Rajasthan Court March 1973 Judgments
Sankhla Industries Vs. Hiralal Pukhraj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj306; 1973()WLN293
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendants' revision application directed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 22-9-1972 whereby the learned Civil Judge rejected the petitioners' application for staying the suit under Section 10, Civil Procedure Code.2. M/s. Sankhla Industries instituted a suit for rendition of accounts against the non-petitioner M/s. Hiralal Pukhraj on 2-5-1972 in the Court of Munsiff, Beawar alleging that they had appointed M/s. Hiralal Pukhraj as their agents for sale of 139 bales of cotton but the latter had not rendered accounts of the same. About two months thereafter M/s. Hiralal Pukhraj instituted the present suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Ajmer against the petitioners M/s. Sankhla Industries and others alleging that by virtueof settled accounts between the parties dated 19-10-1971 a sum of Rs. 6070.50 was outstanding against the defendants. It was therefore prayed that a decree for the said amount along with interest Rs. 607....
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gulab Bai Vs. Ram Pratap
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj307; 1973()WLN295
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a revision application by the defendant from the order of the Munsiff, Kota dated 19-8-1972 in Civil Original Case No. 290 of 1970, by which the learned Munsiff, allowed the application moved by the plaintiff-respondent under Section 152, Civil Procedure Code and directed that the preliminary decree be amended and a direction be added in the decree that the plaintiff is entitled to get interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 1-10-1969 (date of the suit) to 11-1-1971 (date of preliminary decree) and at the rate of 6% per annum from 12-1-1971 till the realisation of the amount. 2. The facts leading to the proceedings out of which this revision arises are not in dispute. The plaintiff-respondent Rampartap filed the suit for recovery of Rupees 3600/- along with costs and interest against the defendant-petitioner and prayed that in case the defendant did not pay the amount within such period as may be fixed by the court, a direction may be given for sale of...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ram Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1443; 1973()WLN401
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on November 1, 1968, at about 8.30 p. m., Prabhu Narain P. W. 3, Gopal, P. W. 4, Radhey Shyam, P. W. 5, Mohan Lai, P. W. 6 and Ram Chander (deceased) were passing through Chaura Rasta, Jaipur City. On their taking a turn towards Tarkeshwarji's temple, some 8 to 10 persons confronted them near Jadiyon-ka-Rasta in front of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. There accused Bhairon prevented Ram Chander and others from proceeding ahead. In the meantime 7 or 8 other persons, including accused Madan, Shri Ram, Aziz, Jagdish and Gopal appeared on the spot. They were armed with sticks. Shri Ram assaulted Prabhu with a hockey-stick. That weapon was subsequently grabbed by Prabhu. Thereafter accused Gopal and Madan assaulted Gopal Lai Yadav P. W. 4. The latter sustained certain injuries. Then accused Aziz inflicted a lathi blow on Gopal's head. The victim fell down. Soon after Shri Ram waived his knife. He wanted to thrust it into Gopal...
Tag this Judgment!Pannalal and ors. Vs. Nandlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN309
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This revision application by the defendants arises out of a partition suit and raises a question regarding payment of court fee. In order to appreciate the point it would be necessary to state a few facts.2. The parties are the sons and daughters of Madanlal, who died on 3.8.1957. Defendants Pannalal, Dhiraj Kumar, Shantilal, Smt. Pushpa and Smt. Nawali are the sons and daughters of Madanlal by the second wife whereas the plaintiff Nandlal is by the first wife Madanlal was adopted by Mohanlal, who executed a will on 12.1.1937 by which he bequeathed half of his property to Nandlal and the other half to Madanlal. After the death of Madanlal which took place on 3 8.1957, Nandlal filed the present suit for partition of that half of the property of Mohanlal which had been bequeathed to Madanlal.3. Nandlal's suit was resisted by defendant No.1 Pannalal. He pleaded that he had discharged the debts due from Madanlal, and had also spent the following amounts on behalf of the jo...
Tag this Judgment!Mirchumal Vs. Ramchandra and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj313; 1973()WLN214
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment and is directed against the appellate decree of the learned District Judge, Partabgarh ejecting the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the landlord. 2. The suit was instituted by two plaintiffs Ramchandra and Baijnath who were the father and son respectively. The subject-matter of the suit was a Nohra, that is, an unbuilt plot with walls. It was let out to the defendant-appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- on 1-6-1962. The plaintiffs terminated the tenancy saying that plaintiff No. 2 Baijnath wanted to construct a house on the plot for his own residence. Besides the plea of bona fide personal requirement several other averments were made, but as the suit was decreed only on the ground of personal necessity and that ground alone was agitated before the lower appellate Court, it is not necessary to refer to the other grounds in the plaint for ejectment 3. The defendant contested the suit....
Tag this Judgment!Lehru NaraIn Vs. Kanhaiyalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj316; 1973()WLN263
Beri, C.J. 1. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated December 2, 1971, this special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed and the only question convassed before us is one in regard to future interest. 2. Plaintiff's suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 10,000,00 on a plaint presented on 26th of September, 1964. No interest pendente lite or future was awarded. The defendant preferred an appeal before this Court and the plaintiff filed a cross-objection praying for interest pendente lite and future at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per cent, per annum. The learned Single Judge dismissed the defendant's appeal, disallowed interest pendente lite but awarded future interest at the rate of Rs. 6.00 per cent, per annum, from the date of the decree, namely, 26-9-1967 till the date of payment. The defendant now prefers an appeal on the ground urged by Mr. Bhandari that when the future interest claimed in the cross-objection was only Rs. 3.00 ...
Tag this Judgment!University of Rajasthan Vs. Roshanlal Seth
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN257
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. Roshanlal Seth appeared at the M.A. final examination held by the University of Rajasthan in the year 1972 and was declared unsuccessful because he had failed to obtain 36 percent aggregate marks in the final examination of the Master of Arts degree in the subject of Economics. He came to the Court with a plea that if his marts in the previous and the final M A. examination coupled with the viva voce test were totalled he had secured secured mote than 36 percent marks and he was thus entitled to be declared successful. The learned Single Judge after examining the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan University Regulations and Ordinance upheld the contention of the petitioner and directed the University of Rajasthan to declare Seth to be successful The University feeling aggrieved by that judgment has come up in appeal.2. Mr. Kasliwal appearing for the University urged that upon a true construction of Regulation 12, a candidate must obtain 36 percent aggregate marks in...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanlal Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN225
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff and is directed against the appellate decree of the learned Distric Judge, Ajmer upholding the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the same was barred by the provisions of Section 207B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act'.2. Plaintiff Ratanlal Kamdar was holding a prospecting licence for Beryal and other minerals in village Bander Sundri, Tehsil Kishangarh vide an order datad 6-9-52. The aforesaid licence was renewed upto 21.9.54. The plaintiff had thereafter submitted an application for a further renewal of his licence on 18.9.54 the plaintiff made an application to the Mining Engineering, Jaipur for the grant of a mining lease for Beryal and other atomic minerals and for some other minerals. The area for which the lease was desired was 80 acres. Some 15 months thereafter the Mining Engineer wrote a letter to the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vs. Mst. Bhanwari Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj260; 1973()WLN206
Kan Singh, J. 1. The only question raised in the second appeal is about the legality of the agreement made by the appellant viz., the husband of the plaintiff, for giving her maintenance at Rs. 40/- per month. This agreement was arrived at when the defendant husband was being prosecuted for the offence of bigamy under Section 494, Indian. Penal Code and while compromising the offence the husband had agreed to pay maintenance to the wife.2. Learned counsel argues that since the consideration of the agreement was the stifling of a prosecution the agreement was rendered void. Learned counsel takes the position that the offence of bigamy under Section 494, Indian Penal Code is a non-compoundable one since it cannot be compounded without the permission of the Court and, therefore, whatever agreement was made by the husband and the wife while compromising the offence cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. According to learned counsel, such of the offences as can be compounded with the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Padmadevi and ors. Vs. Gurbakshsingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj317; 1973()WLN249
Jain, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal, whose suit for damages has been decreed against respondents Nos. 1 and 5 only, seeking a decree against respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as well.2. One Manakchand, who was a lower division clerk in the office of the Assistant Director of Industries, Jaipur, was coming from his office on 11-10-1960 at about 5.30 p. m. and going towards Ajmeri Gate on Mirza Ismail Road, was struck by truck No. RJD-672, driven by Gurbaksh Singh, defendant-respondent No. 1. This accident took place near the Show Room of Globe Motors, on the Mirza Ismail Road, Jaipur. As a result of this accident Manakchand sustained injuries and he died on the spot soon after. The deceased was 30 years' old and was drawing Rs. 110 p. m. He was survived byhis widow Mst. Padma Devi, plaintiff No. 1, his son Tarachand, plaintiff No. 2 and three daughters, plaintiffs Nos. 3, 4 and 5. They claimed damages on account of the death of Manakchand in a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, from Gurbaksh Singh, dr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »