Rajasthan Court January 1972 Judgments
K.N. Joshi Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Raj168; 1972()WLN92
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. The validity of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, (hereinafter called the Ordinance) has been challenged by petitioner K. N. Joshi, who was the member of the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur, having been elected to that body by the Municipal Council, Jodhpur. The main grounds of challenge are,--(1) that the Governor while promulgating the Ordinance did not place it for consideration before the President nor has the assent of the President been obtained on it;(2) that the Governor while exercising this emergency legislative power acted on the advice of the executive Government, which tendered that advice on the eve of the general election to achieve certain political motives and this power under Article 213 of the Constitution has been used by the Governor in a mala fide manner.(3) that the impugned Ordinance confers arbitrary and unbridled power on the Government and, therefore, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. A noti...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Khadi and Village Industries Board Vs. State of Rajasthan an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN78
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Two important questions of law are raised in this writ petition filed by the Rajasthan Khadi and Village Industries, Board, and they are: (1) Whether the Rajasthan Khadi Gramodyog Board, Jaipur is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act, and (2) whether the manager of the Gramodyog Training and Production Centre of the Board at Sanganer comes within the expression 'workmen' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act2. Respondent No. 4 Daulat Chand Gupta was appointed by the Rajasthan Khadi and Village Industries Board as Vyavasthapak (manager) of the Gramodyog Training and Production Centre at Sanganer The services of Daulat Chand Gupta were terminated by the Board after giving him one month's notice. The Rajasthan Khadi Gramodyog Board Karamchari Sangh (hereinafter called the union) raised an industrial dispute regarding the termination of Shri Gupta's services This dispute was referred by the State Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj NaraIn and anr. Vs. Mangilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Raj172; 1972()WLN105
Lodha, J.1. The suit out of which these two connected appeals arise was instituted by the plaintiffs Gopinath, Ramprasad and Mangilal against the defendants Rami'ilal, Smt. Durga Devi and Surajnarain under Section 92, C. P. C. after obtaining the sanction of the Advocate General of Rajasthan, Subsequently Sun-derlal was also added as defendant No. 4. The plaintiffs claim that defendant No. 1 Ramjilal, defendant No. 3 Surajnarain and defendant No. 4 Sunderlal be removed as trustees in respect of a Bagichi and Dharamshala situated in the Gangapur city, District Sawai Madhopur, and other suitable persons be appointed as trustees. Another prayer contained in the plaint was that the gift deed dated 4-7-53 executed in favour of defendant No. 2 Durga Devi by defendant No. 1 Ramjilal in respect of property marked as No. 2 in the site plan Ex. X alleged to be a part of the trust property be declared void and ineffective. Lastly it was prayed that if defendant No. 3 Surajnarain is found to be in...
Tag this Judgment!Bundu Vs. Smt. Hashmat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Raj238; 1972()WLN19
ORDERJagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is a revision application by the defendant against an appellate order of Additional Civil Judge No. 4 Jaipur Citv. striking out his defence under Section 13 (6) of the Raia-sthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act. 1950. 2. The suit for ejectment was filed on 21-5-68 inter alia on the ground of default. 31st July 1968 was the first date of hearing. On that date the defendant sought an adiournment for filing the written statement. The case was adjourned to 6-8-68. On that date hp filed his written statement. He also filed an application under Section 13 (4) and (5). On 14-3-69 an order determining the rent and interest pavable by the defendant was passed by the court and two months time was allowed to make the deDosit. On 15-12-69 the plaintiff filed an application for striking out the defence of the defendant under Section 13 (6) on the ground that the deposit of the amount determined under Section 13 (5) was not made within two months. This appl...
Tag this Judgment!Chatrumal Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN38
S.N. Modi, J.1. The petitioner Chatrumal was convicted by the Municipal' Magistrate, Ajmer under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter called as the Act, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. On appeal by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, the conviction of the petitioner was affirmed but the sentence was reduced to two month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner has now filed this revision application challenging his conviction and sentence.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner Chatrumal is a grocer having his shop at Hathi Bhata, Ajmer. He deals in vegetable ghee and oils. On 4th December, 1967 Food Inspector Yatindranath visited his shop and purchased 375 gms. of til oil from the petitioner for analysis purposes after giving notice Ex P. 1 i...
Tag this Judgment!Nanak Ram Vs. Lalitkumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN133
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal and raises a question about the validity of a mortgage of undivided share in a joint Hindu family property situated at Abu Road which had at one time formed part of the former State of Sirohi.2. On 5-5-1948, Ghisalal and Rameshwarlal who were brothers, mortgaged their joint family house in favour of one Nathulal for an amount of Rs. 4000/- undertaking to pay interest at 9% per annum. Nanakram, defendant-appellant was the son of Matadin, a brother of Ghisalal and Rameshwarlal He was minor at the time the house in question was mortgaged. His name did not appear in the mortgage deed. On 10-1-50 Nathulal, the mortgagee and his son Lalit Kumar filed a suit for realisation of Rs. 4000/- principal and Rs. 604/-interest plus some notice expenditure, total Rs. 4604/14/- by sale of the mortgaged house. The suit was filed against Ghisalal, Rameshwarlal & Nanakram. Rameshwarlal died during the pendency of the suit and was subsequently represented...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Rao Dhir Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Raj241; 1972()WLN23
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State against a decree of the Senior Civil Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, in a suit for recovery of money instituted by Rao Dhir Singh, respondent.2. Rao Pratap Singh, the grandfather of the plaintiff, was the Jagirdar of Shahpura Thikana. Village Misriawas and 100 Bighas of land in village Locha-ka-bas were granted to one Jai Narain Misra as Muafi. Jai Narain died in 1932 and on 22-6-32 his adopted son Badri Prasad Misra, respondent No. 2, applied for Mat-mi to the then State of Jaipur. On 23-6-32 the land granted to Jai Narain Misra was attached pending Matmi. Rao Pratap Singh filed an objection that the Muafi grant had been made by his Thikana and he alone had a right to sanction Matmi. This objection was rejected and Muafi was sanctioned in favour of Badri Prasad. Rao Pratap Singh filed an appeal to the Council of the State which was dismissed on 22-2-36 and Matmi was finally sanctioned in favour of Badri Prasad. Rao Pratap Singh then raise...
Tag this Judgment!The Jaipur Udyog Ltd., Sawaimadhopur and ors. Vs. the Union of India ( ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Raj129; 1972()WLN43
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J. 1. All the three petitioner companies in these three separate writ petitions are quarrying lime-stone from the areas leased out to them and therefore all of them have challenged the validity of the notification dated 29th January, 1970, issued by the Union of India whereby item No. 8 in the Second Schedule of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act) has been amended. Since common questions of law are raised in all these petitions, I propose to dispose them of by one judgment.2. Petitioner companies have been holding areas in their respective fields of operation under the mining lease granted to them for quarrying limestone. The contention of the petitioners is that the limestone quarried by each one of them is of inferior grade with less than 45% calcium oxide. Section 9 of the Act lays down that the holder of a mining lease shall pay royalty on the mineral in accordance with the rates for the time being specified in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. His Highness Maharaja Shri Sawai Man Si ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1972
Reported in: [1973]89ITR123(Raj); 1972()WLN33
Jagat Narayan, C.J. 1. These applications under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, in this court on January 18, 1966, and March 30, 1966, respectively, against His Highness Maharaja Shri Sawai Man Singh of Jaipur. During the pendency of the applications the respondent died on June 24, 1970. Applications for substituting his son and successor His Highness Maharaja Shri Sawai Bhawani Singh of Jaipur were filed on March 17, 1971. Notices were issued to the latter who has taken an objection that the applications have abated. The contention on behalf of His Highness Maharaja Shri Sawai Bhawani Singh is that anapplication filed to the High Court under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is an original civil proceeding within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of the Code including those contained in Order 22 are applicable. Section 141 runs as follows : ' 141. Misce...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Dayal Vs. Mahadev Nath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN455
Gattani, J.1. These are certain Khasras of agricultural land measuring in all 4 Bighas and 13 Biswas in village Chharsa. Half of this land belongs to Amarnath respondent 4 and the other half belongs to Mahadevnath, Balunath and Narain Nath respondents Nos. 1 to 3 respectively. Respondents No. 2 and 3 sold their share of land in favour of defendant petitioner Prabhu Dayal by means of registered sale-deed dated 24-9-69. This led to the filing of the suit by respondent No. 1 Mahadevnath upon the basis of right pre-emption. Defendant Prabhu Dayal in his written statement inter alia pleaded that the sale being in respect of Khatedari right only, the suit was not maintainable as according to him provisions of Rajasthan Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are not applicable to agricultural lands. The lower court in this respect framed issue No. 6 as under:6 Is the present suit not maintainable?It found favour with the plaintiff while deciding this issue on 25-5-70. Hence this rev...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »