Rajasthan Court January 1976 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.
Provident Fund Inspector Vs. Sohan Lal Kukkar and Sons and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN20
M.L. Jain, J.1. The facts of this appeal are that the Provident Fund Inspector, Jodhpur, lodged a complaint against the respondents Sohanlal Kukkar under Clause (a) and (b) of para 76 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Scheme, 1952, on the allegations that the said firm was registered under the said Act on 7-5-1965 under the name of M/s Sohanlal Prabhudayal. This establishment was dissolved on 30-3-66 and was converted into the new establishment of the present name They were required to pay the contributions and administration charges in pursuance of para 38 of the said scheme within 15 days of the close of every month to the Fund established under the said scheme. But in case of months of September, October and November, 1967, they made the requisite payments on 24-10-67 22-4-67 & 21-12-67 respectively. Thus, they were alleged to have contravened the provisions of the aforesaid para 382. The learned Magistrate examined the accused and when they pleaded not guilty, he also examined ...
Bhanwar Lal and ors. Vs. Husseni Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)11
V.P. Tyagi, C.J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949 is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated December 1, 1972 and it arises our of the following circumstances:2. The following facts are not in dispute between the parties. Plaintiff Hibtullah Bhai purchased a shop which was rented out to Bhanwar Lal. Sagarmal and Chandmal. The shop was situate in the town of Nimbahera. the tenancy in favour of the defendants appellants commenced some 30 years before cling of the present suit Hibtullah Bhai was in need of money and, therefore, he borrowed Rs. 4 000/- from the defendants appellants after executing a mortgage deed Ex. 1 on 25th of October. 1957. It was agreed between the parties that the mortgagor shall not get the mortgage redeemed before 7 years of the execution of the mortgage deed and that during the continuance of the mortgage the landlord shall not pay any Munafa on the loan secured against ibis mortgage & the m...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahadev and 5 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN22
M.L. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur, dated 14-9-71 by which she acquitted the respondents of the offence under Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861, and under Section 160, Indian Penal Code.2. I have heard arguments of the learned public prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the record of the case.3. The SHO Udaimandir, Jodhpur, filed a complaint in the court of the Municipal Magistrate that on 30-5-71, at about 5.30 p.m., the Head Constable Deshrajt accompanied by three other constables was on patrol duty in area inside the Nagori-gate, Jodhpur and he found the respondents, six in number, fighting and thereby causing breach of peace The traffic was also jammed. Upon this complaint, a case was registered on 10-7-71. On 14-9-71, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 160, I.P.C. because the complaint failed to appear. Though the learned a Magistrat...
Municipal Council Vs. Nathu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN23
M.L. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the leaned Municipal Magistrate, Jaipur, dated 16-10-70 by which, he acquitted the respondent under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 No one appears on behalf of the respondent. I have beard Counsel for the appellant Stale and have looked into the record of the case.2. The facts are that on 11.8.66 at 7.00 a.m., Food Inspector Laxman Swaroop Goyal along with another Food Inspector Premchand checked the respondent Nathu near Hathroi on the Mirza Ismail Road in the city of Jaipur when he was carrying on his cycle milk for sale. He purchased a sample and divided it and placed the same into three bottles. He also put 16 drops of formaline in, each of the bottles. When one of the, bottles Was sent to the Public Analyst, for chemical examination, his report of the analysis was as follows,-Fat content. 4.1%.Solids non fat 6.01%.The opinion of the public analyst was that the sample of milk was adulterated by reason of ...
Sumer Singh Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj144
ORDERD.P. Gupta, J.1. There was a bus route from Borawar to Pushkar (hereinafter referred to as 'the route') about 90 Kilometers in length, which lay partly in Jodhpur region and partly in the Jaipur region of the State of Rajasthan. The operators of the route appear to have submitted an application for the extension of the route from Pushkar to Ajmer, but the State Transport Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the S. T. A.') rejected the aforesaid application by its resolution dated February 5, 1973 and did not grant the desired extension. The petitioner No. 1 is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Baser in Nagaur district, while the petitioner No. 2 is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kadel in Ajmer district. The two petitioners, acting on behalf of the inhabitants of the area and the Panchayats of which they were Sarpanchas some time later submitted representation to the S. T. A. that the route in question should be extended upto Ajmer so as to make available the inhabitan...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohansingh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1134; 1976(9)WLN13
M.L. Jain, J.1. This appeal has arisen in the following manner.2. Excise Inspector, Phalodi, namely, Khanusingh P.W. 4 and Excise Inspector Banwarilal P.W. 1 checked the field of Sohansingh respondent in village Chhoti Sewahi, Tehsil Osian on April 4, 1970, and found that he was cultivating? the field in collaboration with respondent Kumbha Ram and they had grown poppy. There were 2600 plants in the field which were uprooted and taken in possession in the presence of witnesses Sukhram P.W. 2 and Lalu P.W. 3. The accused were also arrested and forwarded to the police. The poppy plants were got chemically examined and were found to be positive for opium by the Assistant Director, Chemical Section, Police Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. When the challan was put up before the learned Magistrate, it was stated that it was for offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phalodi, charged the two respondents under the aforesaid section on the allegatio...
Sumersingh Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN91
D.P. Gupta, J.1. There was a bus route from Borawar to Pushkar (hereinafter referred to as 'the route') about 90 Kilometers in length, which lay partly in Jodhpur region and party in the Jaipur region of the State of Rajasthan. The operators of the route appear to have submitted an application for the extension of the route from Pushkar to Ajmer, but the State Transport Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the STA) rejected the aforesaid application by its resolution dated February 5, 1973 and did not grant the desired extension. The petitioner No. 1 is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Baser in Nagour district, while the petitioner No. 2 is the Sarpanch of Gram panchayat, Kadel in Ajmer district. The two petitioners, acting on behalf of the inhabitants of the area and the Panchayats of which they were Sarpanchs some time later submitted a representation to the STA that the route in question should be extended upto Amer so as to make available the inhabitants of the area a di...
State Vs. Satish Chandra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)10
M.L. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the judgment of the learned City Magistrate, Bikaner, dated 9-2-71. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. I have heard the learned public prosecutor and perused the record of the case.2. A complaint was filed in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner against the accused respondents, who are office bearers and directors of the Bikaner Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar under Section 28 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, for contravention of Section 19 of the said Act under which they were required to pay Bonus to their workers. The case was fixed on 18-1-71 on which day one of the accused, namely, Banwarilal was act present and bailable warrants for his attendance were issued and the case was adjourned to 17.2.71 On that day one of the accused namely Mst. Indra filed her bail bonds which clearly show the latter date. After adjournment of the case on 18.1.1971 it appears that the date of hearing was chang...
Ramkishore Vs. Jagdish Prasad and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)25
S.N. Modi, J.1. The appellant Ramkishore & the two respondents, Jagdishprasad & Puniya, were candidates for election to the Rajgarh Municipality from Ward No. 3 The total number of persons who participated at the polling was 431, The counting commenced on 16-9-74 & on the same tav the result was declared. The appellant Ramkishore, respondent No. 1 Jagdish Prasad & respondent No. 2 Puniye a secured 207, 209 and 11 votes respectively. Two ballot papers were declared invalid. The other two bal of papers which were not counted related to PW 4 Gurucharandas and his wife Mst. Ladoo. Both of them were kept secret in sealed envelope marked Art 4 as they were challenged votes. It may be mentioned here bat at the time of polling the identity of Gurucharandas and Mst. Ladoo was challenged by respondent Jagdish Prasad. The Presiding Officer after evidence held both these voters to be genuine voters. They were therefore supplied with ballot papers which instead of being inserted into the ballot-box...
Smt. Kishan Bai and ors. Vs. Pooran
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)9
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This is an appeal by the legal representatives of the defendant-tenant Harishanker since deceased.2. It arises out of a suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff landlord to the Court of Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 3, Kota. The suit was originally filed against Harishanker. The suit for ejectment was based on the ground of reasonable bonafide personal necessity of the landlord. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on April 10, 1969 An appeal was preferred by the landlord which was transferred to the Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Kota and the same was registered as Civil Appeal No. 12/1973 During the pendency of the appeal the defendant Harishanker died. The surviving heirs, in accordance with law were brought on the, record as legal representatives in the case. The appellate court held that the legal representatives of the respondent before that that court were not entitled to the protection of the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and E...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »