Rajasthan Court November 1974 Judgments
Malik Medical Hall Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Raj108
ORDERD.P. Gupta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The first submission made by learned counsel is that under Rule 59 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') the Director of Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan was appointed by the State Government as the Licensing Authority for the whole of the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of Part VI and Part VII of the Rules and thereafter under Rule 60 of the Rules the Licensing Authority, with the approval of the State Government, by an order dated July 4, 1958 delegated the power to sign licences and all other powers under Part VI of the Rules to the District Medical and Health Officer, Jaipur. By a subsequent notification dated September 11, 1959 the Licensing Authority delegated the very same powers to the Assistant Director of Health Services, Jaipur instead of the District Medical and Health Officer, Jaipur. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Lic...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Chhoti and anr. Vs. Sharafat Ali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN1002
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. This is a revision application directed against the judgment of the learned Add. Session judge, Jhalawar, dated September 20, 1971 in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C.2. Sharafat Ali filed an application under Section 145, Criminal P.C. on July 28, 1869 m the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Eklera saying that in village Daleepur Tehsil Eklera be had agricultural land measuring 31 Bighas and 16 Biswas in his possession and the opposite parties Mst. Chtoti, Azim Hussem, Ranzan and Gul Mohammed had forcibly dispossessed him. Reply was filed on beanie of the opposite parties saying that in the and in dispute there were trees of 'Mauwa' and mangoes, the fruits where of were beeping taken by Mst. Chhoti. They disputed that they had forcibly dispossessed Sharafat Ali. The parties filed their wilted statements, affidavits and certain revenue records. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate after examining the record came to the conclusion that Sharafat Ali w...
Tag this Judgment!Kesar and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1272
ORDERK.D. Sharma, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tonic with a recommendation, that the order of the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Tonk dated 6-12-1971 directing the personal appearance of Mst. Kesar, Ladi, Kamla, Shanti and Prehladi petitioners in his Court for the purpose of their examination under Section 342, of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, be quashed and the learned Magistrate be directed to proceed with the trial of the case without recording their statements under the aforesaid section.2. The reference arises under the following circumstances:The petitioners along with Radhey Shyam and Satya Narain, co-accused, have been prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 147 and 323, I. P. C. in the Court of the learned Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Tonk on basis of a report lodged with the police by Brij Mohan S/O Ganesh Lal Mahajan, resident of Pipalu. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of all the documents referred...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Kesar and 5 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN999
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk with a recommendation that the order of the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Tonk dated 6.12.1971 directing the personal appearance of Mst. Kesar, Ladi, Kamla, Shanti and Prehladi petitioners in his Court for the purpose of their examination under Section 342, of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, be quashed and the learned Magistrate be directed to proceed with the trial of the case without recording their statements under the aforesaid section.2. The reference arises under the following circumstances : The petitioners along with Radhey Shyam and Satya Narain, co accused, have been prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 147 and 323, IPC in the Court of the learned Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Tonk on basis of a report lodged with the police by Brij Mohan s/o Ganesh Lal Mahajan, resident of Pipalu The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of all the documents referred to in Sect...
Tag this Judgment!The Mahila Shiksha Sadan, Gandhi Ashram Hatundi Through Its Secretary ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Raj161; 1974(7)WLN996
C.M. Lodha, J.1. In this appeal by the defendant, the only question raised is, whether the plaintiff's suit is within limitationThe question arises in these circumstances :2. The plaintiff-respondent was given a contract by the defendant-appellant on 4-5-1958 to make certain constructions and the plaintiff carried out the same. The total construction carried out by the plaintiff was admittedly for Rs. 60,073.72, out of which the appellant had received Rs. 55,907/-. Aftergiving allowance for two items of Rs. 188/-and Rs. 30/- the plaintiff filed the present suit for Rs. 3,927.72 as principal and Rs. 707.00 as interest; total Rs. 4634.72. In order to bring the suit within limitation, the plaintiff relied upon letter Ex. 1 dated 21st May, 1961, wherein, according to the plaintiff, the defendant is alleged to have acknowledged the plaintiff's claim. The decision of this case, in fact, centres round the interpretation of this document. The learned District Judge, Ajmer has construed this le...
Tag this Judgment!Dhola and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1274; 1974(7)WLN889
ORDERB.P. Beri, C.J.1. By his order dated October 19, 1974 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore cancelled the bail of Dhola, Asu and Lalla accused of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in exercise of his power under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter to be referred to as 'the New Code'). This order is being assailed firstly on the ground that the powers for cancellation of bail reside in the High Court and the Court of Session under Section 439(2) of the New Code and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction. Secondly, it is urged that the grant of bail by the learned Magistrate was an interlocutory order against which no revision is now competent under Section 397(2) of the New Code and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to accept the revision under the New Code.2. Mr. Purohit contests both the contentions.3. A brief resume of facts seems to be necessary. A challan ...
Tag this Judgment!Soonda Ram and anr. Vs. Rameshwarlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN944
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal by special leave of this Court from the judgment and decree dated 7-2 1974 of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing the appellants second appeal preferred from the Appellate judgment of the District Judge of Jaipur The plaintiffs respondents filed a suit against the appellants for their eviction after termination of their tenancy by service of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the ground that they required the suit premises bonafide for their personal necessity. The suit was contested by the appellants on various grounds. The learned Munsif who tried the suit in the first instance held in favour of the plaintiffs on some of the issues which arose for determination on the pleadings of the parties. He, however, dismissed the suit on the finding that the plain- tiffs had failed to prove that they required the suit premises bonafide for their personal necessity. They went-up in appeal before the District Judge of Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN910
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality of the order termination the petitioner's services.2. It is common ground between the parties that the petitioner on being selected by the Selection Commission constituted under Section 86(6) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1939 was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on probation for two years in the Panchayat Samiti Baitu vide order dated 3-7-67. The petitioner jointed the post in the same day. By resolution dated 5.8.69 the Finance, Taxation and Administration Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samitis, Baitu extended the period of probation of the petitioner upto 5.8.69 and by the same order terminated his services. The relevant portion of the resolution dated 5.8.69 is in these terms:v Jh pEikyky xqIrk dfu'B fyfid dh ifjfo{k?khudky fnukad 3&7&63 dks lekIr gksrk gSA ijUrq mudh lsok, dk;Zky; dh fjiksZV ds vuqlkj vlUrks'ktud ,oa lUnsgkRed dk;Z ifjf...
Tag this Judgment!Anandilal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN969
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Petitioner Anandilal, by his writ petition, has challenged the validity of the order of his removal from service passed by the Governor vide document No 11 dated December 30, 1968 with the prayer that the impu- gned order be quashpd and he be reinstated He has also rrayed that the order passed by the Chief Justice dated July 6, 1963, suspending him may also be quashed.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are in a nutshell as follows : A complaint was received by Hon'ble the Chief Justice against the petitioner, who was posted as Munsif Magistrate, First Class, Nawa, that the petitioner had grossly misused his magisterial powers by issuing the warrant against one Ganpatia, who was responsible for getting the petitioner's father prosecuted before the Panchayat. At that time no case against Ganpa'ia was pending in the petitioner's court and, therefore, the allegation was that Ganpatia was illegally kept under detention for a week. The complaint was sent for inquiry t...
Tag this Judgment!Chand NaraIn Gautam Vs. Smt. Saroj Gautam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Raj88; 1974(7)WLN808
B.P. Beri, C.J. 1. Captain Chand Narain Gautam, the appellant before us, obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights from the court of the learned District Judge, Jaipur. Smt. Saroj Gautam, the wife of the appellant, appealed to this Court against that decree and the learned single Judge reversed the same, aggrieved by which the husband comes up in an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. 2. It is not disputed that Captain Chand Narain Gautam and Smt. Saroj Gautam, hailing from Brahmin families, were married at Bundi on February 11, 1963. They have no issue from this union. At the time of marriage the husband held a Master's Degree in English Literature while the wife was studying in the final year of the Bachelor of Arts. She also obtained later a Master's degree in Political Science. The husband after marriage obtained a Commission in the Army and the couple came to live at Panjim (Gpa) and Panchmarhi (M. P.) and last resided together at Chaksu near ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »