Rajasthan Court January 1971 Judgments
Tillu Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN74
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The appellants Tillumal and Asandas have been convicted by the Additional Session Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, for offence under S 302, I.P.C., and each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused Tillumal and the approver Sajan became partners in the business of illicit liquor. Saroopa (deceased) was a taxi-driver. Sajan and Tillumal gave him Rs. 50/- per trip in addition to the fare of conveyance by which he brought illicit liquor from outside. The accused Asandas of Ajmer was another taxidriver. He also used to supply Tillumal and Sajan with illicit liquor through his taxi. On the advice of the accused Tillumal Sajan bought an Ambassador car (No. KSL 6598) in the month of February, 1967, in partnership with Saroopa. They gave Rs. 8000/- towards the part payment of its price. The residue was obtained from Prakash Financer. Saroopa, who was in the service of K.B. Singh (P.W. 11), left his job and started dri...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Baijnath Prasad Gulab Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN(UC)5
J.P. Jain, J.1. This is defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by Messrs. Baijnath Prasad Gulabsingh plaintiffs against the State of Raj for recovery of Rs. 82, 809. 48P. The plaintiffs were given a contract for the construction of wasteweir of Guda Irrigation Dam in Bundi District under Agreement No. 72 dated 15.3.54. The work was rock cutting and dumping at the site in stacks within 200 feet distance. The estimated quantity of work was 42, 92, 500 cft. to be paid at the rate of Rs. 70/- per 1000 cft. The plaintiffs were required to carry the spoils beyond a distance of 200 feet. The plaintiffs therefore claimed extra lead Rs. 275 per 100 cft. The Chief Engineer sanctioned the extra lead Rs. 3-per 1000 cft. per chain, as according to him the rate for such an extra lead was not specified in the Schedule of Races. The plaintiff's claim was that they were entitled to Rs. 1, 02, 836 95 and the Public Works Department (Irrigation) allowed them only Rs. 40,650.47 in accordance ...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhoo NaraIn and anr. Vs. Motilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1650; 1971(4)WLN108
L.S. Mehta, J.1. This appeal emerges from the judgment of the learned Municipal Magistrate, Udaipur, acquitting the respondent Motilal Under Section 16, read with Section 7, Prevention of Food Adulteration 'Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the-Act).2. The prosecution story is short and simple. It is alleged that on June 14, 1968, at about 6 a. m. Food inspector Shamboo Narain, P, W. 1, went out on his usual round. He found the accused Motilal' selling milk to the Shiv Nivas hotel-keeper at Bara Bazaar, Udaipur. The accused was having 15 Kgs. of milk and was also in possession of measurement-pots. A notice (Ex, P. 1) in form No. VI was given to the accused.. It bears the signature of the Food Inspector Shambob Narain as also the attestation of Gobind, P.W. 2, Ambalal, P.W. 3, and Hiralal, P.W. 4. After giving the notice the Food Inspector purchased 660 MMs. of milk for 50 Paise. He divided the milk into three parts. Each part was then taken in a bottle. All the three bottles were ...
Tag this Judgment!Birjlal Atmaram Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN(UC)29
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. These five write petition arise out of a common order. Therefore they can be conveniently disposed of by one judgment.2. In all these five cases, the petitioners are businessmen & are carrying on business of sale & purchase of agricultural produce &, therefore according to them, they are very much interested in the formation of the Krishi Upaj mandi Samiti, Hanumangarh hereinafter called the 'Samiti'.3. For the formation of the Samiti at Hanumangarh, the Collector of shri Ganganagar completed the electoral rolls and they were published provisionally on 30th December, 1996 inviting objections from the voters. It is said that the rolls were then finalised by the collector and on the basis of those rolls, the election of the Samiti was held and the result thereof was finally notified on 23rd November, 1967. Then the Samiti started functioning, but the petitioners preferred to challenge the constitution thereof in the year 1969.4. learned Counsel for the petitioners could ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Durga Prasad Garg
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN115
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent Durga Prasad was retired from the post of Sub-Store Keeper, General Stores, Ajmer with effect from 1-4-1958. Thereafter the Controller of Stores, Bombay issued a notice dated May 1958 (Ex. 1) to the plaintiff requiring him to show cause in writing why Rs. 500/- from the plaintiffs special contribution to Provident Fund should not be withheld on account of the plaintiff's gross negligence in discharge of his duty inasmuch as he had relied on a Khalasi to verify that all the keys and seals relating to the wards had been returned and placed in the key-box when closing the department with the result that there was a loss of 243 bearing brasses from the strong room in foundary of C & W Shops, Ajmer. It may be stated here that this loss occurred in April 1953 from which a major joint enquiry was held and a finding of gross negligence was arrived at against the plaintiff by the Committee constituted for holding enquiry into the matter. The report of t...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Rai Ahuja Vs. Rameshwar Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Raj269; 1971(4)WLN13
Jain, J. 1. This first appeal is directed against the decree dated 31st July, 1961 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer in a suit for partition originally instituted by Shrimati Keshar Bai.2. One Badridas Taksali who owned considerable property died in October, 1942. He left behind him his widow Smt. Keshar Bai and two sons Trijokinarain and Surajnarain, sons of his pre-deceased son Shri Motilal. The family was joint and they continued to live jointly. The business of the family in the lifetime of Badridas Taksali was a cloth business and it was carried on in the name and style of Chhogalal Badridas. On 13th of August, 1944 Trijokinarain and Surajnarain created a simple mortgage of two suit havelies and borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from Basantiram, defendant No. 1 on the ground that they needed money for cloth business. A mortgage deed Ex. A. 1 was executed to that effect. The mortgage money was not paid and Basantiram filed a suit against Trijokinarain and Surajnarain and obtaine...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Kishen Vs. J.C. Chatterjee
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN(UC)1
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and mesne profits.2. The plaintiff's case is that be rented cut the premises in question situated at Kala Bagh, Ajmer to the deferent on a monthly rent of Rs. 32/8 and that since he required the premises in the question for his own use he served a notice of ejectment, dated 26-6-1962 en the defendant calling upon the latter to vacate the premises en or before 31-7-1962. The defendant while admitting the tenancy and receipt of notice resisted the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no reasonable and bonafide need for the premises. It was also pleaded that the defendant used to send the monthly rent Rs. 31 50 paisa after deducting the money order charges even though the standard rent had been fixed at Rs. 32/8.3. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal by the defendant the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer by his j...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1768; 1971(4)WLN6
ORDERKan Singh, J.1. This is a revision application by one Mahadeo. He was convicted by the Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur of an offence Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act', and sentenced to one year's-rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. His appeal was partially allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, who maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default three months' simple imprionment.2. The accused is a dealer in food articles in the city of Jodhpur. On 23-2-1966, the Food Inspector, Shri Laxman Singh (P.W. 1) went to the shqp of the accused and took samples of 'Til' oil and 'Sarson' (mustered) oil f on payment, for analysis. He prepared? the Memo and divided the samples in three phials as usual. One phial of each sample was given to the accused,...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Mathura Lal Tara Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1816
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The respondent Mathura Lai has been convicted Under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 125/- by the Munsif Magistrate, Chhoti Sadari. The State of Raiasthan has filed this appeal against that -judgment. The brief facts of this case are that on February 19. 1968. at 8 P.M. Narain P.W. 1 was sitting in the house of Gokul. The accused Mathura Lai came there. He was armed with an axe. He took Gokul with him under the pretext that he would like to discuss something with him. Naravan and Mangi Lai P.W. 2 followed Gokul and the accused Mathura Lai. Gokul was asked to go up to the village temple and when he was climbing the steps, the accused Mathura Lai save an axe blow on the back side of his head. The victim fell down. Mangi Lai and Naravan rushed to the place where Gokul was lv-irig. They lifted him up. They saw on his head, an incurve. which was bleeding. Gokul was taken in the Government dispensary, Chhoti Sadari, to which he was admitted. Later on Narav...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Sahai Vs. Hari Narain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN(UC)3
C.M. Lodha, J.1. A decree for ejectment from a residential house has been passed against the appellant tenant by both the courts below on the ground of default in payment of rent.2. The rent due upto the date of the suit was admittedly deposited under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 but the deposits have not been held to be in accordance with law inasmuch as the defendant failed to prove tender of rent month to month to the landlord. The deposits have also been made month to month but they are made on irregular intervals.3. After having argued the cases for some time on the question that the interpretation put on Section 19-A by the lower courts was not correct and that the evidence regarding tender had not been correctly appreciated by the court below, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case he would only press for grant of one year's time to the tenant to give vacant possession of the pre...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »