Rajasthan Court March 1973 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.
State Vs. Sardara
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ43
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The prosecution story in brief is that Kanhaiya Lal Periwal, P. W. 17, a resident of Nohar, had a son Naresh and a daughter Sarita. Naresh was about 5 1/2 years' old and Sarita was nearly 4 years of age. Naresh was studying in the first standard in Pooran Mal Middle School, Nohar. On July 15, 1971, Naresh returned from his school at about noon. Thereafter both Naresh and his sister Sarita went out of their house to play in the lane. That very day at about 3 p. m. Kanhaiya Lal's another son Ghanshyam went to his father's shop and informed him that both Naresh and Sarita, who had been playing in the lane at 2-30 p. m. were missing. On receiving that information Kanhaiya Lal went to his house. There his wife Mst. Godawari, P. W. 1, told him that Naresh and Sarita had been missing. Kanhaiya Lal made a search of his two children in the town of Nohar, but when he could not get their clue, he made a report (Ex. P-34) to A. S. I. Nohar, Gajs Nand, P. W. 23, on July 15, 1971, a...
State Vs. Saradara
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN436
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The prosecution story in brief is that Kanhaiya Lal Porwal, PW 17, a resident of Nohar had a son Naresh and a daughter Sarita. Naresh was about 5 years' old and Sarita was nearly 4 years of age. Naresh was studying in the first standard in Pooran Mal Middle School, Nohar On July 14, 1971, Naresh returned from his school at about noon. Thereafter both Naresh and his sister Sarita went out of their house to play in the lane. That very Say at about 3 p.m. Kanhaiya Lal's another son Ghanshyam went to his father's shop and informed him that both Naresh and Sarita, who had been playing in the lane at 2.30 p.m. were missing On receiving that information Kanhaiya Lal went to his house. There his wife Mst.Godawari, PW 1, told him that Naresh and Sarita had been missing. Kanhaiya Lal made a search of his two children in the town of Nohar, but when he could not gat their clue, he made a report (Ex-P.34) to ASI Nohar, Gaja Nand, PW 23, on July 15, 1971, at 8.30 p m. On receipt of ...
Vijay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN385
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. The petitioner was serving as Head Constable in Police Lines, Sirohi, when he was placed under suspension on February 22, 1964. The Superintendent of Police ultimately passed an order (Ex. 1) on June 10, 1965 reverting him to the post of Constable for a period of six months and forfeiting half his salary for the suspension period. The Deputy Inspector General of Police thereupon issued a notice (Ex-2) to the petitioner on April 12, 1966 to show cause why the penalty should not be enhanced in view of the gravity of the charges against him. The petitioner contested that notice on the ground, inter alia, that an action for the enhancement of the penalty had not been initiated within six months, it was not permissible to enhance the penalty. The Deputy Inspector General, however, enhanced the penalty by order Ex.3 dated July 26, 1966 by reducing the petitioner to the rank of Constable for a period of two-and a-half years. He however allowed him the maximum pay of the Co...
Mangilal and ors. Vs. Kedarnath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj186; 1973()WLN231
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. The respondent Kedarnath is the auction-purchaser of the house in dispute, sold in execution of a money decree obtained by one Moolchand against Bastiram, who is now dead and is represented on the record of this case by his widow, sons and daughters arrayed as respondents Nos. 2 to 8. The appellants before me are the brothers and the mother of the deceased Bastiram.2. It appears that when the house in question was attached in execution of the decree obtained by Moolchand, the present appellants preferred an objection underOrder XXI, Rule 58, Civil P. C. but the same having not been prosecuted by them was dismissed in default. They, however, did not file a suit under Order XXI, Rule 63 Civil P. C. within the period prescribed by law, but instituted a suit under Section 42, Specific Relief Act for declaration of their title to the property in dispute. Admittedly this suit was also finally dismissed as barred by limitation.3. Some time later, the auction-purchaser viz. K...
The Municipal Council Vs. the Nagar Parishad Karamchari Sangh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1973
Reported in: 1973(6)WLN259
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the order of the learned single Judge dated 15th October, 1969 whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the Municipal Council, Ajmer, questioning the arbitration award made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, Ajmer, under Section 10B of the Industrial Disputes Act (as amended by the Rajasthan Act).2. The Municipal Council, Ajmer, by its order dated 23rd June, 1967, retired certain persons with different designations because they had attended the age of 55 years. Five Daroghas, two Masons, three Chowdhries and two Drivers raised a dispute questioning the validity of their retirement. By virtue of an agreement dated the 19th June, 1968 the matter was referred under Section 10-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Municipal Council, Aimer, at the relevant time was being run by an Administrator appointed under Section 293A of the Rajastha...
Nemichand Vs. Gram Panchayat, Thanvla
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj1; 1973()WLN210
Kan Singh, J. 1. The appeal raises a short question whether before filing a suit against the Gram Panchayat a notice was necessary to the Panchayat under Section 79(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.2. Learned counsel for the appellant admits that no notice was given by the plaintiff-appellant to the Gram Panchayat. He contends that Sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the Act was inapplicable. He takes the stand that the Panchayat had no authority to treat the plaintiff's land as belonging to it and then pass an order for removal of the so-called encroachment. The relevant facts as stated in the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court were briefly these: Plaintiff claims to have a piece of land situated in village Thanvla. He started the construction of a house over thisland which was abutting on a public road. The public of village Thanvla made a report before the Gram Panchayat about the construction alleging that there was an encroachment by th...
Kalyan Singh Vs. Smt. Chhoti and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj263; 1973()WLN240
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal directed against the appellate judgment of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, dated 22-1-1966 affirming the decree of the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur dated 27-9-1963 decreeing the plaintiff-respondents' suit declaring that the 'Bagichi' known as 'Shri Satya Narainji-Ki-Bagichi' belongs to the plaintiff-respondent Ganga Ram.2. The case has a history. There is a 'Bagichi' with a temple of Satya Narainji therein and other appurtenant properties at Jaipur. According to the plaintiff, Ganga Ram, the land over which the 'Bagichi' stands originally belonged to two persons Bhagla and Girdhari. Bhagla and Girdhari had sold this land in Samvat 1932 by a registered sale deed to one Raghunath Brahmin. It was Raghu-nath Brahmin who constructed the temple of Satya Narainji and had also raised Pucka as well as Kucha construction on the 'Bagichi'. Raghunath was survived by his son Gaurilal. The plaintiff claimed that Gaurilal died issueless, bu...
Smt. Kaushalya Rani Vs. Vijai Singh Gehlot
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj269; 1973()WLN222
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal by the wife under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the judgment of the District Judge, Jodhnur, dated 5-6-1971, whereby the learned Judge granted a decree for judicial separation in favour of the respondent-husband.2. The petition was based on the ground of cruelty of the wife towards the husband of such a nature as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Various acts, which, according to the petitioner, amounted to cruelty so as to warrant a decree for judicial separation have been mentioned in para 70 of the petition, and Issue No. 4 was framed in this respect. It reads as under:--'4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of judicial separation on the grounds contained in para 70 of the petition?'3. In view of the conclusion to which I have come, I do not consider it necessary to narrate in detail the allegations and coun...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Raghunath Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Raj4; 1973()WLN424
Jain J.1. This appeal by the defendant State arises out of the original Civil Suit No. 16/62, instituted by the respondent Raghunath Singh, for the recovery of Rs. 70,151.32 as damages for breach of contract and which has been partly decreed by the Senior Civil Judge No. 2 Jaipur City, on 28-2-1966.2. Briefly put, the plaintiff Raghunath Singh's case is that he was in anted a minor mineral lease for lime-stone of the mines, known as Dawa and Seelva in Tehsil Nokha. District Bikaner. Rajasthan, consisting of an area of 40 acres for a period of five years on an yearly dead rent of Rs. 6195/- on the terms and conditions given under the Raiasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955. This mining lease was granted by the Director of Mines and Geology Government of Rajasthan. Udaipur. The sanction was conveyed to the plaintiff by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Bikaner. by his letter, dated 4-7-1957 (Ex. 26). The Deputy Director (Administration) of Mines and Geology also communicated this fac...
Mahendra Singh Vs. Sohan Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Raj219; 1973()WLN200
Joshi, J.1. This appeal has come up before us for orders on the three applications under Order 22 Rule 4. Order 22, Rule 9 C.P.C. and Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act respectively in connection with determination of the question as to whe-ther the appeal has abated or not.2. The facts relevant for the determination of the points raised before us are as follows: Respondent Sohanraj died on 1st January 1972. His legal representatives were not brought on the record in time. An application was made on behalf of the appellant for implead-ing legal representatives of the deceased respondent Sohanraj on 24th October, 1972. This application was obviously not within the prescribed tune of limitation. The delay in filing application was sought to be explained on the ground that the appellant learnt about the death of the deceased Sohanraj for the first time when he received a letter dated 3rd October, 1972 from his advocate Shri L. R. Mehta from Jodhpur wherein he informed that Sohanraj wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »