Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-11-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Raj128
Jagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan (defendant No. 2) against a decree of the District Judge, Kota, dated 25-9-58 decreeing a suit instituted against it and against the Union of India (defendant No. 1) by the Associated Stone Industries Kota (hereinafter referred to as the Company). 2. The relevant facts are that the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Kota entered into an agreement Ex. A on 2-5-45 with the Company for quarrying Kachcha stone from the Tehsils of Ramganj Mandi and Chechat. Monopoly rights for quarrying Kachcha stone in these two tehsils were granted to the Company for a period of 15 years from 1-10-44- The terms and conditions contained in Clause 18 (i) of the agreement ran as under :-- 'In consideration of the concessions and privileges granted by the Grantor and in lieu of income-tax, super-tax and excess profits tax, the Grantee covenant to pay to the Grantor royalty on the stone excavated at the rate of rupee one per 100 sq. ft., subject t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-11-1970
Reported in : 1970WLN398
Jagat Narain, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan (defendant No. 2) against a decree of the District Judge, Kota, dated 25-9-58 decreeing a suit instituted against it and against the Union of India (defendant No. 1) by the Associated Stone Industries Kota (hereinafter referred to as the Company).2. The relevant facts are that the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Kota entered into an agreement Ex. A on 2-5- 45 with the Company for quarrying Kachcha stone from the Tehsils of Ramganj Mandi and Chochat. Monopoly rights for quarrying Kachcha stone in these two tehsils were granted to the Company for a period of 15 years from 1-10- 44. The terms and conditions contained in Clause 18(1) of the agreement ran as under:In consideration of the concessions and privileges granted by the Grantor and in lieu of income-tax, super tax and excess profits tax, the Grantee convenant to pay to the Grantor royalty on the stone excavated at the rate of rupee one per 100 sq. ft., subjected to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-25-1970
Reported in : 1972WLN469
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. It is admitted that the facts relating to writ petitions No. 340 of 1967 & No. 57 of 1969 are quite similar questions of law that arise in them because both the petitioners were recruited to the Rajasthan Administrative Service by a common competitive examination held in 1956 under the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954. The petitioner in writ petition No. 51 of 1969 was recruited by the competitive examination held in 1959 All the three petitioners may therefore be said to be 'regular recruits', and I shall refer to them as such during the course of this judgment. The facts relating to writ petition No. 51 of 1969 are common with the other two petitions to a large extent. The three petitions have therefore been argued together by the learned Counsel for the parties and I shall, at their instance, deal with them by a single judgment as they are virtually companion petitions raising common questions of fact and law.2. The contentions of the petitioners, and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-20-1970
Reported in : 1972WLN988
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This writ petition of Pannalal arises out of the following circumstances:2. Petitioner Pannalal had advanced a loan to one Ashraf Ali who, after the partition of the country, migrated to Pakistan leaving behind him three houses properties in the town of Ajmer Petitioner had obtained a decree on 22nd August, 1948, of Rs. 4,000/- with 3 percent interest against Ashraf Ali from the court of the Sub-Judge, First Class, Ajmer, in Civil Suit No. 436 of 1948. On 12th of September, 1949, the petitioner registered this third party claim with the Assistant Custodian of the erstwhile State of Ajmer for the payment of the decretal amount and the same was registered vide the letters of the Assistant Custodian (Anneuxre 2) and (Annexure 3) dated 24th of July. 1951 and 21st of September, 1951, respectively. Thereafter it so appears that the Assistant Custodian did not take any proceedings to pay off the claim of the petitioner as registered with him under Rule 22 of the Administratio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-18-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Raj211; 1970(3)WLN626
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. This D.B. Civil regular first appeal has been referred for decision to the Full Bench by a Division Bench as the learned Judges constituting it were of the opinion that the following observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Jetharam v. Hazarimal, ILR (1951) 1 Raj 417 = (AIR 1952 Raj 28), was not a correct interpretation of the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mohammed Ewaz v. Brijlal, (1876) 4 Ind App 166 (PC):--'On the other hand, the case of Mohammed Ewaz v. Brijlall, is an authority to the contrary. It was held in that case that where the document was executed by two or more persons and some of them admitted execution while others denied it, the document should be registered as to the persons admitting the execution and it would be effective against the persons on whose instance the document was registered.'The appeal arises out of a suit for the enforcement of a mortgage by the sale of the mortgaged properties instituted by Muk...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-06-1970
Reported in : 1970WLN591
L.S. Mehta, J. 1. The dispute between the applicant Pala Singh and the nonapplicants Ram Singh and others relates to 19 bighas 10 biswas of land (Khowat No. 5 and Khatoni No. 41), situate in Chak No. 10 JRK, Tehsil Hanumangarh. On receipt of the application from Pala Singh a preliminary order was passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, on August 7, 1968, requiring the parties to adduce evidence in respect of their respective claim to the said property. The non-applicants Ram Singh and others produced their evidence on October 7, 1968 On November 4, 1968, Pala Singh moved an application in the court of the Sub Dvisional Magistrate, Haunmangarh, requesting that the Revenue and Irrigation Patwaris of Chak No. 10 JRK should be summoned together with the relevant record. That prayer was opposed by learned counsel for the non-applicants and it was urged that under Sub-section (4) of Section 145, Cr. P. C , all parties to the proceedings could adduce evidence in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-26-1970
Reported in : 1971CriLJ1405; 1970(3)WLN556
ORDERP.N. Shinghal, J.1. This a reference by Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, dated April 30, 1970, for quashing the order of Special Magistrate, Jaipur, dated April 6, 1970. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to state some of the facts bearing on it.2. One Dilip Singh is alleged to have been beaten in room No. 42 of Vivekanand Hostel, in Jaipur, on February 3. 1970, at about 2.30 p.m. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged the same day at Police Station Gandhinagar, and a case was registered for offences Under Sections 307 and 452 read with Section 149, and Section 148, IPC The room was inspected by the Investigating Officer on February 4, 1970, in the presence of 'motbirs', and some hair were found on and under the bed of Dilip Singh and on the wall. They were taken in police custody under a memorandum (B/76) for purposes of comparison. Dilip Singh succumbed to his injuries on February 14, 1970. The investigation of the case was then made over to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-21-1970
Reported in : 1970WLN572
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. In connection with the petition which has been filed by the three potitioners for the winding up of the Kota Straw Board (Private) Limited, Kota, hereinafter called 'the respondent Company', an application has been made by the respondent Company under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the proceedings. The question for decision therefore is whether that application should be allowed2. It will be sufficient to state, for purposes of the present controversy, that the petition for winding up has been made with the allegation that the respondent Company is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of clause (e) of Section 433 of the Companies Act and that it is just and equitable that it should be wound up under clause (f) of that section. In substance, the petitioners have alleged that the Comapny should be deemed to be unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. The respondent Company has, in its turn, made the afo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-14-1970
Reported in : 1970WLN563
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This first appeal by the defendant mortgagor is directed against both a preliminary decree dated 23-7-1962 and a final decree dated 23-11-1962 passed in a suit for the realisation of mortgage money by sale of the mortgaged property.2. The plaintiff Gulabchand, now dead, & represented by respondents Kanhaiyalal and Ramdas, as also by Smt. Kanta Kumari instituted a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge. Jaipur City, on 9-5-1957, praying for a decree for an amount of Rs. 35,799-11- and its realisation by sale of the mortgaged property. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant-appellant mortgaged his property detailed in para 1 of the plaint on 6-5-1952 for an amount of Rs. 24, 999/-and executed a mortgage deed and of it registered on 12-6-52. The defendant agreed to pay interest at Rs. 0/12/- percent per month with six monthly rest. There was also an agreement to pay interest on the amount of interest in case the amount of interest was not paid in time. The mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-28-1970
Reported in : 1970WLN494
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge No. 1 Jodhpur, dismissing the plaintiffs suit for partition and recovery of arrears of rent.2. For the proper appreciation of the facts, the following pedigree showing the relationship of the parties is set out below: Udaichand | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Dharam Chand Kewal Chand *Zorawar Mal | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Umrao Chand @Dhanpat Chand 'Inder Chand (Plaintiff) (died in Smt. (Deft. 1 along with 2009 Migsar V. 2= his sons & grand-sons 3-11-1952 (defts. 2 to 5) *Zorawar Mal | --------------------------- | | Himmat Mal (D.W.12) Chanda Mal | ------------------------------ | | Mohan Mal Sumat Mal (D.W. 8) @Dhanpat Chand | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | Ugam Chand Manohar Paras Prakash Prem Chand Pratap Chand (Deft. 6) Chand Chand C...
Tag this Judgment!