Rajasthan Court December 1972 Judgments
Chenaram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN1025
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Petitioner Chenaram, who has been removed from the office of the Pradhan of the Panchayat Sambu, Didwana by the order of the Government dated 21st of July, 1972 (Ex 1), has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Government, inter alia, on the grounds that the impugned order suffers from the defect that it is not a speaking order and that proper opportunities were not given to the petitioner to defend himself before the said order was passed. It is, therefore, prayed that the order should be quashed The petitioners has also challenged the legality of the order on the question of malafides but that point has not been pressed during the course of arguments.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are, in a nutshell, as follows, The petitioner was elected Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Didwana in the year 1965 and since then he has been continuously working as Pradhan. A show cause notice under Section 40(1) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Deepchand and anr. Vs. Nandi Ram Sindhi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN1043
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is a revision application by the plaintiffs against an order of the Additional Munsif No. 3, Kota, setting aside an ex parte decree passed by him on 25-8-70 on an application of the defendant filed on 20-11-70.2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,160/- in in the court of Munsif, Kota on 18-7-69. Summons was duly served on the defendant who appeared on 25-9-69 But later on absented himself and an ex parte order was passed against him on 22-4-70. 29-7-70 was fixed for recording ex parte evidence of the plaintiffs by the Munsif Kota.3. Before that date the suit was transferred to the court of Additional Munsif No. 3, Kota, on 16-5-70. The plaintiffs appeared on 29-7-70 in the Court of the Additional Munsif No. 3, Kota but their evidence was not recorded and the case was adjourned. Finally, an ex parte decree was passed against the defendant on 25-8-70 by the Additional Munsif No. 3, Kota.4. On 20-11-70 the defendant filed an application ...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Maharaj Vs. Ram Charan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Raj12; 1972()WLN1118
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This is a miscellaneous election appeal filed under Section 46 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff Magistrate. Beawer dated 3rd June. 1972, whereby the learned Munsiff allowed the election petition of respondent No. 1 and set aside the election of the petitioner and in his place declared respondent No. 1 as duly elected member of the Beawer Municipal Council from Ward No. 2 thereof.The general election for Beawer Municipal Council were held on 25th Oct. '1970. Petitioner Lala Maharaj and respondent No. 1 were the candidates from ward No. 2 and both of them secured equal votes i.e. 320 votes each. The Returning Officer after drawing lots under Clause 56 (c) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Order, 1960, declared Lala Maharai as duly elected candidate from ward No. 2 of the Municipal Council, Beawer. The election of Lala Maharai was then challenged by respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Ram Bhagat Somani and anr. Vs. Firm Kanhaiyalal Jai NaraIn Tambi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN1045
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This is a revision application by the defendants against an order of the Additional Munsif, Jaipur City, holding that he has jurisdiction to try the suit.2. Defendant No. 1 is a firm carrying on business of commission agency at Poona and defendant No. 2 is a partner of the firm. The plaintiff is a firm carrying on business at Jaipur.3. The plaintiff sent 151 bags of gram to the defendant-firm on 2-5-1970 from Jaipur by Rail for sale in its commission agency. It also sent 151 bags of gram-dal' on 19- 5-1970 from Khairtal (Alwar District) for the same purpose. Instructions were issued by the plaintiff from time to time as to the rate at which the gram and the gram-dal was to be sold. One allegation of the plaintiff is that the defendant-firm sold the gram and the gram-dal against its instructions and below the market rate and thereby caused loss to it. The defendant-firm received 800 Kg. gram-dal short from the railway and compromised the claim for Rs. 652.80, when ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Narendra and anr. Vs. Amrit Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1637
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, by K. Narendra, Managing Proprietor, Printer, Publisher and Editor of Hindi Daily 'Veer Arjun', New Delhi and Nanak Ram Israni, Correspondent of the above paper, Ajmer, against the order dated November 4, 1971, of learned Additional MunsinVMagis-trate, Ajmer City (East).2. The brief facts of this case are that Amrit Kumar Advocate had been engaged in Criminal Case No. 238 of 1966 (State V. Ajit Singh under Sections 323 and 335, Indian Penal Code), pending in the court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Ajmer, on behalf of Ajit Singh. When Ajit Singh had come to know on 25-8-1970, that that case had been decided against him and he had been convicted and sentenced, he had shouted to attract the attention of the court as to how he had been convicted when he had already given to his Advocate Amrit Kumar bribe money to be paid to the Munsiff-Magistrate. At that time Amrit Kumar was also present b...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Shyam NaraIn Moriya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1340; 1972()WLN1048
C.M. Lodha, J.1. These are four connected matters arising out of references made to this Court by the Subordinate Courts.2. Case No- 562 of 1972 has been registered on reference by Shri Narhari Sharma, Munsiff Magistrate. First Class, Alwar through the District and Sessions Judge. Alwar. It is alleged that on 24-7-1972, case No. 26/72 was registered at Police Station, Ramgarh (Alwar) for offences under Sections 147. 148, 365, 440, 341 322 149 I. P. C against the accused Raehuveer Singh, Ambrik Singh, Jeet Sineh, Tanieet Singh and Partap Singh. On 1-5-72 the aforesaid accused moved for bail in the Court of Shri Narhari Sharma, Munsif Magistrate, First Class, Alwar but the bail applications on behalf of all the accused were rejected On 8-5-1972 a news-item was published by the non-petitioner Shri Shvam Narain Moriva in a Weeklv Newspaper 'Vishav Viiai' edited, printed and published by the non-petitioner. We do not consider it necessary to reproduce the impugned news item in extenso. But ...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Ramchand Bhagirath and ors. Vs. Ganpat Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN1116
J.P. Jain, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal and is directed against the appellate decree of the District Judge Ganganagar, confirming the decree of the Civil Judge, Suratgarh in a suit instituted by the respondent Ganpatram for the recovery of R.s. 4038/4/9.2. The case of Ganpatram is that he brought foodgrain on 24th, 26th and 27th May, 1959 for sale to the shop of the defendants in Hanumangarh, who were commission agents. According to him, after deduction of the incidental charges and the commission of the defendants, the sale price due to him was Rs. 4038/4/9 When he asked for the money, the defendants did not pay the amount. In the first instance, he filed a criminal complaint for criminal breach of trust, but it was dismissed on the ground that the matter involved a case of civil nature Accordingly, he instituted Suit No. 96/62 in the court of Civil Judge. Suratgarh for the recovery of the amount.3. The defendant No. 1 is Firm Ramchand Bhagirath and defendants No. 2 and 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Nemichand Vs. Khemraj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Raj240; 1972()WLN1041
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for damages for publishing a defamatory leaflet. Since none of the respondents has appeared in spite of service. I have heard the appeal ex parte.2. The suit was for Rs. 2,100/- and out of the five defendants impleaded in the suit a decree for Rs. 500/- was passed only against defendant No. 5 Nemichand who is alleged to have printed the leaflet in question. Both the plaintiff and the defendant No. 5 filed appeals in the Court of the District Judge, Jodhpur who dismissed the plaintiff's appeal as having abated but upheld the decree for Rs. 500/-against defendant No. 5 who has come in Second appeal to this Court.3. The plaintiff's case is that on 11th June, 1961 the defendants, Nos. 1 to 4, namely. Ramdas, Laxminarain Bagji, who is now dead and is represented by his son Gutii respondent No. 4, and So-hanrai convened a meeting at Kabootron ka chok Jodhpur which was presided over by defendant No. 3 Bagii and speech...
Tag this Judgment!Piladram Vs. Surjansingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN906
S.N. Modi, J.1. The finding of both the lower courts is that the defendant respondent has encroached upon the plaintiff's land in a triangular shape with nine inch, 9 base on the northern side by constructing a well. The trial court was of the opinion that this encroachment took place because the plaintiff not construct his boundary wa 1 after full measurements. It therefore held that it was not a case which called for a mandatory injunction but was one where a sum of Rs. 50/- as compensation would suffice. The above finding was affirmed by the appellate court. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree pasted by the appellate court, the plaintiff has filed this appeal and the defendant his filed cross-objection.2. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that in cases of encroachment mere award of compensation is not an appropriate remedy as it is a continuing trespass on the plaintiff's property. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the defendant that this is a fit...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Bhagwandas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-1972
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN330
M.L. Joshi, J.1. The Sessions Judge, Udaipur, has convicted Bhagwan Das son of Jagroop Das by caste Kamad resident of Dhol under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to death. He has, therefore, made this reference for the confirmation of death sentence passed on him. The appellant Bhagwan Das has also filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction and prayed for his acquittal. The murder reference (No. 2 of 1972) and the appeal preferred by the appellant (Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 1972) arise out of the same judgment and are being disposed of together by this judgment.2. The incident out of which the above mentioned cases have arisen is illeged to have taken place in the night intervening 25th and 26th of April,1971. Relevant facts are that Chun Das and Manna were real brothers. Bheru Das is son of Chun Das and is nephew of Manna Bheru Das was married to Mst. Vardi (D W. 1) who is the sister of accused Bhagwan Das. Mst. Dhulki is brother's widow of Manna and is grand mother of B...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »