Rajasthan Court February 1973 Judgments
Nathmal Bhaironbux and Co. and ors. Vs. Kashi Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj271; 1973()WLN505
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of the final decree in a suit for accounts awarding Rs. 10,545.06 paise to the plaintiff-respondents with interest at 6 per cent, per annum from Kartik Sudi 1 of Samvat 2013 upto the date of realisation. 2. The plaintiffs who were a joint Hindu Family carried on business in wool at Bikaner in the name of Kashi Ram Sewa Ram and Manak Chand Dwarka Das. According to them, the defendants were a firm who carried on business both at Bikaner which was then Head Office and at Bombay where they had a Branch Office. The plaintiffs' case, in brief, was that on 17-8-54 the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to sell their wool on agency basis for a commission of Re. 1% for the work to be done. It was further agreed that if the wool were to be sold in Bombay the defendants would be charging an extra amount of annas 8 per bale as labour charges. The defendants were to sell the plaintiffs wool at Bikaner, Bombay and in for...
Tag this Judgment!Hastimal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj285
B. P. Beri, Ag. C.J. 1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 13th May, 1971 whereby he dismissed the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts which it is necessary to recall for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are these : The appellant claims to be the owner of a house No. 27 in Ward No. 6 in the city of Jodhpur. In the Rajasthan Gazette of June 30, 1965 a notification was published whereby the Government notified its intention to acquire land measuring 2074 Sq. yards which belonged to the appellant and whereon the house of the appellant stood. The land and the house were sought to be acquired under the scheme popularly known as the 'Sojati Gate -- Girdi Kot scheme'. The notice was served on the appellant under Section 52 (2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (hereafter called 'the Improvement Act') inviting...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhpat Raj Vs. Abdul Karim
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1447; 1973()WLN160
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. The brief facts of this case, as alleged by the complainant Abdul Karim, are that during the famine of the year 1969, Phalodi-Jamba road had to be constructed, connecting Phalodi Jamba with village Naneri. Accused Kadar Khan, Noor Mohammed and Shamsuddin were working as Supervisors for the famine relief work. Accused Sher Mohammed, Mohamed Sharif, Kamarud Din, Mehar Din and Jag Mai were working as mates. Accused No. 10 Kher Mohammed was functioning as a Mistry. Accused No. 11 Lakhpat Raj Loonker, Assistant Engineer (B & R), was in overall charge of the famine work. All the eleven accused persons, according to the complainant, entered into a conspiracy and prepared false muster rolls and made false entries therein that such and such payments had been made to the labourers. But money, as shown in the muster rolls, had been embezzled by the accused persons. The complainant further alleged that false measurements were also entered in the Government record by accused N...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Mineral and Co., Jaipur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj289; 1973()WLN233
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. This writ petition filed by the Rajasthan Mineral & Company, Jaipur, against the order of the Central Government dated 16th May, 1972 (Annexure 1) raises an important question as to when the application for the grant of a mining lease shall be deemed to have been disposed of by the State Government for the purpose of Rule 24 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called the Rules).2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this litigation are, in a nutshell, as follows:The petitioner along with six other persons made application for the grant of a mining lease in pursuance of a notification issued by the Joint Director (Administration) of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan, dated 27th September, 1965, whereby an area of 1252.85 hectares in villages Nansa, Shivrati, Jhumpura, Bhoor and Rampura was declared open for the grant of mining lease under the Rules. All these applicants submitted then applications for the grant of mining lease on 28th of October, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Maharaja Shri Umed Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN83
C.M. Lodha, J.1. Two points have been urged in support of this appeal by the defendant Union of India against the judgment and decree by the District Judge, Pali dated 27.1.1966 by which the learned Judge decreed the plaintiffrespondent's suit for Rs. 36,215.40 paisa against the appellant by way of refund of excise duty paid by the plaintiff to the defendant appellant on account of manufacture of yarn for the period commencing from 1.3.1961 It has been submitted in the first instance that the yarn on which the duty has been realised is taxable as 'Cotton Twist' and the second point urged is that the suit is barred by limitation. For the decision of these two points we may narrate the facts in brief giving rise to this litigation.2. Item No. 18A was inserted in the First Schedule, Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 by Section 13(j) of the Finance Act, 1961 which read with Section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 introduced Excise Duty on the manufacture of cotton yarn with effe...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN171
B.P. Beri, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated August 31, 1971, whereby he dismissed in limine the appellant's petition challenging his reversion in a civil post under Article 220 of the Constitution.2. Gulam Mohammed, the appellant before us, was appointed as a constable in the Police Department on November 6, 1950. He was promoted to the post of a Head Constable on February 24, 1956. Gulam Mohammed passed the qualifying examination as provided under Rule 28 (1)of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1906 (hereinafter called the Rules.) and he was placed at number 10 in the list published on September 11, 1967. Despite two attempts in 1969 and 1970 Gulam Mohannmed was unable to pass the promotion cadre course examination. At that point of time he was officiating as a sub-Inspector but he came to be reverted on April 4, 1970 His representation against his revers...
Tag this Judgment!Deoki Nandan Vs. Baij Nath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1636; 1973()WLN150
ORDERS. Mehta, J.1. There was a dispute in regard to a 'Nohra in the town, of Sultana, District Jhunjhunu. Party No. 1 Bilas Rai moved an application on April 5, 1972, in the Court of the District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, alleging therein that the 'Nohra' had been in his possession and that there was every possibility of breach of the peace at the instance of Deoki Nandan, Party No. 2. Bilas Rai, therefore, prayed that proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, be initiated. The above application was transferred by the District Magistrate to the First Class Magistrate, Jhunjhunu. On April 5, 1972, the First Class Magistrate first passed an order that he would like to inspect the spot. Thereafter he went to the spot the same day and from spot inquiry he came to know that party No. 2 Deoki Nandan had been in possession of the 'Nohra' for the last 2 or 3 years. He also learnt that the 'Nohra had been cultivated by Deoki Nandan in the month of July last. Learned Magistrate furth...
Tag this Judgment!Ramu Ram Vs. Lumba Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1732; 1973()WLN33
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a reference, submitted by Miss Kanta Bhatnagar. Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. recommending that the order, dated November 30. 1971. of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Phalodi. be quashed.2. The brief facts of this ease, it appears, are that on January 12. 1970, Lumba Ram made an application in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phalodi. under Section 133. Criminal Procedure Code, avouching that in the out-skirt of village Lohawat there ran a road, connecting Lohawat with Osian. It was about 100 ft. wide. On its one side Ramu Ram and Manohar Lai were constructing 'pucca' shops. That construction was likely to create obstruction and inconvenience to the passersby and the public at large. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that orders be issued requiring Ramu Ram and Manohar Lai to remove the obstruction. On receipt of that complaint the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phalodi, passed a conditional order, asking the persons causing obstruction to th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chanda Vs. Sheokaran and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN79
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's first appeal from the judgment and decree by the Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar dated 3.2.1967 by which he dismissed the plaintiff's suit for possession of a piece of agricultural land situated in chak No. II-K in District Ganganagar by preemption.2. the land in question measuring 364 Bighas and 11/2 Biswas was sold in different lots by defendant number 1 Shrimati Roopa to defendants No. 2 to 5 for a consideration of Rs. 35,000-. The plaintiff Smt. Chanda's case is that she and defendant No. 1 Smt. Roopa are the cowidows of the deceased Lakhuram who died on Migsar Bad 4, Section 2013 leaving behind 75 Bighas of land. It was alleged that the sale of the land in question had been effected as a matter of fact for Rs. 10000/- only and Rs 35,000/- were shown as fictitious price in the sale deeds. It was further pleaded that since the death of Lakhuram took place after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (which for the sake of brevit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›