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 : Jan-17-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Raj203; 1967CriLJ1057
Modi, J. 1. This is a contempt of court matter arising out of a petition filed by one Sukhraj bringing to the notice of the Court a printed pamphlet Ex. 1 purporting to have been addressed by respondent No. 1 Hemraj and his father respondent No. 2 Manchalal to Dr. Radhakrishnan, President of India, and certain copies thereof Exs. 2 and 3 addressed to Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri the late Prime Minister of India and Ex. 4 to Shri Gulzarilal Nanda then Home Minister, Government of India and Ex. 5 addressed to the Collector Jalore, containing certain objectionable passages calculated to undermine the prestige of this High Court and impair the confidence of the public in the administration of justice by it. The proprietor and the printer of the press whereat this pamphlet was printed were also impleaded as respondents Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. Thereafter notices were issued to the respondents to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court in publishing and printing the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-04-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Raj151
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal and is directed against an appellate Judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated 2nd May, 1961 whereby in dismissing the defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur the learned Judge affirmed the decree for a sum of Rs. 6,694/10/-. The main question that has been canvassed before me, as was done before the learned District Judge, was about the suit being within limitation. The relevant facts may be recounted as follows:2. Respondent Laxminarain commenced this action on 3rd December, 1957. It was averred by him that the defendant was a member of the Bullion Association Limited, Jodhpur and was carrying on bullion business as such. According to the plaintiff the defendant was constituted by him as his pucca Adatia and he started having dealings in the sale or purchase of bullion through the defendant. According to the usage prevalent in that Bullion Association Migsar Sud 5 of Samv...
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 : Mar-21-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Raj123
ORDER1. We have before us three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by three members of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly respectively, by which they seek to challenge the validity of certain proceedings of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly taken on 26th February, 1966 and 28th February. 1966, and pray for issuances of appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondents. As the writ petitions raise certain common questions, they can conveniently be dealt with together.2. Writ petitions of Servashri Yogendra Nath Handa and Manikchand Surana were argued by Shri C.L. Agarwal and that of Shri Ramanand Aggarwal was argued by Shri R.K. Garg The writ petitions referred to certain events that took place in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly on 26th Feb 1966 and 28th February 1966, and they are like this.3. The Governor of Rajasthan summoned the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly to meet for its budget session on 26th February, 1966, at 11.00 a.m. Accordingly the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-09-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Raj24
Modi, J.1. The judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bikaner, dated the 11th of September, 1957 are being assailed before us both by the plaintiff and the defendant by their respective appeals Nos. 6 of 1958 and 15 of 1958. By this judgment the learned District Judge partly decreed the plaintiff's suit for a sum of Rs. 4,340 as price of his two plots of land taken over by the covenanting State of Bikaner; Rs. 1,000 as damages for his mental worries and Rs. 500 for incidental expenses; the total amounting to Rs. 5,840 against the defendant State, the suit having been dismissed against the other defendant, namely, the Union of India.2. The facts leading upto this appeal, in so far as they are admitted between the parties or have been held to be proved satisfactorily, may be briefly set out as follows :3. The plaintiff was the owner of the two plots of land in dispute situate on the Gajner road near the Orphanage in the city of Bikaner having purchased the same from the said ...
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 : May-06-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Raj37
Tyagi, J.1. This is plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur dated 8th of January, 1958, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit as being time barred.2. The facts of this case are not much in dispute. It is admitted between the parties that the forest of Thikana Madri in District Udaipur was leased out by the Forest Department to the plaintiffs for the manufacture of 600 Handis of 'Katha' (Catochu) at the rate of Rs. 15 per Handi. One of the conditions of the agreement which was signed between the parties on 27th November, 1947 was that the plaintiffs would complete the Theka work by the 30th of June, 1948 and if for certain unforeseen calamity the plaintiffs failed to complete their work, then it will be within the discretion of the department to renew the contract for the next term on the payment of 10 per cent over and above the amount stipulated in the contract. But for this purpose, it was necessary for the plaintiff to make an application by F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-18-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Raj134
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a joint appeal by Laliya. Jaganriath, Jeewan, Chothia and Gheesa and is directed against the order and judgment of the Sessions Judge. Alwar dated 27-11-1965, convicting the first three, appellants for offence under Section 396, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200; in default, one year's further rigorous imprisonment, and the remaining two appellants for an offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to three years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts material and relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be stated as follows: It is alleged that on 7-8-1964 at about 4 of 5 O Clock seven persons including the five appellants, armed with guns and lathis, arrived in the 'Bazar' of village Bamanwas and looted a few shops. After the commission of dacoity they left the village along with booty. A good number of villagers collected and immediately chased the offenders and over-took...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-19-1966
Reported in : AIR1968Raj51
Modi, J.1. This is a defendants' civil regular first appeal in a suit for declaration and possession.2. The dispute relates to the estate of one Puranmal. It is common ground between the parties that the said Puranmal died without any male issue of his own, and had three daughters born to him, namely, Msts. Durga, Gulkandi and Dhapoo. The first of these died some time in 1950. The other two are appellants defendants before us. Apart from these two, the other two appellants are Ramchander and Badri Prasad, father and son, in whose favour Msts. Durga and Gulkandi sold two shops belonging to their father by a registered sale-deed (Ex. P-C) dated the 21st February, 1946, for a sum of Rs. 4500.3. The plaintiff respondent Prahalad's case was that he had been adopted as a son by Puranmal by a registered deed of adoption (Ex. P-A) dated the 23rd Jan., 1938, and as a result thereof succeeded to the entire estate left by his adoptive father who had admittedly died on the 4th February, 1938. It m...
Tag this Judgment!