Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj158
Bapana, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,2. The petitioner Bawat Man Singh is a returned candidate to the Rajasthan Legislative-Assembly from Jamua Ram Garh constituency in the last General Election. Shri Roop Chand Sogani and Shri Mangilal opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed an election petition which is No. 227 of 39ii2 and is pending inquiry before the Election Tribunal, opposite party No. 6. Rawat Man Singh, Shri Govind Narain Jahalani, Shri Kanhiya Lal and Shri Amrit Lal who were candidates at the election were made respondents in that petition.3. The petitioner challenges the validity of the constitution of the Election Tribunal on the following grounds :1. The Chairman was appointed after the appointment of members. 2. On the resignation of the first Chairman Shri K.C. Gupta, the Tribunal was not re-constituted, but only a new Chairman was appointed. 3. The Tribunal was 'functus officio' during the period between the resignation of S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj141
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. The following point has been referred to the Full Bench for answer : 'Whether the protection afforded by Section 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants Ordinance, 1949, is also available in case of dispossession of a person in occupation of the holding on or after the 1st day of April, 1948, as tenant as defined in the Ordinance when such dispossession is made by a person other than the landholder, e.g. a trespasser?' 2. Section 7(1) of the Ordinance, as amended up-to-date, reads as follows : 'Any tenant who being in occupation of his holding on or after the first day of April, 1948, has thereafter been ejected therefrom, or dispossessed thereof or from or any part thereof- (a) before the commencement of this Ordinance, otherwise than by process of law, or (b) after the commencement of this Ordinance in contravention of the provisions thereof, may, within three months from the date of such ejectment or dispossession or the commencement of this Ordinance, whichever...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj260
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Surajmal Baj for issue of a writ of mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, or direction or order against the State of Rajasthun and the Administrator of the Municipality of Jaipur City, and two others, in connection with the demand of octroi from the applicant.2. The case of the applicant is that he is a resident of Jaipur City and carries on trade and commerce in allopathic medicines. He was entering the city of Jaipur on 4-9-1953, at about 1 P.M. with a packet of allopathic medicines sent to him by May and Baker (India) Ltd., New Delhi, for the purpose of his trade and commerce. He was stopped by the Octroi Inspector who was also made a party to this petition and was asked to pay octroi duty amounting to Rs. 1/6/6 and was informed that the goods bo detained till the octroi duty was paid.It was urged that this demand and detention of his goods were illegal for the reasons that the octroi impo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj65
Dave J. 1. These are two connected applications for issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the applicants pray that the Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating Act (No. 15) of 1951 (hereinafter called the main Act) as amended by the Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating (Amendment) Act, (No. 14) of 1952 (hereinafter called the Amendment Act) be declared unconstitutional, and therefore void and unenforceable. These applications along with similar other applications came up for hearing on the 31st March, 1953, and subsequent days and were heard together. This judgment will, therefore, govern all other cases which were listed along with these two cases for hearing on the same dates, as the points involved in all these cases are exactly the same. 2. The applicant in case No. 351 is Raj Sahiban Shersingh, jagirdar of Nibaj in the district of Sirohi, while Sawai Singh, a Bhomia in villages Kakrana and Udaipur in district Jhunjhunu, is the applicant in case No. 544. Their...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj232
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Shankerlal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, in a pre-emption suit.2. The suit was brought by Poonam Chand for pre-emption with respect to the sale of a house in favour of Shankerlal. The right was based on vicinage as provided in the third clause of Section 3 of the Law of Pre-emption in Marwar. The trial Court decreed the suit, and therefore the defendant has come in appeal to this Court.3. The relevant portion of Section 3 is as follows: 'The right of pre-emption in respect of a house or a building plot shall belong to the under mentioned in the following order:1st ....................................2nd ....................................3rd to a person owning immovable property touching the house or building plot in respect of which pre-emption is claimed...............'A question was raised that the law of pre-emption has been invalidated in view of the provisions of Articles 13 and 19 of the Constitution. The matte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1957Raj10; 1957CriLJ102
ORDERRanawat, J. 1. This is an application for grant of bail on behalf of Mt. Chokhi against whom a case under Section 302 read with Section 34. Penal Code is going on in the Court of Sessions Judge at Jhunjhunu. 2. Mt. Chokhi and her husband Chunna have been prosecuted for the murder of their child aged about seven years named Manbhari and the trial has already begun in the Court of the Sessions Judge. Five prosecution witnesses have been examined who are said to be eye witnesses. It is stated that both Mt. Chokhi and her husband conspired to murder their child in order to implicate Gangaram and others who are said to be on inimical terms with them. An application for grant of bail was made on behalf of Mt. Chokhi in the Court of Sessions Judge who dismissed it on two grounds: 1. that there were no extenuating circumstances in the case. 2. that under the Constitution of India no leniency could be shown to a woman on account of her sex, 3. This application has now been filed under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj233
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Munsif of Jaitaran, and has arisen in the following circumstances.2. A suit was filed by Shri Shersingh, Jagirdar of Balunda, against Ghansiram for a sum of Rs. 600/-. In that suit the defendant wanted to examine the plaintiff as his witness. Thereupon, an application was made by the plaintiff on 17-11-1951, to the effect that he was exempt from attendance in Court by virtue of a notification issued by the former State of Jodhpur, No. 5587, dated 6-2-1934, published in the Jodhpur Gazette of 20-3-1934. Thereupon, there was an objection by the defendant whose case was (i) that that notification had lost all force in view of certain changes in the law, and (ii) that, in any case, in view of Article 14 of the Constitution, the privilege conferred by the notification could no longer be enjoyed as it infringed equality before the law provided by that article.3. The matter was argued before the Munsif, and he has referred two questions to us under t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj37; 1956CriLJ269
ORDERModi, J.1. This is an application in revision by the accused Taj Khan against an order of the Special Judge, Udaipur, by which he framed acharge against the petitioner under Section 161 read with Section 116. Penal Code.2. The facts of the case out of which the revision arises may shortly be stated as follows. On 10-1-1952, it is alleged that the accused offered a bribe of Rs. 500/- to the Income-tax Officer, A Ward, Udaipur, with a view to gain his favour in an assessment case relating to the petitioner pending before the said officer. The latter, made a telephonic report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur, who caused an investigation to be made, and it appears that the accused was caught almost red-handed.The accused was challaned in the court of the special Judge under Section 161 read with Section 116, I. P. C. The learned Judge after recording the evidence produced by the prosecution has framed a charge against him under the aforesaid sections. This revision h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj207
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Sobhag Mal for issue of a writ of mandamus quashing the order of the Commissioner, Customs and Excise, Rajasthan, dated 29-7-1952, and of the Government, dated 17-1-1953, and directing them to proceed according to law in connection with the proceedings resulting in the dismissal of the applicant.2. The case of the applicant is that he was appointed by the Government of the former state of Jaipur, on 16-10-1946, on probation for one year. Thereafter, he was appointed on 4-3-1948, as Inspector, Customs and Excise Department, as his work during the probationary period was found satisfactory. He was suspended from service by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs & Excise, Jaipur, and gave over charge on the 11th June, 1949. No reasons were given for such suspension in the letter of the Assistant Commissioner.Eventually, however, on 31-8-1951, the Divisional Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Excise, gave the applicant a charge-sheet containing thre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj283
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is a second appeal by the State against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Pali, by which that Court reversed the decree of the Civil Judge, Pali, and decreed the suit brought by Beejal, plaintiff-respondent, against the defendant-appellant.2. The case put forward in the plaint by Beejal was that he entered the boundary of the former State of Marwar in August, 1950, from the former State of Sirohi along with certain sheep, goats, lambs and camels in order to go to Ajmer. When he reached Pali, he was stopped from proceeding further unless he paid two taxes known as Kharota lag and Charnot duty. He was compelled to pay Rs. 764/- as Kharota lag and Rs. 833/- as Charnot duty. He, therefore, filed this suit for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1597/-.His case was that these taxes were realized from him without any authority of law, and against the provisions of the Rajasthan (Regulation of Customs Duties) Ordinance (No. 16) of 1949 (hereinafter called the Rajastha...
Tag this Judgment!