Rajasthan Court May 1974 Judgments
K.C. JaIn and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN395
Kan Singh, J.1. A telegram purporting to be from one Om Prakash Gupta, Convenor, Railway Strikers Association, Jaipur was received by Hon'ble the Chief Justice at Mt. Abu. it is alleged therein that 7 named persons and 38 other Railway employees were illegally detained at Jaipur under the Defence of India Rules. Their immediate release was, therefore, sought for. The contents of the telegram were conveyed by the Secretary to Hon'ble the Chief Justice on phone to the Deputy Registrar who has, in turn, placed the matter before us for orders.2 The question (hat calls our attention of the outset is whether we should take action on such a telegram. It is true, an application for habeas corpus or for writ in the nature of habeas corpus could be moved by a person other than the detenue, but we are afraid there is no provision for the making of an application by a telegram. Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old), inter alia, laid down that the High Court may from time to time fram...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council and anr. Vs. Bhura Son of Jai Narayan Ahir
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN429
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave filed by Municipal Council, Jaipur and Umaid Singh, Food Inspector, against acquittal of the respondent of an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The appeal arises out of the following facts : On 30th September, 1969, at 6.30 a.m. Shri Umaid Singh, Food Inspector, Municipal Council, Jaipur, found Bhura carrying 20 Kgs. of milk in a drum for sale at Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur. The Food Inspector suspected the milk to be adulterated, as it was not written en the outer space of the container of which animal the milk was. The Food Inspector, thereupon, disclosed his identity to the respondent and purchased 660 mm milk for 0.87 P. only from him. The Food Inspector, while taking the sample of milk for analysis, gave a notice in writing to the respondent then and there of his intention to have the sample so analysed. Thereafter be divided the sample of milk into t...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Raj182; 1977CriLJ169; 1974(7)WLN392; 1974(7)WLN577
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks an appropriate writ, order or direction for (i) quashing the orders of the State Government dated 17-11-1971, 7-9-1973 and 12-11-1973, (ii) an appropriate writ or order or direction restraining the respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 from giving effect to the above mentioned orders and further to prohibit ihe respondent No. 2 from executing the lease-deed, (iii) an appropriate writ, order or direction to the State Government to consider the application of the petitioner dated 24-3-1972 for grant of the mining lease, and (iv) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the facts and circumstances of the case warrant.2-3. The facts giving rise to this writ petition briefly stated are as follows :--An area of ten square miles in village Mandla in Tahsil Sojat which is substantially covered by the impugned order sanctioning lease was previously held by Messrs. Keshav Singh and Shivj...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Balmukand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN367
1. This appeal and 107 other appeals detailed in Annexure A' and the 10 writ petitions detailed in Annexure! 'B' to this judgment, raise common questions of law relating to the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter railed 'the Act') and can be conveniently disposed of together. The respondents in these appeals were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge who had licences from the Excise Department for the retail sale of country liquor and we shall call them for the sake of convenience 'liquor contractor'. They challenged by their petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution that the State of Rajasthan was unjustified in law in demanding from them moneys which amounted to the excise duty in respect of the liquor which they had not drawn. The State of Rajasthan filed no written answer but it was contended on their behalf that the liquor contractors had to pay certain guarantee amount of money and if they failed to perform their obligations in terms of their licences the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Modi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN476
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This writ petition and 39 others, detailed in the Schedule, annexed herewith arise in similar circumstances and raise identical questions of law and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order.2. I may briefly give the facts of one out of them. The petitioner In Civil Writ Petition No 22A5 of 1973, Dr. Arun Kumar Modi was appointed on December 18, 1969 as a Civil Assistant Surgeon in a temporary capacity by* the order of the Director, Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan. The order of appointment of the petitioner has been placed on record as document No. 1. Ii is mentioned therein that the petitioner was appointed as a Civil Assistant Surgeon in a temporary capacity on the monthly salary of Rs. 375/ in the grade of Rs. 375-25 550-30-850 375-25 550-30-850 together with admissible allowances, from the date of his taking over charge of the said post till any person selected for the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Keshri Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1974
Reported in: [1977]106ITR184(Raj)
Gupta, J.1. These are two connected references made at the instance of the revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench ' A '). In reference No. 34/69 the following question has been referred to this court for an answer :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs. 1,50,000 made by Messrs. Belpahar Refractories Ltd., Sambalpur (Orissa), to the assessee is not income assessable in his hands, being a casual and non-recurring receipt not arising from the exercise of any business, profession or vocation carried on by the assessee ?'In reference No. 40 of 1969, the following question of law has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in excluding the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 from the total income of the assessee-firm ?'As th...
Tag this Judgment!Rewat Dan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ691; 1974(7)WLN414
ORDERK.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail on behalf of Rewat Dan and four others namely, Ber Dan, Ridkaran, Bhayaria and Budiya, who stand involved in a criminal case under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code which is pending in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, District Jodhpur.2. The case of dacoity against the five petitioners has been instituted upon a complaint filed by Smt. Madan Kan-war in the court of the said Magistrate on 28-'8i69. The allegations in the complaint were that all the five petitioners made a concerted attack on the complainant and forcibly snatched a box containing ornaments from her hand while she was proceeding towards her house after getting down from train at Mathania Railway Station on 2-6-69 at about 11-15 p.m. According to the complainant, she was taken to police station Mathania by her mother-in-law soon after the occurrence,, but the police did not record her first information report for reasons best known to it. Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Priti Parihar Vs. Kailash Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Raj7; 1974(7)WLN397
B.P. Beri, C.J. 1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated March 13, 1974, in a matrimonial matter. The husband has instituted a petition for judicial separation on the ground of desertion and cruelty. After a protracted contest in the Court of the learned District Judge as well as in this Court several issues were framed out of which two are material for the purposes of this appeal. These issues read: '4. Whether the petition discloses a cause of action for judicial separation? 5. Whether the petition is not in proper form as provided in the Hindu Marriage Act and the rules made thereunder and, if so, to what effect?' The learned District Judge heard the learned counsel for the parties and by a detailed order dated January 1, 1974 decided both the issues against the wife. Dissatisfied, she came to this Court and the learned Single Judge by his order dated March 13, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN536
S.N. Dwivedi, J.1. All these appeals now raise a common question of law and are being decided by a common judgment.2. The appellants were operators of State carriages in the State of Rajasthan. They hold regular permits for various routes in the State.3. The State has a Road Transport Corporation. It is called the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. It was constituted on October 1, 1964 under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It has a General Manager.4. Section 19(2)(c) of the aforesaid Act empowers the Corporation to acquire routes for plying buses and to exclude private operators therefrom. In 1956 the Parliament inserted Chapter IV. A in the Motor Vehicles Act for acquiring routes, Section 68C is to be found in that Chapter. It enables the State Government to make rules to carry into effect the provisions of the Chapter. The State of Rajasthan has made rules under this section. Rules 3 and 4 are material for our purpose. Rule 3 provides that a scheme under Section 68...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram and Sons and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Raj78; 1974(7)WLN774
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J.1. These four writ petitions challenge the validity of the Rajas-than (Display of Prices & Stocks of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966 on various grounds to be stated hereinafter. There is no material difference in the facts of these four writ petitions and so it will be sufficient to state facts from one of the writ petitions, viz. S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1979 of 1973, (M/s. Sitaram and Sons v. State of Raiasthan) with reference to which all the writ petitions have been argued bv the learned counsel for the parties. The contentions raised in all these four writ petitions are common and. therefore, the petitions are being disposed of bv a common iudff-ment.2. To resume the facts from the writ petition No. 1979 of 1973, (M/s. Sitaram and Sons v. State of Raiasthan) it may be stated that the petitioner is a dealer in iron and steel materials at Jaipur. The Raiasthan Government issued an order known as Raiasthan (Displav of Prices and Stocks of Esse...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›