Rajasthan Court May 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.
Rameswar Prasad Vyas Vs. Director, Primary and Secondary Education and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN488
Kan Singh, J.1. The two special appeals against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court have been land before me as Vacat on Judge for admission. They raise the question about the powers of the Vacation Judge to entertain an appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge.2. Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949, which makes provision for appeals against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court runs as follows:Section 18. Appeal to the High Court from Judges of the Court.--(1) An appeal shall lie to the High court, from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and not being a sentence or or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under Section 43 or in the exercise of the crimin...
Rameshwar Prasad Vyas and anr. Vs. Director, Primary and Secondary Edu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj75
Kan Singh, J. 1. The two special appeals against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court have been laid before me as Vacation Judge for admission. They raise the question about the powers of the Vacation Judge to entertain an appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge.2. Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, which makes provision for appeals against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court runs as follows:--'Sec. 18. Appeal to the High Court from Judges of the Court.--(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court, from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under Section 43 or in the exercise of crimina...
Bodilal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN343
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by one Bodiial against a judgment of the learned Special Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, convicting Bodilal for offences under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. For the first count Bodilal was awarded a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default six months further rigorous imprisonment and for the second count he was awarded one year's rigorous imprisonment. Both the substontive sentances were ordered to run concurrently.2. The gravamen of the charge against Bodilal was that while he was a Patwari at village Dewan, district Jaipur he fraudulently prepared false counter-foils in respect of various amounts received from the cultivator between January 1961 to June 1961 and misappropriated a total amount of Rs. 227.70. On 4-7-63, P. W. 25 Sualal lodged information with the Inspector General, Anti Corruption Department that Bodilal ...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1970
Reported in: [1970]26STC169(Raj); 1970(3)WLN478
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. These are connected references by M/s. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. relating to the assessments for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 on inter-State sales which are governed by the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which came into force in Rajasthan with effect from 1st July, 1957.2. In both these cases the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) Commercial Taxes discovered that sales tax had been charged at the rate of 1 per cent. instead of being charged at the rate of 2 per cent. on certain inter-State sales. He accordingly directed the Sales Tax Officer to reassess the dealer under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, The Sales Tax Officer issued notices to the dealer in respect of both the years and the dealer filed revision applications to the Board of Revenue under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The Board of Revenue allowed the revision applications. The State then filed two applications before the Board of Revenue under Section 15(1) f...
Nasirabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Gyanchand JaIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN248
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal by the Nasirabad Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nasirabad against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, dated 30th April, 1962, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration that the mortgage award and decree is not binding on the plaintiff and the joint family property and restraining the appellant from getting the properties sanctioned in execution of the award as a mortgage decree.2. One Parasdas resident of Nasirabad died in May, 1911, leaving behind his widow Smt. Magnabai and two sons Seerchahand and Gyanchand. They all constituted a joint Hindu family and belonged in Ajmer-Merwara and are subject to the Mitakshara Law. On the 9th May, 1952. Smt. Magna Bai mortgaged one bungalow and ice-factory, which was the joint family property which had come to the share of Parasdas on partition between him and his brother, with the appellant Bank as security against over-drafts on the Bank to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. On a dispute h...
Poonam Chand Joshi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj12; 1970(3)WLN326
P.N. Singhal, J. 1. These three writ petitions arise out of facts which are quite similar. They have been argued together by the learned counsel for the parties and I shall dispose them of by this judgment as suggested by them.2. All the three petitioners were confirmed employees of the Union of India (respondent No. 1) serving in the Northern Railway. They were going on 55, when they were served by three separate orders each of which has been marked Ex. 1, giving, inter alia three months' notice of their retirement. The orders were issued by the Divisional Personnel Officer with the approval of Divisional Superintendent, Jodhpur. They were issued on different dates. In the case of Poonamchand, order, Ex, 1 was issued on September 4, 1968, retiring him finally from December 15, 1968. It is not disputed that the order was served on him on October 1, 1969 (1968 ?). There is, however, no dispute about the inadequacy of the notices given to Pukhraj and Kanwar Singh, so that it is not neces...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jairam Das
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Raj38
C.M. Lodha, J.1. All these appeals by the defendant State of Rajasthan involve a common question of law, and can be conveniently disposed of by a single Judgment.2. It appears that the respondent-plaintiff in all these cases gave highest bid in the auction held on different dates in respect of different areas for royalty collection contract in respect of building stone for the period commencing from 1-4-1958 to 31-3-1959 as provided in the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955, which were then in vogue, no bid was to be regarded as accepted unless confirmed by the Government. The plaintiff's complaint is that they deposited 25% of the amount of bid for one year on completion of the auction as provided in Rule 37 of the aforesaid Rules (which for the sake of brevity called 'the Rules' hereinafter). But the acceptance of the Government was not conveyed to the plaintiff till 3-6-1958 by which time two months of the period of contract had already expired. It was alleged that on th...
Nathu and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN361
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The deceased Ramdeen and the accused Nathu and others were closely related to one another. Ramdeen was the younger brother of the accused Nathu. The accused Bhagirath is Ramdeen's brother's son. Narain and Nanura, are nephews of Ramdeen. The accused Goda is the brother of Ramdeen and so also Sewa.2. There was a dispute between Ramdeen and the accused Nathu and others in respect of a 'Dhora' (water channel). Both the parties had their agricultural land on the well, known as 'Navora'. The land had been partitioned some time before the occurrence. Ramdeen got some land, attached to the 'Navora' well, as his share. He has sunk another well, which was known as 'Ram Sagar'. He wanted to irrigate his land on the 'Navora' well by drawing water from 'Ram Sagar' well and for that purpose he had raised a 'Dhora' (water channel) passing through the land of the accused. This gave rise to serious controversy between Ramdeen and the accused persons. Ramdeen and his 'Siri' (partner) H...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jairam Das and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN482
C.M. Lodha, J.1. All these appeals by the defendant State of Rajasthan involve a common question of law, and can be conveinently disposed of by a Single Judgment.2. It appears that the respondent-plaintiff in all these cases gave highest bid in the auction held on different dates in respect of different areas for royalty collection contract in respect of building stone for the period commencing from 1.4.1958 to 31.3.1959. As provided in the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 1955 which were then in vogue no bid was to be regarded as accepted unless confirmed by the Government. The plaintiff's complaint is that they deposited 25% of the amount of bid for one year on completion of the auction as provided in Rule 37 of the aforesaid Rules (which for the sake of brevity called 'the Rules' hereinafter). But the acceptance of the Government, was not conveyed to the plaintiff till 3.6.1958 by which time two months of the period of contract had already expired. It was alleged that on th...
Nathuram Vs. Firm Bhonreylal Hiralal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN254
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant against whom a decree for ejectment was passed by the Munsiff, Alwar and on appeal by the defendant the same are upheld by the District Judge, Alwar.2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Firm Bhonreylai Hiralal, Kedalganj, Alwar and its partners respondent No. 2 to 6 filed the suit in the Court of Munsiff, Alwar on 10-2-62 alleging that the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 constitute a joint Hindu family and carry on business under the name and style: Firm Bhonrey lal Hiralal, which was also registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It was alleged that one Thakur Shivelal Singh, Muafidar of Thikana Burja sold a place of land measuring 370,10 'x'3' situated in the city of Alwar to the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed dated 22-7-1956 for a conit sideration of Rs. 3000/-, and that the defendant was occupying a portion of this land measuring .27' x 33' as a tenant of the vendor Shivelal Singh for which the rent settled was Rs. 2/8/- per m...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »