Rajasthan Court October 1972 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.
Balumal and anr. Vs. J.P. Chandani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Raj153; 1972()WLN901
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. Balumal and Suresh Kumar have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur, dated 1st of May, 1972, whereby a preliminary objection of the petitioners to challenge the jurisdiction of that Court to entertain the prayer of the arbitrators to make their award the rule of the Court was rejected.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation are, in a nutshell, as follows:Petitioners entered into a partnership agreement with respondent No. 3 Dr. Khetlakhani in an agricultural pursuit and it is alleged that as a result of that partnership certain lands in village Manaklao were purchased by the partners and some machinery, including the pumping set, was installed on the well in the said lands. The partners also took loan from the bank and made certain constructions on the lands for the purpose of carrying on their agricultural operations. After some time, serious controversies arose between the ...
Maharana Bhupal Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Raj132; 1972()WLN803
Beri, Ag. C.J. 1. This is a plaintiffs appeal whose suit for the recovery of unpaid electricity charges was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur by his judgment dated October 14. 1959. 2. The circumstances which it is necessary to notice for the disposal of this appeal succinctly stated are these Maharana Bhupal Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Udaipur (hereinafter called 'the Company') was a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act. 1910. It was to provide electrical energy in the town of Udaipur. The Company was charging annas six per unit of electricity for domestic purposes from its consumers. It is said that it was running in losses and therefore with effect from February 1. 1951 it increased the rate to annas eight per unit of electricity for domestic use. It justified this increase on the ground that the licence dated 31st December. 1948. Clause (8) entitled it to make this increase. The increase in the rate was resented to by consumers and they desired to get its just...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. R.R. Gupta, Cto an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN851
B.P. Beri, Ag. C.J.1. The petitioner owns an industrial unit 'Shriram Rayons', which is located at Kota in the State of Rajasthan and it manufactures 'rayon tyre cord fabric.'2. The petitioners case is that this commodity is a textile consisting of rayon threads in the warp & cotton threads in the weft and is manufactured on weaving looms like any other textile. It is supplied to the manufacturers of tyres who use the material for the purposes of impregnating it with rubber, Entry 18 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Sales Tax Act') exempts from the sales tax and purchase tax cotton fabrics, rayon or artificial silk fabric, woollen fabric as defined in the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The Additional Duties of Excise Act, 1957 in turn borrows the definition of rayon or artificial silk fabrics etc. from Item No. 2 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 Sales were made by the petiti...
Official Liquidator of Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Limited (In Liquidati ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN961
R.D. Gattani, J.1. This order will decide point for determination No. 1 which reads as under:Has this Court jurisdiction to entertain the application.2. This application has been filed by the Official Liquidator of Messrs. Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Limited Kishangarh (in liquidation) under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act for the recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the non-applicant from the disputed premises. In para No. 10 of the application it has been said that by virtue of Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to try and entertain any suit or any proceedings by or against this Company (In liquidation). The non-applicant in reply has not admitted para 10 the application. That has led to the framing of above point for determination.3. However, when parties were heard on this point it was urged by the learned Counsel for the non-applicant that an application under Section 446(2) is no doubt entertainable by this Court, but in the ...
Hazur Singh Vs. Jangsingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Raj82
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for damagesfor malicious prosecution and is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Ganganagar dated 30-8-1969 awarding Rupees 2,600/- to the plaintiff.2. On 21-8-1965 Hazur Singh defendant lodged a first information report at police station Sadar, Ganganagar against the plaintiff-respondent Jangsingh and three others to the effect that when he along with one Bala Singh and Ganga Singh were passing through, the Murabba of one Jogender Singh the four persons who were lying in ambush attacked them. Jang Singh plaintiff is said to be carrying a twelve bore gun belonging to accused Sarjeet Singh. Jangroop Singh is said to have an unlicensed pistol. Kaka Singh is said to be armed with a 'Gandasi' and Sarieet Singh was having a lathi. Kaka Singh challenged them. He snatched the 'Chaddar' from the shoulder of Bala Singh in which Rs. 265/- were tied. Bala Sinah was carrying the money f...
Pooran Mal Vs. Poonam Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN885
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This election appeal has been filed by Shri Pooran Mal, a voter from ward No. 4 of the Merta City Municipality, and it raises an important question about the duty of the Returning Officer while scrutinising the nomination form under Clause 18 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Order 1960 (hereinafter called 'the order of 1960').2. In the general elections of Merta City municipality held in October 1970, there were three candidates from ward No. 4. Respondent no. 3 Shiv Prasad was one of the candidates from that ward & he had filed his nomination paper with the Returning Officer. Column no. 2 of that nomination paper wherein the electoral roll no. of the candidate was to be mentioned was blank. The Returning officer on scrutiny rejected that nomination form of Shiv Prasad on the ground that its column no. 8 was blank and that it did not furnish any information about the electoral roll number of the proposed candidate. Election was held on 25th October, 1970 and af...
Fateh Lal and anr. Vs. Smt. Kalawati and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN1008
B.P. Beri, J.1. By its order dated the 20th of July, 1968 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') rejected the claim in both the appeals beating Nos. 93 and 94 of 1966 on the ground that the accident bad taken place prior to the constitution of the Tribunal and was, therefore, not capable of being taken cognizance of by it. These two appeals raise an identical point and are therefore being disposed of by this judgment,2. Succinctly stated the circumstances which proceeds the two appeals, are these: In between the night of 5th and 6th June, 1964 a bus bearing No. RJY 2035 was proceeding from Ajmer to Udaipur carrying petitioners Fatehlal and Mohanswaroop, the two claimants, amongst other passengers. From the opposite direction a truck bearing No. RJZ 2190 came and collided with the bus aforesaid, causing injuries to the right hand of petitioner Fatehlal and on the right elbow of petitioner Mohanswaroop Fatehlal and Mohanswaroop presented two claim ...
Tejaram Gahlot Vs. Pukhraj Kalani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Raj138; 1972()WLN798
ORDERB.P. Beri, J.1. Shri Pukhraj Kalani, respondent No. 1. was elected from the Sojat Constituency in the general elections of 1972 to the Rajasthan State Assembly. His election had been challenged by the petitioner on certain grounds including the charge of a corrupt practice. But by his application dated 24-7-1972 the petitioner abandoned his attack on the ground of corrupt practice and confined his petition to the improper rejection of the nomination paper of the respondent Mr. Narain respondent No. 2, The circumstances attending the submission. rejection and acceptance of Mr. Narain's nomination paper briefly stated are these: He presented his nomination paper dated 8-2-1972 (Document No. 1). On 9-2-1972 the Returning Officer (respondent No. 4) scrutinised it and made the endorsements which may be translated verbatim in the interest of exactitude.'I have scrutinised this nomination paper under Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act and I make the following decision. Th...
Ram Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN831
L.S. Mehta, J.1. These are the two bail applications one submitted by Ram Singh and the other by Jagat Narain. Both the applications emerging out of the same judgment are disposed of together. Jagat Narain and Ram Singh have been convicted of the offences, punishable under Section 409, 120B, 477A., and 469, I.P.C. read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They have been sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, each in default of payment of which to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 409, I.P.C. They have also been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, or to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months in default of payment or fine, under Section 468, I.P.C. They have further been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years' each under Section 477A., I.P.C. Under Section 120B., they have been awarded five years' rigorous imprisonment for...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Rao Takhat Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN958
B.P. Beri, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by the State of Rajasthan against Shri Takhat Singh, Jagirdar of Thikana Jawas, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award of the Jagir Commissioner dated 7*-2-1969 and the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 5-5-1971, It is also prayed that a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 1 from claiming the award in the sum of Rs. 80,600/-be issued.2. While we have faithfully indicated the prayers made in the writ petition the body of the petition, however, contains a simple grievance. It relates to the grant of compensation for excise income, the average of three years whereof comes to Rs. 22,325 66p for the purposes of computing the compensation. The grounds of attack are that Section 16 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 prohibits distillation without licence and it came into force on 1-7-1950. Deriving any income, which was prohibited by Section 16 of the E...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »