Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-25-1974
Reported in : 1974WLN839
1. The petitioners in these two writ petitions complain that their liberty has been infringed on account of their unlawful detention under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). We shall examine the validity and legality of their detention in the light of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 22 of the Constitution of India and the procedural safeguards provided under the Act.2 As the case of both the petitioners is common and the grounds of their detention are identical, it would be proper to dispese of both the petitions by a common order. We will, however, mention the facts with reference to the writ petition No. 2223 of 1974.3. The facts are brief and simple The two petitioners namely, Bhagwan Das, and Nathmal, are brothers and ate partners carrying on their partnership business at Sikar under the name and style of M/s Ramesh Kumar Bhagwan Das. They deal in general merchandise and according to them, they carried on thei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-30-1974
Reported in : AIR1975Raj134; 1974(7)WLN965
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act', by a wife against whom the learned District Judge has passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.2. The parties, who were. Hindus, were married according to Hindu rites on 4-5-65 (Baisakh Sudi 3, Samvat year 2022) at Jodh-pur. The husband averred that after the marriage was celebrated the wife did not live with him. He made several attempts to induce his in-laws to scad his wife, but they did not heed. He, therefore, made the application under Section 9 of the Act in the court of the learned District Judge on 14-12-1968. The wife appeared to be a minor at the time the proceedings were commenced and,therefore, a guardian ad litem was appointed for her. The guardian ad litem resisted the application on a number of grounds. It was pleaded that there was no 'Muklava' ceremony and, therefore, the marriage was not complete and then th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-07-1974
Reported in : 1974WLN(UC)275
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' second3 appeal arising out of a suit for redemption of a house situated near Sodagaron-ki-Masjid in the city of Jodhpur.2. The plaintiffs' case as set in the plaint was that their ancestors mortgaged the house in question in samwat Year 1938 in the month of Srawan for a sum of Rs. 110/- 'Bijai sahi' in favour of the defendants' ancestors. It was prayed that a decree for possession of the house by redemption may be granted on payment of Rs. 90/- equal to Rs. 110/- 'Bijai Sahi' coin prevalent in the former State of Jodhpur. The alleged mortgage was denied by the defendants, and they also pleaded bar of limitation.3. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the trial court dismissed the suit, and its judgment and decree were upheld by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur. Hence this appeal.4. It may be stated at the very outset that this appeal does not involve any question of law. The only question for decision is whether the mortgage set...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-08-1974
Reported in : 1974WLN(UC)61
J.P. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan against an order of the Special Judge for Rajasthan, Jaipur City, whereby the proceedings in the special criminal case No. 13/1971 (6/1968) against the three respondents were quashed and they were discharged for want of sanction Under Section 196A, Cr.P.C.2. This case has a chequered history but it is not necessary for us to trace it from the date the proceedings originated. It is enough to state the facts in short and from the time the three respondents, (1) Shree Laxman Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Wireless Deptt.) Jaipur; (2) Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Assistant Inspector Wireless Departrmnt, Jaipur during the relevant period, and (3) Shri Ram Prakash Agarwal Proprietor, Messrs Radionics, M.I. Road, Jaipur were put up on trial before the Special Judge Jaipur City, Jaipur for various offences. The learned Special Judge, Jaipur City by his elaborate order dated 24-9-68 examined the allegations made in the charge-s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-10-1974
Reported in : AIR1975Raj1
S.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a first appeal by the defendant Bank of Baroda against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge No, 2, Jaipur City, dated 11-9-69 in a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,491-63 P. instituted by the plaintiff-respondent Krishna Ballabn. The other respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are the heirs of the deceased N. V. Vakhariya.2, The undisputed facts of the case are these:--N. V, Vakhariya, the husband of respondent-defendant No. 2 and father of respondent-defendants Nos. 3 to 5 carried on business in the name and style of Messrs. Jem Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works in the City of Jaipur upto 28-6-61 on which date N. V. Vakhariya expired. During the relevant--period he was the sole proprietor of the said business. On 19-7-60 he opened a Cash Credit Account with the Bank of Baroda Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Bank in the name of Messrs. Jem Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works and executed an agreement Ex. A/14 in favour of the Bank. By this agreement N. V. V...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-10-1974
Reported in : AIR1974Raj212
Gupta, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of a motor accident, which took place on May 3, 1966, Shri Rajbahadur Singh reached Kota Junction on the fateful morning by train and took a cycle rickshaw from the railway station to go to Bundi bus stand at Kota in order to catch the bus for Bundi. He had been selected at a competitive examination for the Rajasthan Judicial Service, occupying the fifth position ,and after undergoing the necessary training at Alwar, he was posted as Munsif Magistrate, Bundi. It was his first assignment in the State service and he was to join his duties as a Munsif Magistrate on May 3, 1966, at Bundi. But destiny willed otherwise and while the rikshaw in which Shri Rajbahadur Singh was sitting, was proceeding from Brij Talkies crossing on the slope leading towards the Bundi bus stand, a passenger bus, bearing registration No. RJR 915 came from behind. The bus collided in the first instance with Jeep No. DLJ 1329, which was at that time parked towards the left si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-10-1974
Reported in : 1974WLN36
D.P. Gupta, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a motor accident, which took place on May 3, 1966 Shri Rajbahadur Singh reached Kota Junction on the fateful morning by train and took a cycle rickshaw from the railway station to go to Bundi bus stand at Kota in order to catch the bus for Bundi. He had been selected at a competitive examination for the Rajasthan Judicial Service, occupying the fifth position and after undergoing the necessary training at Alwar, he was posted as Munsiff-Magistrate, Bundi. It was his first assignment in the State service and he was to join his duties as a Munsiff-Magistrate on May 3, 1966, at Bundi. But destiny willed otherwise and while the rickshaw in which Shri Rajbahadur Singh was sitting, was proceeding from Brij Talkies crossing on the slope leading towards the Bundi bus stand, a passenger bus, bearing registration No. RJR 915 came from behind. The bus collided in the first instance with Jeep No. DLJ 1329, which was at that time parked towards the le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-15-1974
Reported in : AIR1974Raj232
S.N. Modi, J.1. This first appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge. Aimer in a suit for possession and mesne profits.2. The dispute relates to a part of the house bearing old No. A. M. C. 7/261 and new number 14/249 situated in Gujar Grawadi in Ajmer fully described in paras 6 and 13 of the plaint, as also in the site plan attached to the plaint -- portion marked red colour.3. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted on 20th March, 1969, by plaintiffs Rameshwar Lal and Norat Mal against eleven defendants. Plaintiffs and defendants 7 to 11 are related to one another. Their relationship would be clear from the following pedigree table:-- SETH BASANTI RAM (died on 19-6-62) | __________________________________________________________________________ | | Rameswarlal Norat Mal Mst. Ratan Bai Plff. 1 Plff. 2 married to Laxminarain | ____________________________________________________________________________________________ | ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-15-1974
Reported in : 1974WLN13
S.N. Modi, J 1. The first appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Ajmer in a suit for possession and mesne profits.2. The dispute relates to a part of the house bearing old No. A.M.C 7/261 and new number 14/249 situated in Gujar Gawadi in Ajmer fully described in Paras 6 and 13 of the plaint as also in the site plan attached to the plaint portion marked red colour.3. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted on 20th March, 1989 by plaintiff Rameshwar Lal and Norat Mal against eleven defendants. Plaintiffs and defendants 7 to 11 are related to one another. Their relationship would be clear from the following pedigree table: Seth Basantiram (died on 19-6-62) |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | |Rameshwarlal Norat Mal Mst. Ratan Bai marriedPlaintiffl P. 2 to Laxminarain--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | |Ramswaroop | |...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-20-1974
Reported in : 1974WLN176
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. The six petitioners before us are Railway servants who were removed/dismissed from service because each one of them was convicted for an offence by a criminal court. They complain that notwithstanding the fact that they were given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter called 'the Probation Act') they have been removed or dismissed. They have challenged their order of removal/dismissal on the grounds that it was contrary to the provisions of Section 12 of the Probation Act or at any rate inconsistent with the objects of that statute & that it is violative of the principles of natural justice as they were never heard before removal or dismissal. The learned Single Judge, before whom these petitions were presented, found it necessary to refer these cases to a Division Bench because Tyagi, J. in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 481, 482 516, 517 and 600 of 1966 by his judgment dated December 19, 1969, had held that even in a case covet...
Tag this Judgment!