Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1957Raj336
Modi, J. 1. These two first appeals raise a common question as to their proper venue or forum. In the event that these appeals should have been filed in the Court of the District Judge concerned, instead of in the High Court, a question of limitation is further involved because in that case the appeals were presented, more than thirty days after the judgment of the trial Court was delivered. We propose to decide both these points by this judgment.2. In order to appreciate the points which are raised before us, a few facts may be stated shortly.3. As to Appeal No. 55, the plaintiffs respondents filed their suit against the defendant appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,221 on the 29th May, 1953. The Senior Civil Judge Jalore decreed the suit by his judgment dated the 25th January, 1956. The defendant filed his present appeal in this Court on the 15th May, 1956, which came to be registered as Appeal No. 55 of 1956.4. As to Appeal No. 56 of 1956, the plaintiff appellant filed his suit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj6
Dave, J. 1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Balotra, dated 13-7-1953 whereby their suit has-been dismissed.2. The plaintiffs in this case 'were seven innumber. Their case was that plaintiffs 1 and 2 Multanmal and Dayachand and one Nenmal, who wasthe deceased father of plaintiff 3, carried on business to the name and style of Multanmal Juharmaland Company. Defendants 5 and 6 were also sonsof the deceased Nenmal but they had separated fromthe father in his lifetime and so they were impleaded only as pro forma defendants.It was averred that the remaining defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were members of a joint family and that defendants 1 and 2 Sanwalchand and Babulal, who were Kartas of 'that family, borrowed from the plaintiffs' firm Multanmal Juharmal and Company Rs. 9801/- on Fagan Sud 11 Samwat 2001 and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 8 annas per cent per mensem.The claim was thus founded on a Khata dated Fagan Sud 11 Samwat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ810Raj; 1998(1)WLC1; 1997(2)WLN658
M.G. Mukherji, C. J. 1. The reference is at the instance of the learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6345/ 1992 and S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3784/1993. In the first writ application filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('RSRTC' for short hereinafter) the award dated December 3, 1991 as passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara in Labour Case No. 9/1991, formerly numbered as 39/1987 has been impugned by the RSRTC whereby the learned Judge, Labour Court having found the order of termination dated October 8, 1994 to be unsustainable directed reinstatement of the workman Gopal Singh treating his case to be one of continuous employment and observed that the said Gopal Singh would be entitled to 50% of his backwages till the date of the award and would be entitled to full wages thereafter. His two annual grade increments were withheld. The, RSRTC was also declared to be entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 8000/- to which extent it sustained as a loss on accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993CriLJ3776
ORDERN.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In all these bail applications under Section 439, Cr. P. C., important questions of law of general importance have been raised, which also involve interpretation of Sections 36A and 37 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (In short, The Act' or 'NDPS Act'). The questions may be formulated as under:-1. Whether under the proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure an accused can claim bail as of right if Charge-sheet is not filed after completion of investigation within 90/60 days?2. If so, whether the right can be claimed even after the filing of charge-sheet?3. Whether provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act override Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and bail cannot be granted unless conditions contained in clauses (i) & (ii) of Section 37(1)(b) are satisfied ?2. In all the three bail applications the accused persons were arrested under Section 8/18 and 8/19 NDPS Act but Cognizance by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2005(103)ECC152; 2005(186)ELT3(Raj)
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a limited Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Amongst others, the petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of tyres for which it has its manufacturing facility at Kankroli, Rajasthan. For the purposes of its manufacturing in Rajasthan of such tyres, the petitioner imports Nylon Tyre Cord Fabric (NTCF) from various manufacturers/exporters of other countries including from those situated in Peoples Republic of China. The NTCF so imported is comprised of three different varieties namely, the grey fabric, dipped fabric and Cycle Tyre Cord Fabric (CTC). The petitioner is also a member of Automotive Tyre Manufacturer Association (ATMA). The association represents the collective interest of tyre manufacturers.2. The Association of Synthetic Fibre Industry (ASFI), whose members are the manufacturers of synthetic fibre in India, including NTCF, submitted a written application before the Designated Author...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLN186
Mr. Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. These two writ petitions are raising common issue of law, and therefore, the same are being heard and decided together.3. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1554/1991 a suit was filed by respondent No. 1 to 3 and heirs of Chand Singh respondent No. 4 to 8 against the petitioners Dara Singh and Indar Singh for partition of agricultural property held by one Sundar Singh. Petitioners as well as respondent No. 1 to 3 and Chandan Singh were the sons of Sundar Singh. Sundar Singh is alleged to have executed a will in favour of the petitioners bequeathing his entire agricultural land admeasuring about 48 Bighas in favour of the petitioners. The plaintiffs respondents have challenged the authority of Sundar Singh to 'execute will and divert the ordinary rule of intestate succession. Ultimately, the Board of Revenue while affirming the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority has held that the property in question was self acquired property ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2439
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. As common questions of law of considerable significance are involved in both these petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. these are disposed of by this common order.2. In S.B. Cr. Misc. Petn. No. 215 of 1997 Mukesh petitioner is alleged to have been found on 26-3-1989 keeping in his possession in a godown at 22, Godowns Factory Area, Jaipur 15 drums containing different kinds of petroleum products like mobile oil, greese liquid and black-hard and solid black oil, soap wash etc. with certain instruments and utensils to be used in preparing adulterated petroleum products. He was possessing no license to deal in petroleum products. He was, therefore, accused of having contravened clauses 3 and 4 of Lubricating Oil and Greese Order 1987 punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (The Act). A police report under Section 170/173, Cr. P.C. was made against him to the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) Cases on 1 -3-1993 and on the same day the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : I(1999)DMC121; 1998(2)WLC12; 1997(2)WLN646
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The wife-Smt. Santosh has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce, dated April 29, 1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalore, under Section 13(1-A) of the Act on the ground of non-compliance of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights for a period of more than one year.2. The factual position does not appear to be in dispute. The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu custom and rites in the year 1970, and they lived at Jalore. From their wedlock there is no issue. In the year 1980, the wife went to her parent's house at Bikaner and when she did not return to her matrimonial home, the husband-respondent filed a petition in the Court of District Judge, Jalore for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 alleging that the wife had fully deserted him without any lawful excuse. This petition was filed on Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2000Raj180
1. The State has preferred this misc. appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') challenging the judgement and decree dt. 16-7-1996 passed by the District Judge Jhalawar, whereby deciding objections of the State tothe application of the respondent M/s Navabharat Construction Co. (for short 'the Company') of claiming compound interest, the learned District Judge Jhalawar awarded simple interest @ 15% p.a. on the original award of Rs. 29,96,060/- from the date 16-7-1996 of its order till realization and further ordered to pass a decree entitling the respondent Company to recover whatever its claim granted under Award dt. 29-5-1995 from the State and also make Award amount a part of the decree. The decree passed is reproduced as under :--'With reference to the Award by Shri V. K. Gupta dt. 29-5-1995 the decree is passed asbelow :-- (i) An amount of Rs. 29,96,060/- (Twenty nine lakhs, ninety six thousands sixty only) will be paid by the non applicant for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(2)WLC524
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. A large number of writ petitions have been filed challenging the Constitutional validity of the provisions of Rule 73 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955, as amended vide Notification dated 26-2-1977, being substantive ultra-vires and for quashing the order dated 1-3-1997 issued by the Inspector General of Stamps providing, the applicability of the amendment even in pending revisions. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners purchased a piece of agricultural land measuring 20 Biswas comprise of Aaraji No. 1028 at village Rayala, district Bhilwara, for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. The said document was presented before the Registering Authority (respondent No. 3) for registration. However, the Authority took the view that the sale-deed, purported to have been made of an agricultural land, was in fact, sale deed of a commercial plot and the value of the land in dispute was required to be computed at the commercial rate and, ...
Tag this Judgment!