Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN863
K.D. Sharma, J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of a single judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu on 7th June, 1972 upholding the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Jhunjhunu, dated 19th May, 1970 in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. As there are common questions of law and fact involved in these two applications in revision, they are disposed of by one judgment.2. The relevant facts giving rife to these revision petitions may be shortly slated as follows. The Station House Office', Police Station, Ghidawa initiated proceedings under Section 145, Cr P.C. against the parties in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu on 12th August, 1968. It was alleged by the police that there is an agricultural land measuring 24 bighas and 2 biswas under a well popularly known as 'Swamiwala Will' situated in khasra No. 529 at village Ojatu Out of this land one half, i.e. 12 bighas and 1 Biswa belong to Nathudas and his daughter Kamali and her husba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN846
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. This is a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ, order or direction for the release of HariRam Loharia (hereinafter called 'the detenu') detatined under Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Security Act') by the order of the District Magistrate, Sikar (hereinafter called 'the D.M ') dated 25-9-1973.2. On a report by the Assistant District Supply Officer to the Sadar Police Station, Sikar, dated 7-9-73 a search was made of the premises of Jagdamba Oil and Dal Mills, Sikar, and the Inspector found 2808 bags of cement while the stock register showed a balance of 2689 bags only. The excess of 119 bags according to the police was due to the admixture of sand in cement bags and in a garage some labourers were engaged in the process of adulteration and they made statements to this effect. A case under Section 420 IPC and Essential ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1974]44CompCas445(Raj); [1974]95ITR488(Raj); 1973()WLN567
Tyagi, J. 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), New Delhi, and the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Jaipur, have filed this special appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the order of the learned company judge dated 22nd March, 1972., [1974] 94 I.T.R. 11; [1974] 44 Comp. Cas. 144 (Raj.)2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are, in a nutshell, as follows : After Messrs. Golcha Properties (Private) Ltd. (hereinafter called ' the company ') was ordered on 10th May, 1968, to be wound up, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-I, Jaipur (who was then the assessing authority for the said company), sent a letter on 29th August, 1961, to the official liquidator, notifying to the company that Rs. 41 lakhs were payable or likely to be payable as income-tax by the company to the department and, therefore, he was specifically directed to set apart this amount under Section 178 of the Income-tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1637
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, by K. Narendra, Managing Proprietor, Printer, Publisher and Editor of Hindi Daily 'Veer Arjun', New Delhi and Nanak Ram Israni, Correspondent of the above paper, Ajmer, against the order dated November 4, 1971, of learned Additional MunsinVMagis-trate, Ajmer City (East).2. The brief facts of this case are that Amrit Kumar Advocate had been engaged in Criminal Case No. 238 of 1966 (State V. Ajit Singh under Sections 323 and 335, Indian Penal Code), pending in the court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Ajmer, on behalf of Ajit Singh. When Ajit Singh had come to know on 25-8-1970, that that case had been decided against him and he had been convicted and sentenced, he had shouted to attract the attention of the court as to how he had been convicted when he had already given to his Advocate Amrit Kumar bribe money to be paid to the Munsiff-Magistrate. At that time Amrit Kumar was also present b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN585
R.D. Gattani, J.1. The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.T.A.') on 24.4.1970 fixed the scope of two stage carriages with one return trip on Banswara Ratanpur via Garhi, Sagwara, Dungarpur, Kherwada and Bichiwada route (hereinafter referred to as 'the' disputed route') Before that on 9.1.1968 the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (petitioner in writ petition No. 2260 of 1970 and hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') had published a scheme under Section 68 C of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the following four routes:(1) Udaipur- Dungarpur via Rikhabdeo, Kherwada, (2) Udaipur-Ratanpur via Rikhabdeo, Kherwada, Bichiwara, (3) Udaipur Rikhabdeo, (4) Dungarpur-Ratanpur via Kumba, Thana, Bichipura. A few persons had already applied for the grant of non temporary permits on 'the disputed route'. These applications after getting them published as required under the law, c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN427
J.P. Jain, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant State against whom the respondent's suit No. 37/61 for the recovery of Rs. 2016.24 as arrears of salary for the period from 1.6.52 to 18.3.54 was decreed by the Civil Judge. Ajmer and the same was maintained in appeal by the District Judge, Ajmer on 31,3.1965.2. Respondent Sunder Das was joined service in the Agriculture Dept. of the erstwhile State of Ajmer on 10 5.1948. His appointment was temporary. His services were terminated after one month's notice to him with effect from the afternoon of 30.4.1952. The order terminating his service is Ex. A-3 on record. Sunderdas appeared to have represented the matter and he was re-employed on the same post with effect from 19 5.1954. This order has not been placed on record by either party. In the meanwhile, State of Ajmer merged into Rajasthan. By the order dated 24th February, (sic)the Government of Rajasthan in the Agriculture Department passed an order condoning the break of service...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
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
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!Court : Rajasthan
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
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!