Rajasthan Court March 1971 Judgments
Ram Chandra Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1971
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ295Raj; 1971(4)WLN97
ORDERR.D. Gattani, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is one of those which were referred for decision to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court.2. The material facts giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated as follows:--The petitioner Shri Ram Chandra was appointed as accountant, Municipal Committee, Mount Abu on 2nd May, 1945. He was promoted as Revenue Officer of that Municipal Committee with effect from 1st October, 1958 and he served on this post till he was retired on 1st July, 1967. At the time when Mount Abu area became a part of the then State of Bombay under the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950, the provisions of Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 were applicable to Mount Abu municipal area from 1st November, 1956, however, Mount Abu area became a part of the State of Rajasthan under the terms of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, but the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 continued to be in force in the said area...
Tag this Judgment!B.D. Bhargava Vs. University of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1971
Reported in: 1972WLN236
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal directed against the judgment and decree to the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City dismissing the plaintiff's suit, for declaring him as a validity appointed Professor and Director of the Rajasthan College of Commerce and for other consequential reliefs, on a preliminary point which was subject matter of issue No. 27.2. The plaintiff averred that he was appointed as Head of the Department in Maharaja's College, Jaipur on 1st August, 1933 and he became the Principal of Rajasthan College of Commerce in the year 1956. In this capacity he came to be elected as a member of the Syndicate of the Rajasthan University, Defendant No. 1 for a period of three years from 1957 to I960. On 4th January, 1960 defendant No. 3 Dr. M.S. Mehta assumed charge as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan. In May 1961 the University of Rajasthan decided to accept the Government, proposal for taking over the College of Commerce along with ...
Tag this Judgment!Karim Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1654
L.S. Mehta, J.1. Succinctly put, the prosecution story is that Karim Shah and Rahim Shah Fakirs of village Udai-Kalan, Tehsil Gangapur City, collected some clay required for repairing their buildings- The lay was put on the lane, abutting the houses of-Munir Khan and the accused Karim Khan. This material blocked the passage. Munir Khan and Karim Khan remonstrated Karim Shah and Rahim Shah against what they did. Karim Shah and Hahim Shah paid no heed to the protest. This led to rupture of relation between the two parties, Munir Khan and Karim Khan on the one hand and Karim Shah and Rahim 'Shah on the other. In the morning of April 29, 1970, when Karim Shah was returning home from the village mosque, Munir Khan Tiurled abuses at him. Rahim Shah, P.W. 2, intervened. In the meantime the accused Karim Khan appeared on the scene. He flung a stone towards Rahim 'Shah, Rahim Shah, however, escaped its impact. Karim Khan then threw another stone, which hit the left hand .of Karim 'Shah. .He cas...
Tag this Judgment!Karim Khan Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN142
L.S. Mehta, J.1. Succinctly put, the prosecution story is that Karim Shah and Rahim Shah Fakirs of village Udai-Kalan, Thesil Gangapur City, collected some clay required for repairing their buildings. The clay was put on the lane, abutting the houses of Munir Khan and the accused Karim Khan. This material blocked the passage. Munir Khan and Karim Khan remonstrated Karim Shah and Rahim Shah against what they did. Karim Shah paid no heed to the protest. This led to rupture of relation between the two parties. Munir Khan and Karim Khan on the one hand and Karim Shah and Rahim Shah on the other. In the morn of April 29, 1970, whan Karim Shah was returning from the village mosque, Munir Khan hurled abuses at him. Rahim Shah, P.W. 2, interyened. In the mf-an-time the accused Karim Khan appeared on the scene. He flung a stone towards Rahim Shah. Rahim Shah; however, escaped its impact. Karim Khan then threw another stone, which hit the left hand of Karim Shah. He cast a third stone at Rahim S...
Tag this Judgment!Poonam Chand Vs. Shahveer Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN177
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Sirohi, dated 31st August, 1964, affirming the decree of the Munsif, Abu Road, dated 3/3/1964, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for partition of a joint party wall and injunction.2. The relevant facts are these. The plaintiff respondent Roopchand, now dead, and represented by the present respondents Nos. 1 to 5 his sons and daughters, was the brother of the defendant-appellant Poonamchand. The two brothers owned houses adjacent to each other in village Rohida, separated by a common party wall. In the Samvat year 2009 the plantiff Roopchand dismantled his house and started rebuilding it and in doing so, he raised the height of the party wall, set up some new 'aalas' and almirahs and put in a 'Chimni'. Alleging his exclusive ownership over the party wall the present defendant filed a suit against Roopchand claiming mandatory injunction directing Roopchand to demolish the party-wall ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Raj. Vs. Asharam and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN343
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The short question of law which arises in this appeal relates to the construction of Clause 3 of the Rajasthan (Display of Prices of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the Order). The question arises in this manner.2. The respondents Asharam and Prahled were charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The respondents were found storing 1400 Erasmic blades in their shop, known as Asharam Dani, for the purpose of sale, at Pali, without displaying their price in the price-list in form No. A at a place as near to the entrance of the business premises as possible. The case against the respondents is that on June 9, 1967, at about 6.30 p.m. their shop was searched by Dalip Singh, Y District Supply Officer, Pali, in the presence of P.W. 2 Ramesh Chandra (Motbir) and 1400 Erasmic blades were found stored therein. This fact has not been denied by the respondents, though they pleaded that...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Heeralal Maliram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR92(Raj)
Chhangani, J.1. This is an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'B '), New Delhi, be called upon to state the case and refer the following question to the High Court for answer :' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property acquired in the name of Smt. Rukmani Devi, a member of the Hindu undivided family, did not belong to the assessee and also in excluding the unexplained investment in such property along with the rental income from the assessee's total income? 'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment for the year 1956-57 was completed and the assessee's income was determined at Rs. 1,25,000. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the assessee had purchased the house property in the name of Smt. Rukmani Devi, wife of Shri Maliram, during the relevant...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Vs. Smt. Surajbai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN131
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The subject matter of this second appeal preferred by the, defendants is suit for partition instituted by Ramgopal and his brother Shyam Sunder in respect of a house situated in the city of Jaipur.The following pedigree table would show the relationship between the parties: Rameshwar | __________________________________________ | | Balmukand Sheolal | | Nathuram Gopinath | | Ramchandra Vamanlal | | Kishanlal | Nathulal ----------------------- | | | | Ramgopa Shyamsunder | P. No. 1 P. No. 2 | | | | |------------|-----------------|--------------| Laxminarain Sitaram Grokul | D. 1 D. 2 Shri Ram D. 3 |---------------------|------------------------| Narain Satyanarayan Gopilal D. No. 4 D. No. 6 D. No. 53. The plaintiff's case is that no partition took place with respect to the house in question which is the ancestral property of the parties though the plaintiffs and the defendants have been occupying specific apartments in the house in question for the sake of convenience...
Tag this Judgment!Narayandas and ors. Vs. Rajendrasingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN339
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This second appeal by the defendant tenant raises an interesting question of Jaw and it is this whether the transferee landlord can take advantage of the default committed by the tenant in payment of rent due from him to the previous land lord-for more than 6 months.2. The facts and circumstance in which the question arises may be briefly narrated as below.3. The defendant appellant Naraian Das was admitted as tenant in respect of the premises in question by Arjun Das and Hssso Mal on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/-. It is the admitted case of the parties that the defendant did not pay rent to Arjun Das and Hasso Mal, predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs Rajendar Singh and Kanwal Singh for the period commencing from 22nd May 1064 upto 4th May 1965, Arjun Das and Hasso Mal sold away the entire property, in which the apartments rented out to the defendant appellant are situated by a registered sale deed fated 4th May, 1965, copy of which has been placed on the record and mar...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Dutt Mathur Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1971
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ287Raj
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge.2. The petitioner was born on 17-9-1911. He was appointed to a post in the Jaipur Municipal Council on 5-9-43. At that time the Council was a department of the Government of Jaipur. With effect from 1-11-46 the Municipal Council became autonomous and option was given to the employees to opt for State service or municipal service. The petitioner opted for municipal service. The City of Jaipur Municipal Act, 1943 was continued by the Rajasthan Administration Ordinance No. 1 of 1949 on the integration of the State of Jaipur with Rajasthan. The City of Jaipur Municipal Act was repealed by Section 2 of the Rajasthan Municipalites Act, 1959 which was brought into force with effect from 17th October, 1959. Section 297 of the Rajasthan Act gave power to the State Government to frame rules prescribing the conditions of service of the municipal employ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »