Rajasthan Court February 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.
Jaisaram Vs. Sohandas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN209
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The point in controversy in these two appeals by the defendant-tenants are exactly identical. The landlord plaintiff respondent is the same in both the cases though the tenants are different. In the circumstances it would be convenient to dispose of both these appeals by a single judgment.2. The plaintiff-respondent Sohandas purchased two shops from one Ballabhdas on 25 10 1961 for a sum of Rs 16999/-, One of these shops was occupied by the tenant Jaissaram and the other shop was occupied by tenant Anandilal. After having purchased both these shops, the plaintiff served notices of ejectment on each of the two tenants and called upon them to vacate the shops on the ground that the same were required for reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiff, who wanted to run a book stall and stationery mart in these shops. The suit against Jaissaram was instituted on 31-1-1962 and was registered as suit No. 85/1962, and the suit against Anandilal was instituted af...
Dr. Gopal Krishna Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN302
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Dr. Gopal Krishna who has prayed for a writ, direction or order against the State of Rajasthan directing the State Government to appoint the petitioner as a Joint Director of Education and to restrain the present incumbents of the post of Joint Director form functioning as such and also for issuing a direction to the state Government to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of the case of the petitioner for the post of a Joint Director of Education. In the alternative, the petitioner prays for declaring the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1960 invalid on the ground that the post which the petitioner was holding prior to this being declared as surplus was not included in the Educational Service. The relevant facts may be recounted as follows.2. The petitioner passed his Master's degree in Political Science in 1940. He obtained his Bachelor's Degree in Education in 1945 and...
Nathi and ors. Vs. Hanuman and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN154
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The plaintiffs Mst. Nathi and Mst Gaini and the defendant No. 1 Mst. Sebu, who, is now dead and is represented by her husband No. 1 and her son respondent No.2 were the three daughters of one Dhanna Jat. who is said to have died in Section 1969 equivalent to 1939 A.D., leaving behind the widow Mst. Heera and three daughters. Mst Heera died in Dec.1957 and after her death the plaintiff-appellants filed the present suit on 7-3-1960 for declaration that each of the three daughters of Dhanna is entitled to 1/3rd share in the property of Dhanna. It was also prayed that a perpetual injunction be issued against the defendants viz defendant No. 1 Mst Sebu and her son defendant No. 2 Birbal not to interfere in the share of the plaintiffs.2. The defendants resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that Mst. Heera had bequeathed the whole of the property belonging to her in favour of the defendant No. 1 Mst. Sebu and her son Birbal, and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitle...
Bhanwarlal Vs. Mst. Kamla and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Raj239
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising construction in the lane in question which has been marked as 'BG' in the plan Ex. 4, and also for mandatory injunction for demolition of a wall raised by the deceased defendant No. 1 Gokul Narain Sharma in the lane in question on account of which the plaintiff's windows, 'jalies' and spouts opening in the lane in question have been closed down.2. The houses of the plaintiff Bhanwarlal and the defendant No. 1 Shri Gokul Narain Sharma, who died during the pendency of this appeal and is now represented by respondents No. 1/1 to 1/13, at one time belonged to Thakur Kirat Singh of Bagru (defendant No. 2), who too died during the pendency of the suit and is now represented by his widow Mst. Mohan Kanwar respondent No. 2 in this appeal. The deceased Gokul Narain Sharma was an Advocate and on account of the professional services rendered by him to Thakur...
Bhanwarlal Vs. Kamla and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN119
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising construction in the lane in question which has been marked as 'BC' in the plan Ex. 4, and also for mandatory injunction for demolition of a wall raised by the deceased defendant No.1 Gokul Narain sharma in the lane in question on account of which the plaintiff's windows, 'jalies' and spouts opening in the lane in question have been closed down.2. The houses of the plaintiff Bhanwarlal, and the defendant No 1 Shri Gokul Narain Sharma, who died during the pendency of this appeal and is now represented by respondents No. 1/1 to 1/13, at one time belonged to Thakur Kirat Singh of Bagru (defendant No. 2). who too died during the pendency of the suit and is now represented by his widow Mst. Mohan Kanwar respondent No. 2 in this appeal. The deceased Gokul Narain Sharma was an Advocate and on account of the professional services rendered by him to Thakur K...
Guljara Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj68; 1971CriLJ498; 1970(3)WLN265
Mehta, J. 1. The prosecution story, In brief, is that on October 12, 1967, at about 8 P. M., when the two brothers Hamendra Singh and Bayant Singh. sons of Jodh Singh, were taking their meals in their house in village 12 F. F., they heard the shouting of the three persons Guljara Singh, Singhara Singh, sons of Kishan Singh, and Mit Singh son of Sohan Singh as also that of Darbara Singh (deceased), son of Kishan Singh. Both Hamendra Singh and Bayant Singh came out of their house and saw the above named persons on the culvert at a distance of about 5 'Paundas'. Guljara Singh and his party men challenged Harnendra Singh and Bayant Singh and asked them to proceed forward. Thereupon Bayant Singh hurled abuses at them. Darbara Singh, Mit Singh and Singhara Singh were empty handed. The accused Guljara Singh was armed with a 12 bore gun. Guljara Singh fired his gun at Bayant Singh hitting him on his hand. He again fired his gun hitting Bayant Singh at his left flank, as a result of which he fe...
Ramdeo and ors. Vs. Firm Birdhichand Sumermal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN133
S.N. Modi, J.1. These two civil regular first appeals arise out of two cross-suits which were consolidated and disposed of together by one common judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City, dated 29th September, 1958.2. Briefly put the facts relevant to the controversy which now remains between the parties, are that Ramdeo and others entered into contracts for the forward purchase of 600 bales of Bardana (gunny bags) of Mah Sudi Poonam delivery (waida) with the firm Messrs. Birdhichand Sumermal on different dates between Posh Badi 10 and Posh Sudi 1, Smt. 2000, at varying rates between Rs. 81/6/- and Rs. 82/8/-. One bale contained 500 bags and the price of 100 bags was quoted as the rate. Messrs. Birdh chand Sumermal did not deliver the bags to Ramdeo and: others who filed a suit on 4-4-1947 (subsequently registered as suit No. 45 of 1952) against the firm Messrs. Birdhichand Sumermal and its partners Gambhirmal and Tikamchand. It was alleged in para three of the plaint, a...
Girdhari Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN72
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. These two writ petitions have been referred by a learned Single Judge because he was of the opinion that the decision of another learned Single Judge in Harischander v. Regional Transport Authority requires reconsideration.2. The relevant facts are these. The petitioner is one out of 17 existing operators on the Bikaner Duagargagh-Sardarshahar route. Formerly there was no road between Dungargarh and Ratangarh. A new road was later on constructed and applications were filed by different persons for grant of permits over Bikaner-Dungargarh-Ratangarh route and over Bikaner-Dungargarh-Ratangarh-Churu route. These applications were published in the Gazette from time to time, and a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority was convened on 25-6-1969 to consider them. Neither the petitioner nor any other person filed any objection against the grant of permits on these routes to the applicants in accordance with the provisions of Section 57(3). On the date of hearing the...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhagwan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN146
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The prosecution story, as accepted by the trial court, in brief, is that there was a labour Union of the workers of the Sadul Textile Mills Ganganagar. Accused Bala Prasad was its Propoganda Secretary. He was also working in the Mills. On October 6, 1965, he for some reason or other was removed from his job by the Mill-Management. This led to a labour strike. It commenced from October 11 and lasted till October 18, 1965. The Mills worked in 3 shifts of 8 hours each. The first shift started at 7 a.m. the second at 3 p. m , and the third one at 11 p.m. Workers Mahendra Shingh, P.W. 1, and Jai Kishan, P.W 3, did not join the strike. Mahendra Shingh worked in the shift, which began at 7 a. m. His brother Shital Singh and Jaikishan, P. W. 3, joined, the shift, starting at 11 p.m. On October 13, 1965 Jai Kishan went to Shital Shing's quarters at about 9 p. m. He took, as usual some rest there. At about 10.30 p. m., Jai Kishan and Shetal came out of the quarters and proceeded...
M.S. Kachwaha Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN108
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is an application for review of a part of the judgment of this Court dated May 4, 1965 in civil writ petitions No. 1747, 1751 and 1681 of 1964, which related to the promotion of Assistant Engineers of the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) to temporary post of Executive Engineers on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee appointed under Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Service of Engineers Building and Roads Branch) Rules, 1954. The applicant Shri M.S. Kachwaha was impleaded as a respondent in the writ petitions, but he did not put in appearance in them.2. The proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee were first challenged before us in D. B Civil writ petition No. 1217 of 1964 (H.P. Kuchal v. State of Rajasthan and others decided on 12-10-1964). It was held by this Court that the cases of the petitioners in that writ petition did not receive a fair and proper consideration at the hands of the Departmental Promotion Com...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »