJ1405; 1970(3)WLN556
ORDERP.N. Shinghal, J.1. This a reference by Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, dated April 30, 1970, for quashing the order of Special Magistrate, Jaipur, dated April 6, 1970. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to state some of the facts bearing on it.2. One Dilip Singh is alleged to have been beaten in room No. 42 of Vivekanand Hostel, in Jaipur, on February 3. 1970, at about 2.30 p.m. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged the same day at Police Station Gandhinagar, and a case was registered for offences Under Sections 307 and 452 read with Section 149, and Section 148, IPC The room was inspected by the Investigating Officer on February 4, 1970, in the presence of 'motbirs', and some hair were found on and under the bed of Dilip Singh and on the wall. They were taken in police custody under a memorandum (B/76) for purposes of comparison. Dilip Singh succumbed to his injuries on February 14, 1970. The investigation of the case was then made over to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970(3)WLN619
ORDERKan Singh, J.1. These are two matters one is a revision application by one Vala against an order of the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh, calling upon Vala Under Section 552, Criminal Procedure Code to produce his daughter-in-law one Suit. Homli; the other is an application Under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code by Smt. Homli herself praying that the proceedings before the learned District Magistrate be quashed.2. Vala had two sons Vagta and Mathura. Smt. Homli was married with Vagta some 10 years before the filing of the application by the father of the girl with the Distriot Magistrate for securing her release. Vagta expired Borne four ye are back. One Babru made an application on 1.7-70 before the learned Magistrate that after Smt. Homli had become a widow she had been given in 'Nata' to him. Aooording to him, on 14-6-70 after her 'Nata' with the petitioner Babru she was proceeding to the village of the petitioner. On the way the petitioner was surprised by some 12 person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN548
Chandra Bhan Bhargava, J.1. These six appeals under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Land Acquistion Act, 1963, raise a common question of law and fact and hence they are being disposed of by one judgment.2. A piece of agricultural land situated in village Sogaria, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, was acquired for the construction of a wagon repair workshop and the staff colony for Western Railway. The land stood entered in the revenue records in the muafi of one Purohit Krishna Dutt and the appellants were its actual cultivators, paying its rent to the muafidar. Krishna Dutt as also the appellants claimed compensation due to the acquisition of the land. An award was given on 6th September, by the Additional Collector Kota by which he rejected the claim of the muafidar as well as of the appellants for compensation. A reference was then made to the court and the learned District Judge by his order dated 6th September 1961 holding that the reference was premature directed the Additional Collect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1971Raj258
ORDERP.N. Shinghal, J. 1. In connection with the petition which has been filed by the three petitioners for the winding up of the Kota Straw Board (Private) Limited, Kota hereinafter called 'the respondent Company', an application has been made by the respondent Company under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the proceedings. The question for decision therefore is whether that application should be allowed? 2. It will be sufficient to state, for purposes of the present controversy, that the petition for winding up has been made with the allegation that the respondent Company is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Clause (e) of Section 433 of the Companies Act and that it is just and equitable that it should be wound up under Clause (f) of that section. In substance, the petitioners have alleged that the Company should be deemed to be unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. The respondent Company has, in its turn, made ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN572
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. In connection with the petition which has been filed by the three potitioners for the winding up of the Kota Straw Board (Private) Limited, Kota, hereinafter called 'the respondent Company', an application has been made by the respondent Company under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the proceedings. The question for decision therefore is whether that application should be allowed2. It will be sufficient to state, for purposes of the present controversy, that the petition for winding up has been made with the allegation that the respondent Company is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of clause (e) of Section 433 of the Companies Act and that it is just and equitable that it should be wound up under clause (f) of that section. In substance, the petitioners have alleged that the Comapny should be deemed to be unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. The respondent Company has, in its turn, made the afo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN650
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a revision application by one Vaney Singh against the appellate judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, partly allowing the petitioner's appeal against his conviction under Sections 353 and 448 Indian Penal' Code, and the sentence of six months and three months rigorous imprisonment respectively on these counts by the Mnsif Magistrate, Sirohi. While the learned Aditionial Sessions judge maintained the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 315 Indian Penal Code as also the sentence of six months rigorous imbrisonment, be set aside the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 443 Indian Penal Code.2. P.W. 2 Jaideo Singh Patwari of Sirohi was doing his office work in the Ratwar Khana' on 14-8-67; At about 6.00 p.m. the, accused eame to the Patwar Khana and asked Jaideo Singh to allot him some land. Jaideo Singh explained to him that he was not competent to make any allotment of land. This annoyed the accused who then assa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN671
B.P. Beri, J.1. By this judgement dated the 13th April, 1968, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur has convicted Vijai Bahadur, Editor of 'Bedharak', for the murder of Surajbhan, Editor of 'Lal Nishan', and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment for life and further to two years rigorous imprisonment for possesssing an unlicensed revolver. Aggrieved by that judgment. Vijai Bahadur appeals and the State prays for the enhancement of his sentence of life imprisonment to one of death.2. In the town of Bharatpur two news papers 'Lal Nishan' and 'Bedharak' were edited by Surajbhan and Vijai Bahadur respectively. The relations between these editors were clearly inimical and through the medium of these papers they expressed their deep hostility against one another in unmistakable, if also in equally unedifying, language.3. On 25-4-1966 between 8-30 and 9 P. M. Surajbhan was walking in Loha Bazar, Bharatpur, and when he was near the shop of Kishanlal, he was riddled with six revolver...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN744
L.S. Mehta, J.1. Accused Shanker Pandit has been convicted under Section 302, I. P. C, for murdering his wife Mst. Ram Bai, aged 16 years, and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, on February 27, 1968. The accused appeals against that judgment to this Court.2. The material facts of the case, as alleged by the prosecution, are that the accused Shanker Pandit worked as ayce in 61, Cavalry, C squadron, Jaipur. He was residing in quarter No. 9, located in the family lines of the above Cavalry. As a groom, it was his duty to take care of the Cavalry horses and to keep ready a horse for the use of his officer Dafedar Abdul Gafoor P.W. 4. In the morning of September 19, 1967, the said Dafedar went to the stable where he did not find his horse ready to take for a ride. On his inquiry, Shanker Pandit candidly told him that he had killed his wife as he had suspected that she had been in liason with some other person. Abdul Gafoor, having been so informed...
Tag this Judgment!