Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN575
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This writ petition of petitioner Nanda arises out of the following circumstances.2. An application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act) was filed by creditor Kanhaiyalal. husband of respondent No. 3 Smt. Gulab Devi, in the court of Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, alleging that Rs. 4, 500/- were advanced by the creditor by way of loan to petitioner Nanda on the basis of a pronote and a receipt executed by the debtor in favour of the creditor and as the debtor was an agriculturist, therefore, it was prayed that the loan advanced to Nanda may be determined under the provisions of the Act. Petitioner Nanda denied to have received any loan from Kanhaiyalal and executed any pronote in favour of the creditor. The Debt Relief Court after recording the statements of the creditor-Kanhaiyalal and the scribe Shivdayal and also examining the witnesses produced by the debtor came to the conclusion that debt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN732
B.P. Beri, J.1. This is special appeal directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, who exercising the appellate jurisdiction under Section 46 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Act') affirmed the decision of the Tribunal which had set aside the election of the appellant as a member of the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar and dismissed the appeal.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri L.R. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent, that this appeal is not competent under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance on the authority of a Divisional Bench of this Court in Mohd. Umar v. Ahmed 1965 RLW 458. He invited our attention to Rawat Himmat Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1967 RLW 214; South Asia Industries (P) Ltd. v. S.B. Sarup Singh and Ors. AIR 1955 SC 1442, Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Anr. v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 349; The Union of India v. The Mohindra Supply Co. AIR 1962 SC 266 and to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN772
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Petitioner Radhey Shyam has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the vote of non-confidence passed by the Municipal Council of Shri Ganganagar on 18th of September, 1971, against the petitioner who was holding the office of the Vice-Chairman of the said Council.2. The petitioner was the elected Vice-Chairman of the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar which was constituted after general elections held in, the month of October, 1970. It is alleged that there were two rival groups in the said Council, one backed by the party in power and the other by Shri Sugan Chand respondent No. 20 who had held the office of the Chairman just before the present Board was constituted. A motion of non-confidence was sponsored by a group opposing the petitioner's group and a notice thereof was given to the Collector. It is said that notice contained the signatures of 17 persons, namely, non-petitioners Nos. 4 to 20. The Collector, Sri Ganganagar, in co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj201; 1972()WLN908
Beri, J.1. On the basis of a promissory note dated 6-6-1963 Seth Budh Singh Bapna instituted a suit against Sahibzada Abdul Bais Khan of Tonk. During the pendency of the suit on 30-5-64 the plaintiff moved two applications. One was for attaching before judgment the Khandan allowance payable to the defendant and the other was to restrain the defendant from receiving the said allowance from the Collector. Tonk. and the Collector from disbursing it. The learned Civil Judge passed an ex parte order restraining the defendant from receiving and the Collector from disbursing the amount to the extent of Rs. 60,000/-. Let us recall the exact words of the restraint order because its disobedience is an important question for decision.^^cuke %&lkgc; tknk vCnqyjfgl [kka oYn vCnqYyk [kka lkfdu VkSad A gjxk fd oknh dh vkSj ls nj[okLr o gYQ&ukekis;'k gqvk gS fd vkius rU[kkg dh jde djhc 60]000 :i;k dysDVjh o Vstjh VkSadls olwy dj jgs gks vr% vkidh bl gqDe ls enukbZ vkjth }kjk ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fdvki o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj2; 1972()WLN750
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is an appeal by a wife directed against an order of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated 12-8-1969 whereby the learned Judgereduced the amount of interim maintenance granted to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act', from Rs. 70/- per month to Rs. 40/- per month.2. Shri Purshotam Kewalia, the husband of the appellant had applied for judicial separation against the appellant wife under Section 10 of the Act. On the wife's application under Section 24 of the Act the learned Judge allowed Rs. 70/-per month as interim maintenance to the wife on 30-9-1967. Subsequently on the husband's application the learned Judge reduced the amount of interim maintenance to Rs. 40/- per month only by the order under appeal.3. A twofold contention is advanced by learned counsel for the ap-pellant in assailing the order of the learned District Judge. In the first place, it is submitted that once an order of interim mainte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj3; 1972()WLN654
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a husband's appeal directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated 25-2-1970 whereby the learned Judge dis-missed the husband's application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act', for judicial separation and while dismissing the application the learned Judge awarded an amount of Rs. 40/- per month as permanent maintenance to the wife under Section 25 of the Act.2. The appellant Purshotam Kewalia and Smt. Devki respondent were married according to Hindu rites in July, 1937. At that tune they were both children, while the husband was 15, the wife was 10 years of age. According to the husband, the wife started living with the husband's parents at Jaisalmer and at that time the husband's relatives came to know that the wife was mentally deranged and was of violent nature. Then the wife had left her in-laws some two or three days thereafter without informing anyone and for no cause. The wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj71; 1972()WLN839
Beri, J.1. These 268 special appeals indicated in the Annexure I to this judgment preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgments of the learned single Judge, of different dates though of identical contents, whereby he allowed 268 petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India holding that the Rajas-than Colonisation (Rajasthan Canal Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules 1967 (hereinafter called 'the Rajasthan Canal Rules) were void being inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge further directed that the State should frame the Rajasthan Canal Rules in the light of the observations contained in his judgment.2. Landless tenants who were in occupation of lands in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area were holding the lands on temporary basis and they challenged the validity of many of the Rajas-than Canal Rules but at the time of arguments confined their attack to Rules 9, 16 and 19 only. The learned single Judge found ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN825
L.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by Shiv Dutt Sharma, challenging the order of the City Magistrate, Jaipur city, dated September 3, 1972, passed under Section 144, Cr. P.C. The petitioner is a student of S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. He is living in the Senior Boys' Hostel, Room No. 39, having deposited his Hostel fee from 1st July to 31st December,1972. The students of the Medical College submitted a charter of their demands to the Government for solving their unemployment problem. They also made a peaceful demonstration on August 16, 1972 outside the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. In order to press their demand they wanted to meet the Health Minister, but when they failed to do so, they staged demonstration outside his residence in a peaceful manner for sometime, but the police force removed them. The State of Rajasthan, according to the petitioner, started unprecedented repressive measures to suppress their demand for employment. During the night intervening Sep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj63
J.P. Jain, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the defendant, Mool Chand, against whom a decree for Rs. 1,209/- as arrears of rent and for ejectment from the suit premises was passed by the Civil Judge, Jaipur City and upheld in appeal by the District Judge, Jaipur City. 2. Mool Chand defendant is the owner of the house F-150 in residency area of the C-scheme. Jaipur. He mortgaged this house with possession by a registered mortgage deed dated 12-9-1956 with Prasad Dass Banerjee and his brother Narain Dass Banerjee for a sum of Rs. 15999/-. By a separate document of the same date Mool Chand was accepted as a tenant on a portion of the said house. The defendant thus continued to be in possession of that part of the house. A rent note (Ex. 1) was executed and the mortgagor agreed to pay Rs. 93/- p.m. as rent for the said part of the house. Mool Chand paid the rent for two months, upto 12-11-1956. By the rent note Ex. 1 the period of tenancy was fixed for a Period of one year. It was also agr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN753
J.P. Jain, J.1. In this second appeal the appellant is a tenant against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed by the Additional Munsif, Jodhpur and maintained in appeal by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur.2. There is a building properly known as Lakhekhan building situate in Jodhpur inside Swanchi Gate Respondent Lakhekhan is the owner of this building The suit premises is a shop in this building. Appellant Mohanlal has been a tenant in the shop at the rent of Rs. 15/- per month. The respondent served a notice of eviction under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the appellant. The tenant did not vacate the suit shop. Respondent-plaintiff therefore instituted the civil suit No. 49/67 in the court of Munsif on 4.7.1967. He claimed eviction of the tenant on three grounds: (1) That the defendant neither paid nor tendered rent from Bhadwa Sudi 2 Samwat 2021 corresponding to 8 9.1964, (ii) that the defendant made certain material alterati...
Tag this Judgment!