Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1958Raj60
Bapna, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Civil Judge, Baran.2. In an execution petition before the learned Civil Judge, the judgment-debtor raised an objection that he was a resident of Sironj, which is now in Madhya Pradesh under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and, therefore, the Court at Baran had no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings. The learned Civil Judge has referred the matter to this Court for decision under Section 125(2) of the States Reorganisation Act.3. On going through the record, it appears that suit No, 3 of 1952, which ended in a decree, was instituted by Surajmal, Ramgopal, and Rajmal, residents of Chhipabarod in Rajas-than against Hiralal, Pannalal and Dhannalal, residents of Sironj, on the allegations that 100 bags of maize were sent by the firm of the plaintiffs carrying on business at Chhipabarod on the 5th of December, 1950, to the defendants' firm at Sironj for sale and remittance of the sale proceeds to the plaintiffs.The allegation of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1958Raj89; 1958CriLJ567
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge at Palanpur against the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Abu Road, in connection with a criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate. It has come to us as it relates to the Abu area which has been integrated with Rajasthan under the States Reorganisation Act.2. The facts of the case are briefly these. Sindhi Nathuram Atmaram is said to have gone to the office of the Administrator of the Abu Road Municipality at about 1 P. M on the 16th of January, 1956, and obstructed the Administrator in the discharge of his official duties and threatened him. On this, the Administrator reported the matter to the Sub-Inspector concerned.The Sub-Inspector investigated the case and made a complaint to the Magistrate against the accused. When the accused appeared in Court he raised an objection that in view of Section 195 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate had no jurisdiction as no complaint h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1958Raj124
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J. 1. These are two connected writs by the Divisional Personnel Officer of the Western Railway at Aimer under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari in connection with a matter under the Payment of Wages Act. The applications were originally filed in the High Court of Bombay and have come to this Court under Section 64(2) of the States Reorganization Act, 1956.2. It is not necessary for present purposes to set out in detail the case of the parties. Suffice it to say that an application was made by Bal Krishna Maheshwari, Opposite Party No. 3, who was in the service of the Western Railway at Abu Road, on 7-7-1952 under the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority having jurisdiction in the matter viz. the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Abu Road, Balkrishna Maheshwari claimed that his wages had been illegally deducted and prayed for relief under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.The matter was enquired into by the Authority concerned and an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1959Raj121
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution against an appellate order under the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act) granting 5 further permits along the Ajmer-Beawar route to respondents Nos. 2 to 6. The petitioners are the existing operators on the route. Members of the Automobile Transport Ltd., petitioner No. 1, hold 6 permits on this route. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 hold one permit each.2. The facts which have given rise to this application are these. In its meeting held on 25-2-56 the Ajmer State Transport Authority decided to increase the number of buses operating on this route from 14 to 17. Applications for the grant of three permits were consequently invited by means or a notice published in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Ajmer Government for publishing the applications for grant of permits under Setion 57 of the Act.No less than 102 bus owners filed applications for the grant of further permits for the route. Thes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1959Raj149
Dave, J. 1. This case comes on a reference made by learned Judges of a Division Bench of this Court in a first appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Kishangarh, dated the 14th of August, 1951 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for Rs. 9,500/37- with future interest at 6 per cent and costs.2. The said reference is embodied in the following terms:'Whether advantage can be taken under Section 15 OB the Kishangarh State Limitation Act, corresponding to Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, of the pendency of a suit in the courts of the erstwhile territory of the Ajmer-Merwara, in subsequent suit in Kishangarh Court in view of the accession of Kishangarh State to the Dominion of India and thereafter its becoming a part of the Union of India, and specially the merger of the erstwhile State of Ajmer with Rajas-than under the States Reorganization Act, 1956?'3. In order to appreciate the full implication of the question raised before us, it would be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1960Raj138
Modi, J. 1. These are two appeals by the defendant State against two separate judgments of the District Judge Bikaner of the same date that is tile 31st May, 1954, by which he decreed the suits of the two plaintiffs for damages for breach of certain alleged contracts of service. As these appeals raise precisely the same questions of law, this judgment will govern both of them.2. The salient facts of the two cases may be shortly stated as follows:3. The suit in appeal No. 77 of 1954 was filed by Laxminarain, a legal practitioner of the erstwhile Covenanting State of Bikaner and now an Advocate of this Court. His case was that ho had been engaged by the former State of Bikaner as an Assistant Government Advocate in 1931 and since then he had been in continuous employment as such or as Acting Government Advocate or as Government Advocate until October, 1947 in that State. The plaintiff had the option throughout this period to continue his civil practice. From November, 1, 1947, an agreeme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1960Raj219
Chhangani, J. 1. This is a first appeal by the defendants against the decree dated 14th of August, 1951 for an amount of Rs. 9,500/3/- passed by the Civil Judge, Kishangarh against them and in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and the sole point for determination is whether the plaintiffs-respondents were rightly given by the trial court the benefit under section 14 of the Limitation Act to bring within time their suit which was admittedly presented beyond the prescribed period of Limitation. The relevant facts may very shortly be stated as follows:--The plaintiffs-respondents, a partnership firm deal in the purchase and sale of gold, silver and yarn and also carry on business as commission agents. The defendants who are the members of a joint Hindu family firm entered into various transactions of sale and purchase of gold, silver and yarn during period from Bhadva Vadi 12, samwat 2000 to Kartik Sudi 15, samwat 2000 through the agency of the plaintiffs' firm, alleging that as a resu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1960Raj185
Bhandari, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The case set out by the petitioner in his petition is that he carried on business in the name of Messrs. Jai Ambey Pustak Bhandar at Jaipur of publishing educational books for schools and colleges in Rajasthan. It is alleged that the petitioner being desirous of submitting the books for courses of study prescribed by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan (hereinafter called 'the Board') got himself registered under Regulation 16(1) of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Regulations, 1957, (hereinafter called 'the Regulations') framed under the Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, 1957, (hereinafter called 'the Act') Under Registration Certificate dated the 14th of October, 1958.This registration was valid for a period of five years from June, 1958 to June, 1963. On the 30th of July, 1959, the petitioner presented 21 books to the Board for approval for study in various subjects in the Higher Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1961Raj143
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a regular second appeal by the defendant State against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Udaipury dated the 5th November, 1957, in a suit for accounts.2. The facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows. The plaintiff Rao Manohar Singh of Bedla was a jagirdar in the former State of Mewar at all relevant times. That State was integrated in what may be called, for facility of reference, the first United State of Rajasthan in April, 1948. The last mentioned State was amalgamated with the former States of Jodhpur, Jaipur, Bikaner and Jaisalmer and the Matsya Union, as it then was, and the seconds United State of Rajasthan was formed in the middle of 1949.This last-mentioned State Was then formed-into the Part B State of Rajasthan with, the coming into effect of the Constitution on the 26th January, 1950, and is now represented by the present State of Rajasthan as it was formed under the States Reorganization Act, 1956 (No. X...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1962Raj190
Modi J.1. This reference originally came before a learned single Judge and has in turn been made by him to a larger bench.2. The questions referred to this bench for answer are as follows:(1) Whether Section 2(i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. XVII of 1950) as amended by the Amending and Extending Act, 1957 (Act No. 34 of 1957) in so far as it applies to the Cantonment Area of Nasirabad and Section 2(2) of the said Act which brings into force at once Sections 1 to 4 and 27 to 31 of that Act and authorises the State of Rajasthan to extend the remaining provisions to such areas in that State and from such date as may from time to time be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette in so far as it affects the Cantonment area of Nasirabad is beyond the legislative competence of the Rajasthan State Legislature for the reason that the subject-matter covered by the said Rajastham Act is within the exclusive competence of the Union Parl...
Tag this Judgment!