Rajasthan Court April 1971 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.
Mohamed Hanif and ors. Vs. Mannalal Shivkumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN(UC)13
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. These are corseted special appeals by 8 persons against an order of a learned Single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 7.48 of 1967. By its order 9 permit were granted on the Jhunjhurnu-Sardarshahar route which was newly opened by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, at its meeting held on 28th, 29th and 30th September, 1967. The fining of the learned Single Judge was that the writ petitioners Mannalal Shiv Kumar had also filed an application for a fresh permit on this route on 21-11-66 which was not even published by the Regional Transport Authority All the 9 permits were cancelled and case was remanded to the Regional Transport Authority for a fresh consideration of all pending applications including the application of the petitioners for grant of permits on the new route. Eight of these 9 persons have filed the two special appeals.2. Five permits were granted on the Jhunjhunu-Ghuru route 3 by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur and 2 by th...
The Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Sita Ram Basanti Lal Jain.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN200
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree dated 5th October, 1966, of the District Judge, Bhilwara, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for a sum of Rs. 18200/-against the appellant Company.2. The appellant is Textile Mills and Limited company (hereinafter called the company). It was alloted wagon of coal for its use by the Deputy Coal Controller, Government of India. The Company used to send permits of coal to the plaintiff with a letter of authority in their favour. The plaintiff then used to obtain priority sanction in the name of the Company, then it apply reached the Collieries, paid the moneys for the coal and got the coal loaded in railway wagons. The railway receipts were got prepared by the Collieries as consignors in the name of the Company as consignee. Plaintiff's case is that between 15th October and 6th December, 1959. 25 wagons of coal were despatched to the Company and the sum of Rs. 11936/70 P. for its bills is due to the plaintiff from the Company. ...
Manakchand Son of Tolaram Vs. Smt. Maghi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN(UC)17
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff land-lord's second appeal from the judgment and decree passed by District Judge Bikaner for arrears of rent and ejectment. Arrears of rent are not in dispute and the question involved for decision is regarding ejectment. The subject-matter of dispute is a shop situated in the town Churu. Tenancy is admitted by the defendant-respondent. The suit for ejectment was based on two grounds viz:(1) Default in payment of rent, and(2) Reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the land-lord to carry on his own business.The defendants-tenants denied to have committed any default in payment of rent and further pleaded that the plaintiff had no bonafide and reasonable personal necessity for the shop. The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment. The defendants filed appeal which was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside. Consequently the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.2. So far as the question of personal necessity is...
Laxmibai and anr. Vs. Roshan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj288; 1971(4)WLN103
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. The respondent Ro-shanlal filed a suit in the Court of Mun-siff, Abu Road against Laxminarain for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. 2. It may be mentioned here that Laxminarain died during the pendency of this appeal and is now represented by his widow Smt. Laxmi Bai and his son Madan-lal, who have been substituted as appellants in his place. 3. Roshanlal's case was that he and Laxminarain entered into a partnership orally at Abu Road on 23-6-1956 for taking building contract from the Western Railway, and it was agreed that the partnership business would be carried in the name of Laxminarain Rama Nand in which name the defendant had already taken contracts as an approved contractor of the Western Railway. The terms of the contract of partnership are alleged to be that both the partners would share profits and losses half to half and would get interest on the amount invested by them in the partnership business at the rate of 6% per annum. It was all...
Prem Parkash Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN408
L.S. Metha, J.1. The appellant, Prem Prakash Bhatia, was working as Senior Telephone Operator in the Public Call Office, Kaman, Dist. Bharatpur, from 14-10-1965 to 4-10-1967. Daring that periond Moti Lal, PW 3 & Panchu Ram, PW 4 worked as his assistants. In the course of performance of their duties the three employees received certain telephone charges on account of calls made by the public. The Junior Telephone Operators used to deposit the collections with the accused who was incharge of the P.C.O. The accused was required to deposit the collections of the day as and when the amount exceeded Rs. 10/- with the nearest post-offices in terms of Rules 201 and 203 of the Posts and Telegraphs Financial Hand Book Vol. 1, (hereinafter referred as the Hand Book) The prosecution story is that the accused Prem Prakash received a total amount of Rs. 1576.40P. directly and from his assistants from October 14,1966, to April 10, 1967, He, howver, failed to remit the collections as and when they exc...
Dr. Swayambar Prasad Sudrania Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj69; 1971(4)WLN187
ORDERP.N. Shinghal, J. 1. Petitioner Dr. S. P. Sudrania passed the M. B- B. S. examination in 1962 and joined the service of the Rajasthan State as Civil Assistant Surgeon on February 28. 1964. He was selected for that post by the. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, and was confirmed on July 31, 1966. In the meantime he graduated M. D, in Paediatrics from the Rajasthan University in the first attempt in 1966.2. Dr. K. M. Hemrajani, respondent No. 2, took the diploma in Child Health in 1963. and the M. D. In Paediatrics in 1964 (in the second attempt). He joined the service of Raiasthan State as Civil Assistant Surgeon on July 20, 1966 and on selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission he was confirmed on October 1, 1968.3. Both the petitioner and respondent Dr. Hemrajani wanted to be appointed as Clinical Tutors in Paediatrics. They were interviewed by the Central Selection Committee on January 4, 1967. Ex. R. 1 records the minutes of the meeting of the Committee by which re...
Salig Ram Vs. Narottamlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj127
Jagat Narayan, C.J. 1. Lodha, J. has referred the following question to this Division Bench--'Whether in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section, the defence against eviction cannot be struck out under Sub-section (6) for noncompliance of Sub-section (4) in a case where a tenant takes the plea that he has not committed default in payment of rent as contemplated by Section 13, Sub-section (1) (a) of the Act.'2. The reason why this reference became necessary is that in Vishwanath Singh v. Gopilal, 1970 Raj LW 223 Bhargava, J., took the view that if in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (l) of Section 13 a tenant takes the plea that he has not committed such default then the court cannot strike out his defence under Section 13 (4) on his failure to deposit the arrears of rent on the first day of hearing and on his failure to pay future rent mo...
Salig Ram Vs. Narottamlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN118
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. Lodha J., has referred the following question to this Division Bench:Whether in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-Sec., the defence against eviction cannot be struck out under Sub-section (6) for non compliance of Sub-section (4) in a case where a tenant takes the plea that he has not committed default in payment of rent as contemplated, by Section 13, Sub-section (1)(a) of the Act.2. The reason why this reference became necessary is that in Vishwanath Singh v. Gopilal 1970 RLW 223 : 1970 WLN 446 : Over ruled by this judgment Bhargava J. took the view that if in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 a tenant takes the plea that he has not committed such default, then the court cannot strike out his defence under Section 13(4) on his failure to deposit the arrears of rent en the first day of hearing and on ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Niranjan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN235
L.S. Mehta, J.1. On May 24, 1968, at about 7 a.m. the injured Kewalram, P.W. 1, was riding on his bicycle, carrying a certain quantity of milk He was proceeding from the village Kola to Hanumangarh town. The prosecution story is that the accused Niranjan Singh happened to pass that way. He was driving truck No. RJK 5445, rashly and negligently. It struck down Kewalram on the left side of the road The left front wheel of the truck ran over the left, hand of Kewalram. Thereafter the accused Niranjan Singh stopped his vehicle. He put Kewalram into it and took him to the Medical Officer, Hanumangarh. As the result of the injuries sustained by Kewalram, his condition got deteriorated. A dying declaration, therefore, was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh. It is marked Ex. P.1. Kewalram was examined, at 6 50 p.m. on May 24, 1968, by Dr. Ramesh Chandra, PW4. Following injuries were found on his person.1. A lacerated wound extending along the entire length of left forearm f...
Firm Manchharam Indermal Vs. Firm Manaklal Nakhatmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN144
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The only point for decision in this appeal by the plaintiff who have lost their suit in both the courts below is whether Ex. 1, the basis of the suit is an account stated, and consequently the suit is within limitation2. The respondent has not appeared inspite of service, and, therefore, I have heard the appeal exparte.3. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the appellant it would be proper to reproduce the contents of Ex. 1, which when translated into English reads as under:Account of brother Manchharamji Indermalji Sri Jaisalmer- 2100/- balance to pay 2223/12/6 Balance to be S. 2008, Sawan paid. Sudi 9, in the presence of Indermal 23/12/6 by way of interest from S. 2010 second Baisakh Sudi 10 in presence of Champalal 2223/12/6 Balance to be Paid-S. 2010, second Baisakh Sudi 10, in presence of Champalal Sd/- Nakhatmal Mehra ...4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that though Ex. 1 itself does not contain the account, that is, the cr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »