Rajasthan Court February 1973 Judgments
Mool Chand and anr. Vs. Ishwarlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj163; 1973()WLN164
Kan Singh, J.1. The second appeal before me which is by a tenant and arises out of a suit for eviction raises a question about the applicability of Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', that is, the non-availability of protection under the section on the tenant's renouncing his character as a tenant or by denying the title of the landlord.2. The subject-matter of the suit was a shop situated at Karauli. The plaintiffs Ishwarlal and Bairanglal, who were brothers, had purchased this shop from one Ramakishan Babulal by a registered sale deed dated 16-10-1968. The defendants Moolchand and his son Radhey Shyam were said to be the tenants of the transferor Ramakishan Babulal on a monthly rent of Rs. 1.25 paise. The transferor gave notice of the sale of the property to the defendant-tenants intimating that the shop had been sold to the plaintiffs Ishwarlal and Bairanglal and thereaft...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Shriniwas and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN174
S.N. Modi, J. 1. This criminal reference by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer, arises in the following circumstances.2. The Munsif Magistrate, Ajmer, West, committed Sarwanlal, Motilal, Shriniwas. Chaturbhuj and Kailash to take trial for various offences including the offence under Section 302/34 IPC An application was moved on behalf of the accused Kailash in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ajmer, contending that as he was a child below 16 years of age, he cannot be tried along with other accused under the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 (Act No. 16 of 1970), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The application was opposed on behalf of the State on the ground that Kailash was not a child within the meaning of the Act as his age was more than 16 years. The parties were then asked to lead evidence regarding the age of Kailash. Several witnesses were examined on behalf of Kailash and the learned Sessions Judge on the evidence produced before him arrived at the conclusion that the age of Kailash was...
Tag this Judgment!Sarv Shri Samuhik Krashi Sahakari Samiti Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sajjansingh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ581; 1973()WLN322
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J.1. This is a revision petition directed against the order of Sessions Judge. Bhilwara, dated 10-3-1971. passed in Criminal Revision No. 52 of 1970. arising out of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C.2. The facts which has led to this revision before me stated in brief are these : There is a Khasra No, 2 measuring 268 Bighas. 11 Biswas, in village Nilki-kheri, in Tahsil Mandalgarh. On a report by the S.H.O.. Police Station, Mandalgarh. proceedings under Section 145. Cr.P.C. were instituted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhilwara. in respect of the aforesaid Khasra. The Samuhik Krishi Sahkari Samiti Ltd.. Mandalgarh (hereinafter called Party No. 1) alleged that the said Khasra has been allotted to it and it was in possession of the same. On the other hand, the respondents of the village Nil-ki-kheri alleged that they were in possession of the land. There was thus a dispute in respect of the said Khasra and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate being satisfied that there...
Tag this Judgment!Jeewanpuri Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN194
Kan Singh, J.1. The second appeal before me which is by a civilian employee of the Defence Department raises the question whether such an employee can challenge the order of his dismissal from service in a civil court.2. Jeewanpuri was appointed as a 'Lasker' in the grade of 30 and 35 in March, 1952 in Wing No. 3, Indian Air Force Station at Palam by the Commanding Officer of the Wing. In March, 1955 he acquired quasi permanent status In October, 1957 he came to be transferred to the Air Force Flying College, at Jodhpur on a similar post. At Jodhpur he organised a union of class IV civilians and became its Secretary. This Union came to be affiliated with the Indian National Trade Union Congress. On account of his activities the plaintiff came to be served with certain charges, an enquiry was made against him and finally he was visited with the punishment of removal and dismissal from service on the charges framed against him.3. After serving a notice under Section 80 CPC. to the Union ...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Shankari Vs. Girdharilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1973
Reported in: 1973()WLN124
ORDERSohan Nath Modi, J.1. This revision application arises out of the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal P. C.2. There was a dispute regarding possession of 'baithak' and proceedings under Section 145 Criminal P. C. were taken in respect thereof. As there was imminent danger of breach of the peace the 'baithak' in dispute was attached and put into the possession of the Police Station, Kotwali, Bharatpur- Both the parties put in their affidavits regarding their respective claim for possession over the 'baithak'. By his order dated 30-10-1972. the learned City Magistrate, Bharatpur declared the possession of Mst. Shankari, Rameshchand and Maheshchand over the disputed 'baithak' on the date of the preliminary order. In that very order, he directed the SHO to hand over possession of the 'baithak' to Smt. Shankari. Rameshchand and Maheshchand. The SHO Police Station, Kotwali Bharatpur. accordingly handed over possession of the 'Baithak' to Mst- Shankari and others on 31-10-1972. The op...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Hindo Open Sugar Mills and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj110; 1973()WLN557
Beri, C.J. 1. Seven petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were presented before learned Single Judge of this Court challenging the validity of the notification dated November 28, 1972, whereby the petitioners were directed to operate their Power Crushers of Khandsari Units in the reserved area only after February. 1973 and to restrain their working to one shift of 8 hours each within the specified hours. Inter alia the grounds of challenge were that the restrictions imposed by this order were violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners being unreasonable restrictions placed on their right to carry on that business of manufacturing Khandsari Sugar. The aforesaid applications were admitted by the learned Single Judge. After , hearing the learned Advocate General, Additional Advocate General and others on behalf of the Government the learned single Judge by his order dated 17-1-1973 ordered that it will be in the interest of justice if the operation of the no...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Chandra Singhji Istmradar Vs. Hamir Singh Raja Janak Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj261; 1973()WLN219
Kan Singh, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal is about the maintainability of the suit for the recovery of an amount of arrears of maintenance payable to the widow of a deceased landholder (Istmarardar) after the abolition of the Istmarari grant under the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act (Act No. III of (1955)) hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The relevant facts are not in dispute. Late Rao Saheb Rameshwar Singh was the Istmrardar of the estate of Bandanwara in the Former Aimer State. He died some 30 years back and was issueless. He was succeeded by Thakur Chandra Singh, an heir, Thakurani Anop Kanwar was thewidow of Rao Sahib Rameshwar Singh. She has been referred to in these proceedings as 'Maji Chohan Ji'. There was trouble between the Maji Chohanji and Thakur Chandra Singh, the new Istmarardar of Bandanwara. The Ajmer Administration had fixed a maintenance allowance of Rs. 300/- per month for Maji Chohanji and this was being paid by Thakur Chand...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Singh Vs. Chhatarsingh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj347; 1973()WLN128
V.P. Tyagi, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the judgment-debtor who stood surety for the principal debtor and it arises out of the following circumstances : 2. A decree from the Civil Court was obtained by the decree-holder respondent No. 1 against Jeetmal respondent No. 2 and appellant Narayan Singh who stood surety for the debt advanced by the decree-holder to the principal debtor. After the decree was put in execution, principal debtor Jeetmal made an application under Section 6 of the Rajas-than Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act. 1957 (hereinafter called the Act) before the Debt Relief Court for the re-determination of his decretal amount as he was an agriculturist. Notice of that application of Jeetmal was issued to the executing Court. The executing Court abated the execution proceedings against both the judgment-debtors. On appeal, the learned Judge, relying on an authority of this Court in Brij Gopal v. Bhanwarlal, 1965 Raj LW 196, upheld the order of abatement against t...
Tag this Judgment!Kishansingh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ238; 1973()WLN176
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J.1. One Shri Kishansingh stood as surety for accused Mangiya in the court of the First Class Magistrate, Kota on 21st November, 1964. Mangiya remained absent on 6th April, 1965. On that day counsel for Mangiya prayed for exempting his attendance on the ground of his illness. This application was granted and the learned Magistrate directed that the accused be produced on 18th May, 1965. On 18th May, 1965 also the accused Mangiya remained absent and his personal bonds and bail bonds were forfeited, A bailable warrant of rupees two thousand was therefore issued to procure his attendance. Sometime afterwards proceedings under Section 514, Cr. P. C. were also initiated and a notice was issued to the surety Kishansingh to produce Mangiya in the court on 24th September, 1965. This notice was served on the surety on 25/26th August, 1965. The surety, however, failed to produce Mangiya and the learned Magistrate therefore ordered the recovery of rupees two thousand from Kishans...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Motiram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj223; 1973()WLN132
Sohan Nath Modi, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the two separate judgments and decrees of the District Judge. Kotah, dated 31-5-69. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals, they are being disposed of together.2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted two suits in the Court of the District Judge. Kotah. Suit No. 22 of 1963on 16-11-63 and suit No. 3 of 1964 on 31-1-64.3. The facts relating to suit No. 22 of 1963 are as follows:4. The Executive Engineer, Right Main Canal, Division I. Chambal Project, Kotah invited tenders for constructing a drainage syphon at RD 87000 on Right Main Canal. The plaintiff submitted his tender at 9.5 per cent above the estimated amount mentioned in G Schedule attached to the tender form. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Rajasthan, accepted the plaintiff's tender on 18-5-56 and an agreement was executed between the parties which was signed by the plaintiff on the one hand and the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, on the other. Be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »