Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-26-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Raj190; 1967CriLJ1053
ORDERB.P. Beri, J. 1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pali, dated 6th July, 1966, who maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicants under Sections 295 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The circumstances leading up to the present application for revision briefly stated are these: On 7th April, 1964 some ladies of Jetaran went for worship to the temple of Mataji outside Mertji Darwaja near Jagannathji-ki-Bavri, Jetaran. To their suprise they did not find the idols in the temple and even the Chabutra on which the idols stood and the steps leading to the Chabutra were found damaged. On 8th April, 1964 some Hindu residents of Jetaran made a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jetaran that in the said temple there were idols of Seetlamataji, Achparaji, Bodarji and others and these idols were removed dishonestly from the Chabutra by some Musalmans which has occasioned an injury t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-07-1966
Reported in : AIR1968Raj5; [1967]65ITR267(Raj)
Kan Singh, J. 1. We have before us a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bombay Bench 'B' under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the following three questions have been referred to us with the statement of the case :--'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proper status to be taken in the Income-tax assessment on the assessee is Individual or Hindu Undivided Family ? (2) Whether on the facts here, with reference to the house properties, income from which are assessed here, Section 9(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was properly applied? (3) Whether the custom of impartibility is invalid on the ground of its being discriminatory so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India?' 2. Both the learned counsel, for the assessee and the Department, however, agreed that the fate of the case turns on the determination of the first question and accordingly they addressed us only on that question. They also agreed that the other ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-31-1966
Reported in : AIR1968Raj24
Tyagi, J. 1. This writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Jagjit Singh and nine other bus operators on the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route challenging the legality of the proceedings taken by the Home Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan under the notification dated the 24th January, 1962 issued by the Government of Rajasthan under Section 43(1) (iii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in pursuance of which the respondents Nos. 4 to 33 were granted permits to ply their buses on Jaipur-Bikaner route via Sikar, Salasar. Sujangarh, Nokha. 2. The case of the petitioners is that about 31 bus operators, who were plying their buses on the Jaipur-Alwar route, were displaced on account of the nationalisation of the said route. In order to rehabilitate them, the Government of Rajasthan, purporting to act under the provisions of Section 43(1) (iii) of the Act, published in the Rajasthan Gazette a draft notification No. F. 1 (4)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-04-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Raj1
D.S. Dave, C.J.1. The petitioners Radhakishan and Badrinarain, in this case, are Khandelwal Mahajans and residents of Jaipur. They are partners in a firm which is known as Shivjiram Ramkumar. They have filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It relates to a two-storeyed building situated near Mirza Ismail Road at Jaipur.2. The petitioners' case is that the said building belonged to one Ashan Ali Khan who mortgaged it with possession with Seth Bijaylalji, father of petitioner Badrinarain, and Bhuramalji, father of petitioner Radhakishan, for Rs. 7,999 and executed a mortgage-deed on 30-7-1944. At the time of the mortgage, the building was in physical possession of Ashan Ali Khan's tenants. When the mortgage-deed was presented for registration, the Sub-Registrar invited objections, but since no objection was received, that document was registered by him. Ashan Ali Khan had purchased an open land in front of the said building from the Municipal Council ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-02-1966
Reported in : AIR1968Raj14
Modi, J.1. These two civil appeals arise out of a single judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Bun'di, dated 14th October. 1958, in a suit for refund of money and we propose to dispose of them together by present judgment.2. The material facts may shortly be stated as follows :--3. The plaintiff was the ex-Jagirdar of Thikana Koila in the former State of Kola It is admitted that his jagir was resumed by the State on the 1st August, 1954. under the Rajas-than Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The State of Kota. as it then was, was merged in what may conveniently be called the first United State of Rajasthan in April, 1948, and became part of the second United State of Rajasthan which was formed in the middle of 1949 The last mentioned State was then formed into the Part B State of Rajasthan with the coming into force of the Constitution on 26th January. 1950. and is now represented by the present State of Rajasthan as it was constituted under the States Reorganisation A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-08-1966
Reported in : AIR1968Raj33; (1967)ILLJ270Raj
Kan Singh, J.1. These are two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Kendriya Sarvodaya Sahkari Sangh Limited, Jaipur, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Sangh', by which the Sangh questions the validity of two awards given by the Industrial Tribunal, Ra.jasthan, Jaipur, holding that the termination of the services of Sangh's employees; Shri Ram Swarup Mathur in the one case and Shri Jata Shankar in the other, were illegal and unjustified and in consequence awarding compensation to both of them, though their reinstatement was not ordered The Government made two identical references to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, at the instance of Saranjan Udyog Karamchari Union, Jaipur As the two writ petitions raise some common questions of law, they can conveniently be disposed of together2. We may first advert to the facts in Shri Jata Shankar's case. The Sangh was a Co-operative Society registered under the Rajas-than ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-18-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Raj42
Modi, J. 1. This is a writ petition by the New National Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works, Bharatpur, through its proprietor H. C. Malhotra under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. It is admitted that the petitioner has been carrying on the business of manufacture of medicinal and toilet preparations since 1956. On the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (Act No. 16 of 1955 hereinafter called the Act) having come into force with effect from the 1st April, 1957, the petitioner obtained a licence in form L-1 in accordance with Rule 83 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 (hereinfter called the Rules) made under the aforesaid Act. It is further admitted that the petitioner got his licence renewed from year to year until the 31st March, 1960.Before this licence expired, the petitioner had made an application on or about the 22nd February, 1960, to the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation of this State for renewal of his licence in form L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-22-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Raj239
Bhandari, J.1. The following four questions have been referred by a Division Benchof this Court to a larger Bench:(1) Whether Rule 2 of the Rules made by the Collector, Ganganagar under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, lays down the requirement that the draft electoral rolls along with the notices must inter alia, be placed at the office of the Municipality concerned and at two conspicuous places in each ward therein under Clauses (a) and (b) of the said rule, or, this provision relates only to the publication of the notice? (2) If the answer to the above question is in favour of the petitioners, whether the want of publication of the draft electoral rolls in strict conformity with the aforesaid rules amounts to a defect of a fundamental nature in the process preliminary to the election, and if so, whether such a defect would, by itself, be sufficient to vitiate the election in a writ petition? (3) Whether Anop Chand's case (supra) correctly lays down the law in so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-20-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Raj221
ORDERB.P. Beri, J.1. The Special Judge No. 2, Jaipur rejected the claim of the four applicants before me, who are commissioned officers of the Indian Army to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prescribes trial by Court Martial by his order dated 10th October, 1966, and it is against this order that they have come up in revision.2. The facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision application briefly stated are :A charge sheet was submitted before the Special Judge on 27th January, 1966 against 8 persons accusing them of offences of criminal conspiracy, bribery, criminal breach of trust, cheating and falsification of accounts under the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. One of them K.S. Oberei turned an approver. Out of the remaining 7 accused three are civilians and four are officers of the Indian Army w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-29-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Raj235
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a defendant's revision application against an order of the appellate court holding that the suit document is not a promissory note. The document runs as follows: 'I Hanuman son of Hiralal declare that I have borrowed Rs. 300/- from Fattu in cash. I shall pay this amount to you on demand or on the demand of the person whom you order payment at the place of business together with interest at Rs. 1.50 per month on Mah Sudi l-S. 2016.' The pronote was executed on Katik Badi 1-X. 2016 and was attested by a witness Bhanwarlal. The appellate court held, following the decision of a learned Singh Judge of the Madras High Court in Muthu Gounder v. Perumayammal, AIR 1961 Mad 347 that the promise contained in the above document was not unconditional inasmuch as the amount was payable on demand, the demand being a condition precedent. 2. In the above case the language of the promissory note runs as follows: '1 promise to pay you or your order after a period of two ...
Tag this Judgment!