Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-06-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj153
..... 4. we are concerned in this application with the indian explosives act, 1884, and the rules framed thereunder. it cannot, in our opinion, be denied that control of explosives by the state is necessary in the interests of the general public, explosives are dangerous substances, and it is in the interest of the general public that all and sundry should not have explosives in their possession, or should not be permitted to use them for making fireworks, etc., without proper conditions and restrictions.consequently section 5 of the indian explosives act (no. iv) of 1884 ..... to that objective 'that the propriety of the classification would have to be tested.'we can say the same thing when dealing with the question of reasonable restrictions under article 19. where the legislative policy is clear and definite and cannot be called an unreasonable restriction and a discretion has to be vested by the law or rules upon a body of administrators or officers to make selective application of the law, the discretion that is so conferred on official agencies in such ..... at page 132. these remarks were made in connection with article 14 of the constitution, but apply with equal force to article 19 :''in my opinion, if the legislative policy is clear and definite and as an effective method of carrying out that policy a discretion is vested by the statute upon a body of administrators or officers to make selective application of the law to certain classes or groups of persons, the statute itself cannot .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-04-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj25
Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by theplaintiff Roshanlal, an advocate of this Court,against the judgment of the District Judge, Udaipur, dated 18-5-1953, in a suit for recovery ofcertain fees agreed between him and the defendant. 2. The material facts may be briefly stated as follows. It is alleged that on 25-8-1950, Bhuramal defendant who is a contractor of means met the plaintiff in the court premises at Udaipur and told' the latter that he wanted to institutea, suit against his son Hareshai and nephew Birdichand for a sum of Rs. 53,000/- and had tried to contact him more than once but was unsuccessful.An appointment was arranged between the parties and the plaintiff's case is that on 26-8-1950, Bhuramal executed a document Ex. P-1 in favour of Roshanlal, in which he stated that he had engaged the said advocate to conduct the case filed against his son Harsahai and nephew Birdichand along with another advocate Mr. Trivedi and that his remuneration for the entire case was settled at Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-08-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj6
Dave, J. 1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Balotra, dated 13-7-1953 whereby their suit has-been dismissed.2. The plaintiffs in this case 'were seven innumber. Their case was that plaintiffs 1 and 2 Multanmal and Dayachand and one Nenmal, who wasthe deceased father of plaintiff 3, carried on business to the name and style of Multanmal Juharmaland Company. Defendants 5 and 6 were also sonsof the deceased Nenmal but they had separated fromthe father in his lifetime and so they were impleaded only as pro forma defendants.It was averred that the remaining defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were members of a joint family and that defendants 1 and 2 Sanwalchand and Babulal, who were Kartas of 'that family, borrowed from the plaintiffs' firm Multanmal Juharmal and Company Rs. 9801/- on Fagan Sud 11 Samwat 2001 and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 8 annas per cent per mensem.The claim was thus founded on a Khata dated Fagan Sud 11 Samwat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-12-1955
Reported in : AIR1957Raj167
Bhandari, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner Mangilal praying that the order of the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur, respondent No. 1 dated the 14th of June, 1954 cancelling, under Section 60(d) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, the permit for plying a stage carriage be set aside and respondent No. 1 and the Regional Transport Authority Jodhpur Division Jodhpur respondent No. 2 be prohibited from interfering with the plying of bus of the petitioner. 2. The circumstances under which respondent No. 1 ordered the cancellation of the permit of the petitioner are as hereunder:-- 3. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodh-pur, published a notification in Rajasthan Raj-patra dated the 4th of October. 1952 inviting applications for permits for plying stage carriage on Makrana Parbasar-Bassi route for three years The petitioner's application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-23-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj107
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Jugraj, and arises in the following circumstances: 2. The case relates to village Osia in which a Panchayat had been established under the Marwar Village Panchayat Act of 1945 (hereinafter called the Marwar Act). Prom the 1-1-1954, the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (No. 21) of 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) came into force. A notification was issued under the Act for the establishment of a Panchayat consisting of two villages namely Osia and Dhunaria. Thereafter, elections were held to this Panchayat of the two villages, and certain persons were elected. The applicant contends that under Section 93 (2) of the Act the Panchayats established under the Marwar Act were deemed to have been established under the Act from the date of its commencement, i.e. 1-1-1954. Therefore, it was not open to the State Government by means of a notification, dated 13-11-1954, to establish another Panchayat consisting of Osia and D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-02-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj39; 1956CriLJ270
Bhandari, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of Perma appellant who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur under Section 326, I. p. C. and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo three months' further rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are very simple. In the village Maunch, there is a house Murli Mahajan with a shop underneath it and in front of the shop there is a chabootra, On 25-10-1952 at about 8 P. M. several persons were sitting on that Chabootra and were settling the rate of chillies which Pakira P. W. 4 had come to purchase from Karauli.Ratanlal P. W. 1 was also sitting on the chabootra and on his back the appellant was standing. It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant aimed a blow of the sword which he carried wrapped in a Dhoti, on the neck of Ratanlal. but the blow struck Ratanlal on his right shoulder. This blow of the sword caused two injuries detaile...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-27-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj81
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These five appeals have been referred to this Bench for decision because of an apparent conflict between two decisions of this Court. The first of these decisions was given by a Bench of three Judges sitting at Jaipur on 31-3-1953 (See Radhey Shiam v. Firm Sawai Modi Basdeo Prasad AIR 1953 Raj 204 (PB) (A) ).The exact question, which was before that Bench for decision, was whether the ex parte decree passed in the former State of Jaipur against a resident of the former State of Dholpur in 1947 could be executed at Dholpur after 26-1-1950,The Bench took the view that even though, at the time the decree was passed, it was the decree of a foreign Court against a non-resident foreigner who had not submitted to its jurisdiction, the political changes, that had taken place in India after 1947, would make the decree executable after 26-1-1950, In what was the former State of Dholpur.The Pull Bench followed the view taken in Bhagwan Shankar v. Rajaram', AIR 1951 Bom 125 (FB) (B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-15-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj9
ORDERModi, J. 1. These are two revisions by the plaintiffs Nandlal and another against the judgments of the Civil Judge, Retangarh dated 18-12-1951, in two suits for the recovery of price of certain cloth sold. The suits were decided by the learned Judgeas email cause' court suits. As they raise identicalquestions of law going to the very root of thetrial in either case, I propose to decide, them bya single judgment. 2. The plaintiffs are dealers in cloth and carry on business at Sujangarh. The defendants were hawkers and also dealt in cloth. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendants purchased certain cloth from the former and failed to pay the price thereof. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a suit against Puran for a sum of Rs. 200/- including a sum of Rs. 44/1/- as interest -- the rest being the price of the goods sold -- and against Chandra for a sum of Rs. 125/- out of which she price of goods sold was Rs. 97/1/3 and interest Rs. 27-14-9;The defendant in either case completely d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-02-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj24
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Ramkishan of an offence under Section 19 (f) of the Arms Act.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The accused is the proprietor of Grand Hotel, Jodhpur. One Mahendra Singh came and stayed at, the Hotel. When he was leaving, he wag short of money and could not pay the bill that he had run up at the Hotel. Consequently Mahendra Singh left his pistol with the accused, and executed a document Ex. P3 by which he pledged this pistol as a security for the sum of Rs. 300/7/- which he owed to the grand Hotel.He agreed that the money would be paid within a fortnight together with interest. It was also agreed that if the money was not paid within the, time-limit, the Hotel would have the right to recover the amount by selling the pistol. On 23-3-1952, the pistol was recovered from the possession of the accused by the police on the basis, of some information received from Bombay. Thereafter, the accused was prosecuted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-04-1955
Reported in : AIR1957Raj213
Modi, J.1. This is a petition by Bhoorchand under Article 226 of the Constitution and arises under the following circumstances.2. The petitioner's case is that he had obtained the lease of some 2400 bighas of land from the jagirdar of Sanwarla, Tehsil Siwana, by a deed dated the 3rd December, 1951, and that he had been carrying on the work of manufacture of salt over 1 1/2 acre out of the area mentioned above for the last four years and invested round about Rs 10,000/- over such manufacture. He also states to have applied but without success so far, for a licence, to the General Manager, Central Excise and Salt Government of India, for the purpose of manufacturing salt over a larger area but contends that so far as the existing area, to which he has confined the manufacturing operations is concerned, namely, the one and half acre, he is perfectly within his legal rights as such manufacture is covered by a press-note dated the 23rd April, 1948. issued by the Government of India under Se...
Tag this Judgment!