Rajasthan Court October 1971 Judgments
Hotilal Parasar Vs. Director of Agriculture and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN639
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Petitioner Hotilal, who was elected as a Chairman of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Nadbai, has challenged the order of the Director of Agriculture, Rajasthan, dated 21st October, 1970, setting aside the petitioner's election as Chairman of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Nadbai.2. The main ground taken by the petitioner to impugn the order of the Director of Agriculture is that he had no jurisdiction under Rule 32(11) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called the Rules) to entertain and decidelthe election petition filed by respondent No.2 Shri Ghan Shyam Sharma who was a contesting candidate for the office of the Chairman.3. The facts giving rise to this dispute, briefly stated, are as follows After the election of the rriembers of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Nadbai under Section 7 of the Raja-than Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) the election of the Chairman was ordered to be held. There were in a...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumant Singh Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN445
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. Petitioner Hanumantsingh has submitted this application under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of his conviction and sentences recorded by a Court Martial Tribunal, dated 3rd April, 1971 and subsequently confirmed by a competent authority on 8th May, 1971, and praying that his conviction and sentences be set aside and be he set at liberty.2. The relevant facts are these. The petitioner was holding the post of Naik and was posted as No. 1033540 in 27 Mountaining Division Intelligence Field Security Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company) at the relevant time. One Ramlal was also working in the same company but in a different unit & was posted as IC 27-207/2/Lieutenant in 7 Composite Platoon. On 16th March, 1971 the petitioner was served with a charge sheet by Shri G.C. Kaul, Major commanding the Company. The charges was that he used criminal force to his superior officer which was in...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Shamsher Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN442
L.S. Mehta, J.1. Shamsher Singh petitioner made a complaint in the court of Additional Munsif Magistrate, First Class, Ajmer City (East) under Section 500, read with Section 109, I.P.C., and under Sections 504 and 506, I.P.C., In that complaint the accused are - (1) Amrit Kumar, Advocate, and (2) Ajit Singh. In the course of trial Samshasher Singh appeared as a witness on April 20, 1971. After the Examination-in-chief of the witness was over, the accused were directed to cross-examine him. At the initial stage of the cross-examination Amrit Kumar submitted to the court that he would conduct cross-examination on behalf of himself and accused Ajit Singh. An objection was raised on behalf of learned Counsel for the complainant that since Amrit Kumar was himself an accused in the case, he could not represent Ajit Singh. That objection was over-ruled by the trial court. This revision petition has accordingly been filed against that order.2. A short question that arises for the disposal of t...
Tag this Judgment!Pritamsingh Vs. Narendra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Raj38; 1971(4)WLN691
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. This writ petition filed by Pritamsing raises an important question whether a revision in respect of a dispute relating to the right of way shell be heard by the State Government under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or that being a judicial matter, should be disposed of by the Board of Kevenue.2. The circumstances giving rise to this petition are in a nutshell as follows,--The petitioner has been, in cultivatory possession of Murrabas Nos. 45 and 48 in S. T. G. 36 for more than 15 years. The petitioner's brothers also owned the two Murrabas in the vicinity of the petitioner's lands and they are numbered as 48 and 68. The petitioner has been enjoying his right of way, to his fields through Murrabas Nos. 50 and 67. This way has been shown in the plan Ex. 1 filed by the petitioner with dark pencil line. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who owned Murrabas Nos. 60 and 67 applied to the Collector that the petitioner may be given a different right of way. This app...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubir Sahahai Mathur Vs. Raj Financial Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN538
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is a special appeal against the judgment of a learned Singh Judge of this Court by of his leave under Section 18(2) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance by Raghubir Sahai Mathur plaintiff.2. The Rajasthan State Financial Corporation was formed on 1.5.1953 The appellant joined service on 5-3-55 in a temporary capacity on a salary of Rs. 400/- per mensem. He was confirmed on its April, 1956 on Rs. 425/- in the grade of Rs. 350-25-600. His date of birth was 24-8-1903. The Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1958 came into force with effect from October 16.1958. Under Regulation 17, an employee was to retire on attaining the age of 55 years, but the Board had power to sanction extension for a period not exceeding one year at a time, upto the age of 60 years. Four extensions were granted to the appellant and his services were terminated on 24-8-1962. He was not paid any gratuity. He claimed that he was entitled to gratuity under the Rajasthan Fin...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swaroop and anr. Vs. Sua Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj98; 1971(4)WLN448
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This second appeal by the plaintiffs raises a question oi interpretation of Section 52 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act, 1947 (Act No. XXVIII of 1947), which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'. The facts riving rise to this question may be briefly narrated in the following manner.2. Defendant-respondent Sualal executed a 'khata' for Rs. 355/9/9 on 21-11-50 in favour of the plaintiffs. On 14th January, 1952, plaintiff Ram Swaroop made an application under Section 4 (1) of the Act, as extended to the erstwhile State of Aimer, in the Court of the Debt Settlement Officer, Tehsil Aimer, for adjustment of the suit debt, it appears that ultimately the case came up for disposal before the Extra Debt Settlement Officer, Katri, who determined the amount of debt in the manner provided in the Act and made an award on 24-7-59. Dissatisfied with the orderof the Debt Settlement Officer the debtor Sualal filed appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Aimer, w...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ramgopal Tanwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj196; 1971(4)WLN560
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal by the Union of India and cross-objections by the plaintiff are directed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 29th October, 1965, by which plaintiff's suit for recovery of arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 14895/- was decreed but the rest of his claim for declaration that his removal from service by the Loco Works Manager, Ajmer was illegal and inoperative and that he still continued in railway service was dismissed.2. Plaintiff Ramgopal joined service in the B. B. and C. I. Railway on 10th July, 1940, as a temporary fitter to which post he was confirmed on 28th January, 1941. He was temporarily promoted as a tool issuer on 15th July, 1946, and was confirmed in that post by the Works Manager, Loco, on 23rd October, 1946. On 9th April, 1953, he was removed from service by the order of the Works Manager, Loco on the charge of removing castor oil from the railway. The plaintiff challenged the order of his removal in civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Phool Chand and ors. Vs. Laxmi Narain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj247; 1971(4)WLN484
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is a special appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in second appeal by special leave.2. Kesrimal, appellant-defendant, deceased, was a member of the Jodhpur Bullion Association. Laxmi Narain, respondent-plaintiff, entered into transactions with him in accordance with the rules and usage of that Association. He sold 51 bars of silver at rates varying between Rupees 159/- and Rs. 159-3-0 on 4 different dates for the Vaida of Migsar Sudi 5, S 2011 corresponding to 30th November, 1954. On 25th November, 1954, the plaintiff went to the shop of the defendant and asked his son Babulal and his Munim who were present at the shop to cover up the sale of 51 bars by purchasing 51 bars for the same Vaida. They told him that the sales had already been covered. The plaintiff had never given any such instructions to the defendant. He accordingly sent a telegram, Ex. A-29, to him on 26-11-54, which runs as follows:--'Yesterday, I asked you to squ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Firm Banwarilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN570
ORDERSanction is hereby accorded to the refund of Rs. 3237-8/- (Rupees three thousand, two hundred and thirty seven and annas eight) only to M/s Banwari Lal Ram Prasad of Sadulpur out of Rs. 3700/- deposited by them as Super administration charges vide challan No. 112 dated 5-2-53 for export of 1850 maunds gram outside Rajasthan. This is subject to the verification of the deposit and other formalities as laid down in Finance Department Rules.This is in final settlement of the claims as agreed by the party.Sd/-Administrative Officer,Civil Supplies, Rajasthan,Jaipur.5. The argument of the Deputy Government Advocate is that because this document speaks of certain formalities of verification etc which were to be gone into even after the passing of this order before the plaintiff could claim the refund of Rs. 3237/-8/- this document was an acknowledgement only. I am afraid, I am not in agreement with this contention. In my opinion, this document is not an acknowledgement and was rightly mad...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn Vs. Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN452
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. The petitioner entered service as a clerk in the Jodhpur Municipality on September 4, 1933 and was ultimately transferred to the office of Municipal Board, Pali on July 12, 1948. He served there as upper division clerk from 1951 onwards. He has stated that an incorrect entry came to be made in his service book and 'his date of birth came to be shown therein as 25.8.1914.' According to the petitioner, that incorrect entry appears to have been made on some information given in that behalf at the time the petitioner entered into service' but that he 'did not care much about it' under the impression that no age of superannuation had been fixed for Municipal service. The situation, according to him, altered when the Rajasthan Municipal Subordinate and Ministerial Service Rules 1963 were promulgated where by the Rajasthan Service Rules were made applicable to municipal employees, The matter acquired 'great urgency' when in 1967 the Rajasthan Service Rules were altered so ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »