Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1972Raj31; 1971(4)WLN287
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a plaintifis1 second appeal arising out of a suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from disturbing certain easements of the plaintiffs.2. The houses of the parties are situated contiguous to each other in the city of Udaipur. The plaintiffs' house is stated to be a four storeyed one. In the first storey there exist two windows in the eastern room and one 'Jali' in the western room. Similarly in the second storey there are two windows in the eastern room of the plaintiffs' house and also a 'Medi'. In the third and fourth storeys there are certain projections in the plaintiffs' house over-hanging the defendants' house and these projections have been described in local terms as 'Khumla' and 'Galmi'. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants had obstructed the windows and the 'Jali' in the first storey and had threatened to disturb the plaintiffs' easements in the second, third and fourth storeys also. It was, therefore, prayed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1969Raj95; (1968)IILLJ682Raj
Mehta, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Good Year India Ltd. praying for quashing the order of reference dated 16th May, 1967 by the Government of Rajasthan to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and for an injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the purported adjudication.2. The petitioner, Good Year India Ltd., is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Head Office at 225-C Acharya Jagdish Bose Road, Calcutta with branches at many places in India including the one at Swastika House, Station Road, Jaipur. Shri A. A. Dhingra; respondent No. 4 was previously sales representative of the Company at Jullunder. In January, 1954, he was posted at Jaipur in the same capacity. On April 1, 1964 he was made sales assistant and on 1st January, 1966 he was made area supervisor. As an area supervisor, Shri Dhingra was in charge of the whole of the State of Rajasthan and a few towns of Madhya Pradesh. On 16-12-66,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1958Raj324
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act No. 43 of 1951 (hereinafter called the 'Act') by Shri Sheopatsingh against the decision of the Election Tribunal at Ganganagar declaring his election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly to be void on a petition under Section 81 of the Act by Shri Harish Chandra. 2. The election for the membership of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Hanumangarh Constituency was held in the month of February and March 1957. Shri Sheopatsingh and Shri Ramchandra contested the election. Shri Sheopatsingh polled 18,530 votes and Shri Ramchandra got 17,136 votes. Shri Sheopatsingh was accordingly declared elected by the Returning Officer on 18-3-1957. Polling took place on alternate days commencing from 25-2-57 and ending on 11-3-57. 4th February, 1957 was last date for withdrawing the nomination papers.3. The petition was filed by Shri Harish Chandra who is an elector in the Hanumanrarh Constituency. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(1)WLN780
J.R. Chopra, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgments of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pali dated 22-9-1978 and relate 10 acquittal of accused-respondents of the offences under Sections 28(1), (2) and (3) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). They raise a common question and, therefore, I propose to dispose of these appeals by a single judgment.2. S.B. Criminal Appeals No. 457/1978, 473/1978 and 474/1978 relate to the cases where on checking, a particular quantity of cotton-seed was found in possession of the accused-respondents and it was brought into the market area Pali after purchasing it outside the mark it area whereas in all the remaining appeals, the accused-respondents are alleged to be dealers in cotton seed doing business as retail Traders in the market area of Pali without obtaining any licence from the Market Committee, Pali inspite of the issue of notices to them. In S.B. Criminal Appeals No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1971Raj247; 1970(3)WLN550
Beri, J. 1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, directed against the rejection in limine of a civil writ petition by a learned single Judge of this Court In a matter relating to the declaration of the petitioner as a tout under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879.2. The petitioner is a citizen of India and claimed to be employed as a clerk to an Advocate at Jodhpur. Mr. O. C. Chatterji, Advocate and 14 others made an application to the District Judge, Jodhpur, that some 8 named persons be declared as touts. The petitioner was not included in that list. The learned District Judge acting under Section 36(2A) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 asked the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, to inquire into the matter and report. During the pendency of this inquiry the allegations against the 8 persons named by Mr. Chatterji received the consideration of the Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, Jodhpur. The Association appointed a Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1971Raj306; 1970(3)WLN758
Chhangani, J. 1. These four appeals arise out of two suits between the same parties, the earlier being a suit for mere arrears of rent and the later being a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in respect of the same premises and are connected with each other and deserve to be disposed of by one judgment.2. The material facts may be stated as follows :--In the city of Jodhpur outside the Jalorigate there is a building known by the name of 'Tapariya Mansion'. It belonged to Shri Jai Narayan Tapariya and his family. In March 1944 a portion of this building was let out by deceased Jai Narayan to Jodhpur Commercial Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') at a monthly rent of Rs 150/- per month for a period of five years ending on 31st March, 1949. Although the initial period of the lease expired on 31st March, 1949, the Bank continued to remain in possession of the premises. Negotiations were commenced between Jai Narayan Tapariya and the authorities of the Bank for the terms of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2001Raj360; 2001(3)WLC414; 2001(4)WLN183
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for releasing the bus No. RNF 1071 and for issuing directions to the respondents not to take any coersive measures for recovery of the tax as demanded by notice dated 6-11-2000 from the petitioner.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Shri Girdharilal was holding a permanent State Carriage Permit on the route Loonkaransar to Binjrawali and the petitioner purchased the said bus from him. The same stood transferred in the name of the petitioner. When the bus was being plied, it was seized by the authorities in exercise of the powers under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') on the grounds that the vehicle was not having tax token; Special Road Tax has not been paid; neither having permit nor the fitness certificate, nor registration certificate, nor insurance policy certificate, nor certificate from the Pollution Control Board. Moreso, it had not cleared the tax....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2002Raj252; 2002(2)WLC783
Madan, J.1. By this petition, a writ of mandamus is sought for directing the respondents:-(a) not to modify sale agreement's term dated 19.4.93 with Gouri Cements (P) Ltd. as unit sold in public auction held on 26.3.93; (b) not to allow the purchaser Gouri Cements (P) Ltd. in possession of the petitioner's unit in the event of breach of agreement term dt. 19.4.93; (c) to sell petitioner's unit by public auction in case of breach of sale agreement dt. 19.4.93 so also by affording opportunity to the petitioner to offer highest bid so as to receive back the unit; (d) to pay to the petitioner No. 1 balance of sale proceeds of the unit after adjusting his dues, alongwith interest @ 22% p.a. from 26.3.93 (auction date) till its payment of alternatively to give unconditional guarantee for such balance amount alongwith interest; (e) to submit monthly account to the petitioner No. 1 until payment of balance amount with interest. (f) to issue discharge certificate letter to the Registrar of Comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : IV(2005)ACC105; 2006ACJ1241; RLW2005(1)Raj512; 2005(2)WLC80
N.P. Gupta, J.1. All these appeals arise out of the same accident, and vide different orders, passed in different files, on different dates, they have been ordered to be listed together, and are being disposed of by the common order. For convenience, the facts relating to Civil Misc. Appeal No. 119/2004 are being taken into account.2. The appeal came up for admission before the Court on 14.7.2004, and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1531, the appeal as against the claimant was not admitted, and for that learned counsel for the appellant had no objection. As such the appeal against the claimant was dismissed, however, the appeal against the owner was admitted, and while dismissing the stay application, it was directed, that the appellant should deposit the whole amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal, which may be paid to the claimants, as per the terms of the impugned award. It was further dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987(12)ECC389; 1987(10)LC307(Rajasthan); 1986(26)ELT703(Raj); 1986(2)WLN612
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the Notification No. 150/85-CE dated 15th July, 1935 (Annexure-P).' It has further been prayed that the respondents may be directed not to modify or alter the excise duty relief as postulated under Notification No. 107/81-CE and No. 88/84-CE.2. The petitioner No. 1 is an existing company and it has its registered office at 7, Council House Street, Calcutta. The petitioner established two factories at Kankroli in the district of Udaipur for manufacturing tyres. By this writ petition the principal grievance is the withdrawal of the excise relief scheme which was issued for a specified period by the Central Government in order to encourage 'the new investment in tyre industry and to partially off-set the high cost of such new investment. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner made two principal submissions that once the excise relief is given by the Central Government and on that basis the petitioner Company acte...
Tag this Judgment!