Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj322; 1973()WLN448
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction as well as mesne profits,2. The suit was filed by the Managing Committee of the Shahi Jama Masjid, Merta City. The mosque known as the Shahi Jama Masjid is said to have been constructed by the Muslim Emperors of Delhi. It is a massive building. It has a solid platform and comprises heavy arches, domes and lofty minars. It is a protected ancient monument and is tinder the supervision of the Archaeological Department According to the plaintiff, there are a large number of shops appurtenant to the mosque.3. The subject-matter of the litigation is a small strip of open land 51/2 X 41/2 situated on the back side of the mosque towards the south of the western corner of the main building. It is sandwiched between two shops. According to the plaintiff, the strip of land in question was in the ownership and possession of the Shahi Jama Masjid and the Management Committee had been ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj350; 1973()WLN378
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the appellate judgment and decree by the Additional Civil Judge. Ajmer dated 1-4-1966 whereby the learned Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the Munsiff, Aimer City dated 31-8-1965 and dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rupees 1,500.70 paise. 2. The plaintiff's case is that his tender for laying 3/4' thick premix carpet on Bijai Nagar-Deolia Kalan road was accepted vide letter dated 16-5-1957 by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (B & R). Rajasthan. Aimer Division, Aimer. The appellant started the work and while the work was in progress the Assistant Engineer-in-Charge asked the plaintiff to lay seal coat and mix 1 cubicfoot of sand with 7 Lbs. of hot bitumen. It is alleged that the work of laying seal coat was not included in the original tender and, therefore, the plaintiff first refused to carry out the additional work but on an assurance having been given by the Assistant Engineer that payment would be made for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1974]97ITR119(Raj); 1973()WLN372
1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Jaipur, under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and it refers a question to be answered by this court in the following form:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, were applicable to this case ?'2. The facts giving rise to this reference are, in a nutshell, as follows :Shri Motilal Sanghi made a gift of Rs. 1 lakh on 1st of September, 1955, in favour of his four sons, each one to get Rs. 25,000. This amount was invested by the sons in a firm known as Sanghi Brothers of which Motilal Sanghi was a partner to the extent of 8 annas and each donee had a share to the extent of annas 2 in the firm. We are told by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accountable person, Shri N. K. Sanghi, that the said firm was managed not by Shri Motilal Sanghi but it was managed by Shri N. K. Sanghi, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN587
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Thanaram, Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Luni, has filed this writ petition under Article 220 of the Constitution against the State of Rajasthan and the Assistant Secretary (Inquiries), Block Development and Panchayat Department of the Government of Rajasthan, praying that the order passed by the State Government on 15th of March, 1972, suspending the petitioner from the office of Pradhan be quashed2. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned order mainly on the ground that Shri Parasram Maderna, who was the Minister incharge, has passed the impugned order with a malafide intention as the petitioner was suspected by him of having opposed during the general election the official candidate of the Congress from the Luni Assembly Constituency and, therefore, to wreck vengeance the impugned order was passed by the Minister on the eve of his laying down the office of Minister holding the charge of the Panchayat Department.3. Shri Parasram Maderna was not a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1974Raj18; 1973()WLN382
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The only question that arises for decision in this second appeal by the plaintiff is whether the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gangapur was right in holding that the notice issued by the appellant-plaintiff under Section 80, Civil P. C. is defective and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable ?2. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint is that he is the manager of the joint Hindu family constituted by himself, and his minor son Girraj Parsad and carries on family business under the name and style -- Ramjilal Girrajparsad. It is alleged that two bales of cloth were purchased by the plaintiff from Shah Nemichand Heera Chand of Bombay and the same were despatched to him to be delivered at Gangapur. City vide R. R. No. 6998 dated 19-12-1959 but only one bale was delivered. Consequently he gave a notice dated 19-7-1960 to the General Manager, Western Railway, Bombay under Section 80, Civil P. C. for a claim of Rs. 1,288.51 paise on account of price of one bale, interes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj332; 1973()WLN474
Sohan Nath Modi, J. 1. Asharafilal deceased and Narainlal filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge. Bundi, against Durgalal, his sons Hiralal and Bhuvaneshwar and one Gapallal for redemption of mortgage of certain immovable property on payment of Rs. 3,280/- and, in the alternative, for the possession of the property. The learned Civil Judge by his judgment D/- 16-5-1962 passed a preliminary decree for redemption of mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs on deposit of Rs. 3,280/-in Court within a month from the date of the preliminary decree. Aggrieved by the said decree, the defendants Durga-lal and his sons preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge. Kotah. During the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff Asharafilal died on 6-4-1966. The defendants on 19-4-1966 moved an application along with the post-card which they had received from the two sons of Asharafilal intimating the date of Ashara-filal's death. It was mentioned in the application that Asharafilal had died on 6-4-19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1974Raj49; 1973()WLN481
M.L. Joshi, J. 1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 28th September. 1965, whereby he allowed the appeal of the respondent and held the house of the appellant-judgment debtor saleable in execution of the decree passed by the Churu Court on 20-4-1950 against Jivan-mal judgment-debtor.2. The facts which are relevant (for appreciating the controversy in this appeal briefly stated are: Messrs Chunilal Hajarimal lent a sum of Rs. 5000/-to the appellant No. 2 at Calcutta. The said creditor instituted a suit No. 80 of 1947-48 at. Churu for the recovery of the amount, and not the house of Jivanmal appellant attached before judgment. This suit was decreed for Rs. 5048.40 with costs on 29-4-1950.3. During the pendency of the suit Jivnnmal appellant was adjudged insolvent by the order of the Calcutta High Court on 16-9-1949. Official Assignee of the Calcutta High Court was appointed Receiver o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1974CriLJ1130
M.L. Joshi, J.1. The appellant D.S. Bhandari has been convicted by the learned Special Judge for Rajasthan Jaipur City hereinafter called the Special Judge under Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 468 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count. He has also been convicted and sentenced under Section 5(1) (d) r/w Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947. to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. Being aggrieved, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court.2. The appellant D.S. Bhandari was serving and functioning as a Development Officer Life Insurance Corporation of India, hereinafter called the L. I. C. at Sumerpur under Branch Office Pali Raiasthan. While functioning in that capacity it is alleged by the prosecution that he secured two insurance policy proposals Nos. 7245-323 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1974CriLJ120; 1973()WLN381
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a reference, submitted by learned District Magistrate, Churu, recommending that the order dated August 9, 1971, of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Raigarh, directing to drop proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Section 137, Cr. P. C., be quashed,2. The facts of this case are mentioned in detail in the order of reference submitted by the District Magistrate and they need not be reproduced. Suffice it to say that the gist of the case is that one Murari Lal filed an application under Section 133, Cr. P. C., against Ram Swaroop and others in the Court of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Raigarh, stating therein that the non-petitioners were raising construction which created obstruction and nuisance on the public lane and prayed that the same might be directed to be removed. Learned Subdivisional Magistrate thereupon made a conditional order under Section 133, Criminal P. C. The opposite party was served with notices to show cause and they showed cause....
Tag this Judgment!