Rajasthan Court April 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.
Badarmal and ors. Vs. Roshanlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj18; 1971CriLJ239; 1970(3)WLN380
ORDERKan Singh, J. 1. The Revision applications before me raise a short question though, by no means, an easy one about the mode of proceeding where the Magistrate does not accept the final report made by the police under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code and takes cognizance of the offence by not agreeing to the final report.2. On 9-7-67, one Roshanlal lodged information with the police station Doongla against the 8 accused petitioners alleging that they had committed an offence of rioting. On this report the police registered a case against all the accused for the offence under Section 147 Criminal Procedure Code and investigated the matter. On 15-1-68 the police submitted a final report in the case to the Munsif Magistrate, Doongla, under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code to the effect that there was no case for putting up a challan. Roshanlal then filed a protest petition. On consideration of the facts found in the final report and after hearing the prosecuting Sub-Inspector an...
Malu Ram and ors. Vs. Sri Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN233
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The facts giving rise to this second appeal by the defendants may be stated within a narrow compass.2. There is a plot No 333 situated within the precints of village Maniwal, Tehsil Hanumangarh, District Ganganagar. It appears that the plaintiff Sri Ram as well as the defendant Maluram and his sons Manphool and Raja Ram, who are the appellants were aspirants of purchasing the whole of this plot, and, therefore, both the plaintiff as well as the defendants applied to the Gram Panchayat, Maniwali for sale of the plot in their favour. The Gram Panchayat, Maniwali by its order dated 15-8-1958 directed that half of the plot be sold to the plaintiff-respondent Sri Ram and the other half may be sold to the appellants. It is, however, interesting to note that the portions of the plot sold half to half to the plaintiff and the defendants were not specified. The plaintiff Sri Ram was content with the sale of half the plot to him, but Maluram was not satisfied as he wanted the wh...
Bhagwat Singhji Vs. Kesar Singhji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Raj281; 1970CriLJ1561
ORDERKan Singh, J.1. The revision before me raises the question whether the former ruler of an Indian State is exempt from personal appearance as a complainant in a criminal case instituted by him on the basis of his so-called personal privileges saved by or arising from the covenant resulting in the integration of the Indian State of which the complainant was the ex-Ruler with the Union of States. For appreciating the point the relevant facts may shortly be stated as follows:--2. The petitioner His Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji lodged a complaint against Shri Kesarsingh, the opposite party for an offence under Section 500 Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Munsiff Magistrate, First Class, Udaipur. The complaint was filed by His Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji himself. Shri Kesarsingh was an employee of his Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji. The statement of His Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code was recorded by the...
Hariram Nathani Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Pr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN275
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This writ application filed by Hariram Nathani under Article 326 of the Constitution arises out of the following circumstances.2. Petitioner's father Rai Bahadur Rameshwar Nathanl has a partner in the firm known as Messers. Duduwala & Company which used to carry on the mining operations of mica in nine different areas leased out to it in the district of Bhilwara Petitioner's father died on 18th January, 1957 and with his death the partnership came to an and. The surviving partner Ram Kumar Agarwal then filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court for the dissolution of partnership. That suit ended in a compromise and according to the compromise decree joint receivers and managers of the business of the firm Messers Duduwala & Company were appointed. In Clause (7) of the said decree it was provided that the joint receivers shall divide the present mining fields into five equal blocks and Ram Kumar Agerwal will have the first option to choose one of the blocks for himself and...
Mohan Lal Daga Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN215
Jagat Narain, C.J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Mohanlal Daga in which the constitutionality of Section 104 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, has been challenged. The petition has been referred for decision by a learned Single Judge to the Division Bench. Section 104 runs as follows:104. Obligatory taxes--Every Board shall levy, at such rate and from such date as the State Government may in each case direct by notification in the official Gaeztte and in such manner as is laid down in this Act and as may be provided in the rules made by the State Government in this behalf, the following taxes, namely:(1) a tax on the annual letting value of buildings or lands or both, situated within the municipality:(2) an octroi on goods and animals brought within the limits of the municipality for consumption, use or sale therein; and(3) a tax on professions and vocations: provided that--(a) the tax under clause (i) shall not be levied--(i) ...
Noor Mohammed Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN240
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Noor Mohammed challenging the validity of a notification No. Tr. C T.A./69/31743, dated 27-1-1969, issued by the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Annexure 7).2. The petitioner submitted an application to the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, for the grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on Jaipur-Rohak route. The application was published in the official gazette dated May 2, 1968 and objections were invited within 30 days. No objection was filed by anyone against the application. The matter came up for consideration in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, held on May 3, 1969. Besides the applicant, the State Road Transport Corporation (herein after to be referred as the Corporation) and 2 other persons had applied for the grant of the permit on this route. These 2 other persons were absent. Only the petitioner and the General Manager of the Corporatio...
Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN603
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The charge against the accused Mohanlal was that he murdered a woman named Mst. Goran and thereby committed an offence under Section 302, IPC. The other charge against him was that he committed trespass in order to the committing of an offence punishable with death and thereby committed an offence under Section 449 IPC. The third accusation against him was that he committed theft in the house of Mst. Goran and thereby committed crime falling under Section 380, IPC. The accused was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, and was found guilty of the indictments under the above sections of the Penal Code and sentenced as follows: (1) for offence Under Section 302, IPC. Life imprisonment. (2) for offence Under Section 449, IPC. 8 years' rigorous imprisonment. (3) for offence Under Section 380, IPC. 7 years' rigorous imprisonment.All the sentences so awarded were directed to run concurrently. The accused Mohanlal felt aggrieved by the above verdict and filed the prese...
Keshri Lal Vs. Shiv Dutt
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN243
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction.2 The houses of the parties are situated in a blind alley in the town of Baran. The width of the lane where it meets the main road is said to be 10'-8'. As one proceeds inside the lane for after about 13' the width of the lane is reduced on account of there being a 'Chabutri' in front of the defendant's house. The plaintiff's house is situated almost at the end of the lane. The plaintiff's case is that he had purchased this house from the defendant's maternal grand-father Gendilal in 1950 A D. and reconstructed ' it in 1951. It is alleged that the lane is being used for carrying a bullock cart to the plaintiff's house for the last more than 30 years. But the defendant some time in the month of Posh Samvat 2014, placed two stone-pillars one adjacent to the corner the 'Chabutri' of his house and the other just opposite to it with the result that the widh of the lane at that point was reduced to 5'. ...
Baboolal and ors. Vs. the Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 1 and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN238
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Babulal and ten other persons have challenged their conviction under Sections 352, 504, 447 and 426 Indian Penal Code ordered by the Nyaya Panchayat, Semore by filing this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, on the ground that the Nyaya Panchayat had no jurisdiction to try the petitioners and, therefore, their conviction is bad.2. Respondent No. 3 Raghveer Singh was allotted land bearing Khasra No. 1.85/1.2 under the Rajasthan Land Allotment Rules and that land was cultivated by him. It is alleged that the petitioners did not like this allotment. On 13th of August, 1966, when the complainant-respondent No. 3 went to watch his crop on the field, he found all the eleven accused petitioners grazing cattle under his field. They were all armed with Lathis When the complainant-respondent reached his field he was informed by the accused petitioners that they would not permit him to cultivate the land. It is said that the petitioners then all st...
Thakurji Shriji Laxmanji and ors. Vs. Shyama Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN473
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal against rejection of his plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. as the plaint was insuffioientlo stamped.2. Plaintiff Thakurji Shriji Laxmanji's devotees Radbey Shyam and other instituted the present suit for a neclaration that the sale-deed dated 16.5.35 in regard to the suit property is ineffectual against the plaintiff and for recovery of its possession. It is alleged that defendants Nos.3 and 4 were the trustees of the temple and the wrongfully alienatad the suit properties in favour of Shrimati Chand Bai through her guardian Ramgopal Agrawal. However Smt. Chandbai was not impleaded as a party to the suit and it is not clear from the plaint why defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were abded as defendants. The suit was valued at Rs. 12000/--for the purpose of jurisdiction but a fixed court-fee of Rs. 10/--was paid on the ground that the plaintiff was not personally interested in the suit property and it could not be valued. On behalf of the defendan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »