Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1962 Page 1 of about 12 results (0.012 seconds)

Feb 01 1962 (HC)

State Vs. Hari Ballabh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-01-1962

Reported in : AIR1963Raj19; 1963CriLJ223

..... perfectly possible for an accused person to commit an offence of criminal trespass against a servant or an agent or a licensee of another who may be the owner or mediate possessor, with respect to the property of the latter, if the other conditions mentioned in section 441, penal code, are fulfilled. and, in our opinion, it could not be any ..... been attached to it. thus, it may be that although the owner of a certain property may be in its peaceful and lawful possession or in what we may call 'mediate possession' thereof, in the language of jurisprudence, a servant or a licensee or an agent of that owner may be in actual physical possession thereof or what in jurisprudence is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1962 (HC)

Jassuram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-18-1962

Reported in : AIR1963Raj72

bhandari, j.1. these 85 writ petitions are disposed of by this judgment as they are similar on facts and common questions, of law arise for consideration in all of them.2. all the petitioners claim to be tenants in tehsil nohar, which formed part of the former bikaner state before the state of rajasthan was formed. until the repeal of the bikaner state tenancy act (act no. ii of 1945 (hereinafter called the bikaner tenancy act) by the rajasthan tenancy act (act no. 111 of 1955 (hereinafter, called the act) which came into force on the 15th october 1955, the status of the petitioners as tenants was governed by the provisions, of the bikaner tenancy-act. so far as the state lands (sic) were concerned, that act recognised occupancy tenants, khatedar tenants, tenants for fixed terms and the tenants who did not fall in these three classes. that law also recognised occupancy tenants in respect of private lands.the common case of the petitioners is that they were tenants of the one kind or the other under the bikaner tenancy act, and by virtue of the section. 15 of the act they became khatedar tenants enjoying rights conferred under the act and their khatedari rights were taken away by the state under section 15a, which was inserted by section 3 of the rajasthan tenancy amendment act of 1958 in the act. these sections so far relevant, stand as follows, after undergoing various amendments:section 15:-- '(1) subject to the provisions of section 15 and clause (d) of sub-section (1) of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1962 (HC)

Madan Lal Thanvi Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur and a ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-05-1962

Reported in : AIR1963Raj136; 1963CriLJ50

chhangani, j. 1. this is an application by madanlal, an ex-employee of the police department, praying for the issue of a writ, direction or order to declare rules 23 and 23a of the rajasthan government servants and pensioners conduct rules (hereinafter to be referred to as the rules) as ultra vires and to quasb the order of the deputy inspector general of police, jodhpur range, jodhpur, dated the 17th march, 1960, dismissing the petitioner from' service as upheld by the order of the inspector general of police, dated the 17th december, 1960, an alternative prayer was also made for issue of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to recognise the rajasthan non-gazetted police karmachari sangh.2. the relevant facts are briefly these:3. the petitioner was a constable in the police department in the former jodhpur state and on integration of the former jodhpur state with rajasthan he was absorbed in the service of the rajasthan state and was a head constable on the non-gazetted staff of the police department. the petitioner's case is that the gazetted officers of the police department formed an association and the same was recognised by the government and is functioning. thereafter the non-gazetted police employees also formed an association in the year 1957 in the name and style of 'the non-gazetted police karamchari sangh and the petitioner was one 08 the sponsors of that association. this association, according to the petitioner, was formed with an object of attaining .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1962 (HC)

Tilkayat Govindlalji and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-31-1962

Reported in : AIR1962Raj196

bhandari, j.1. the three writ petitions referred to above seek to challenge the vires of the nathdwara temple act (act no. 13 of 1959) (hereinafter called 'the act') passed by the rajasthan state legislature. this act received the assent of the president on the 28th of march, 1959.2. writ petition no. 90 of 1959, has been filed by shri tilkayat govindlalji maharaj of nathdwara (hereinafter called 'the tilkayat').3. writ petition no. 310 of 1959 has been filed by triyambak lal and nine others who are the followers of the vallabh sampradaya and are hereinafter called 'the vaighnavas'.4. the third writ petition no. 420 of 1960 has been filed by goswami shri ghanshiam lal, head of the shrine of the vallabh sampradaya at kamban (district bharatpur). the respondents to all these writ petitions are the state of rajasthan and the members of the temple board constituted under the act and the executive officer of the board appointed under the act.5. before we refer to the contentions of the petitioners in these writ petitions, it is both necessary and convenient to refer to the historical background of the temple of shrinathji at nathdwara and also to the circumstances under which the impugned act was passed. this temple is of the denomination known as pushti margiya vaishnav sampradaya', more popularly known as 'vallabh sampradaya' (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called 'the sampradaya'). this sampradaya was founded by shri vallabhaharya, who, according to dr. bhandarkar, was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 1962 (HC)

Kanhaiyalal Vs. the University of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-24-1962

Reported in : AIR1965Raj84

order1. this is a writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution.2. the petitioner shri kanhaiyalal is a registered graduate of the university of rajastnan. by resolutions nos. 24 and 21, dated the 28th of january, 1958 and 8th of january 1959 respectively, the university of rajasthan, which is respondent no. 1 in this writ petition, decided to award the degree of the doctor of philosophy to respondent no. 4 shri madan lal sharma, who was a lecturer in the maharaja's sanskrit college, jaipur, and the said degree was conferred on him. according to the petitioner, respondent no. 4 managed to get the aforesaid resolution passed at the meetings of the syndicate by exercising his influence on some members of the syndicate.the contention of the petitioner is that respondent no. 4 had never applied for being awarded the degree of doctor of philosophy but had applied only for the degree of 'vachaspati'; that for the degree of doctor of philosophy under ordinance no. 124, made under section 30 of the university of rajputana act, 1946, 'a candidate for the degree of ph. d. must be an m. a. m.sc., m.com, m. ed., or m. pharm.' and respondent no. 4 did not hold any of these degrees, and as such, could not be awarded the degree of doctor of philosophy under the aforesaid act, that the petitioner pursued no research for being awarded the degree of doctor of philosophy; that the petitioner carried on research, if any, for being awarded the degree of 'vachaspati' which was not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1962 (HC)

The State Vs. Banshilal Luhadia and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-31-1962

Reported in : AIR1962Raj250

modi, j.1. we have four criminal matters, one appeal and three revisions, all of which have been filed by the state and arise out of similar facts. the appeal arises out of the judgment dated the 25th october, 1958, of the additional sessions judge, jaipur city, jaipur, acting as special judge under the prevention of corruption act (no. 2) of 1947 (hereinafter called the act of 1947), by which banshilal luhadia and one other person sumatimal were acquitted of an offence under section 5(2) of the act of 1947 and for the abetment thereof respectively in case no. 8 of 1957 which was tried on the merits.by extremely brief orders of the same date but apparently based on the reasoning which was contained in the judgment in case no. 8, three similar complaints against banshilal luhadia in cases nos. 6 and 5 and sumatimal in case no. 7 of 1957, out of which revisions nos. 29, 30 and 31 of 1959 arise respectively, were dismissed without a trial and being bad for want of previous sanction which ground was raised on behalf of the accused and upheld by the learned special judge in all the four cases. it would thus appear that case no. 8 of 1957 was thrown out on both grounds after a full-fledged trial while the three other cases fell to be thrown out on the preliminary ground of want of valid sanction.2. the facts out of which appeal no. 96 of 1959 arises may be stated at some length as that case was decided by the trial court on the merits. the accused banshilal luhadia, who is an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1962 (HC)

Gorulal and anr. Vs. Gopichand

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-18-1962

Reported in : AIR1963Raj149

i.n. modi, j.1. this is a second appeal by the 'defendants gorulal and damodar, father and son, against the judgment and decree of the senior civil judge, jaipur city, affirming the judgmentand decree of the additional munsiff, jaipur city, in a suit for rent and eviction.2. it is admitted between the parties that the defendants appellants bad taken the shop in suit with a chobara on it from rampratap and badrinarain on a rent of rs. 6/- per mensem by a rentnote dated the 4th january, 1944, ex. 1. it is further admitted that rampratap and badrinarain had made a gift of the suit property to mst. shantidevi, wife of the plaintiff gopichand and that on her death, triveni devi, her daughter, succeeded to the property and that the latter also 'died unmarried on the i4th of april, 1957. on the 30th december, 1955, a notice was served on behalf of mst. triveni devi on the defendants terminating their tenancy and asking them to hand over possession of the suit property. eventually, the plaintiff gopichand brought the present suit for recovery of the arrears of rent amounting to rs. 216/- and also for ejectment on the 18th january 1958. the sole ground on which this suit was brought was that the defendants had defaulted in the payment of rent from the 4th january, 1955 to the 4th january, 1958.3. the defendants resisted the suit on a number of grounds. they contended that the plaintiff had no locus standi to bring the present suit as he was not the lawful heir of mst. triveni devi, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 1962 (HC)

Dhanna and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-03-1962

Reported in : AIR1963Raj104; 1963CriLJ615

orderc.b. bhargava, j.1. this is an application on behalf of dhanna, jagannath and kana under section 561a of the code of criminal procedure for allowing them rehearing in s.b. criminal appeal no. 316 of 1962 which was rejected by the court on 26th november, 1962.2. at the time of hearing of the appeal, appellants and their counsel were absent and the appeal was decided after a perusal of the record of the case. the judgment was delivered orally in open court. before the transcript of the judgment was prepared by the judgment-writer, an application was moved that the transcript of the judgment should not be signed. accordingly i did not sign the transcript pending hearing of this application.3. the contention of the learned counsel is that i can rehear the appeal because the judgment passed on 26th november, 1962 has not been signed. he says that section 369 of the code applies only when a judgment has been signed and till then the court can alter or review its judgment. it is also stated in the application that the learned counsel had two more cases fixed in the daily cause list of the high court of 26th november, 1962 before two other benches and besides had one sessions case fixed in the court of the additional sessions judge, no. 2, jodhpur. it is stated that twice or thrice he looked inside the court from outside and found that his case was not reached and so at 3 p.m. he told the court peon that if his case was reached he should call him from the other court where he is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 02 1962 (HC)

Bachh Raj Vs. Sunder Mal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-02-1962

Reported in : AIR1963Raj119

chhangani, j. 1. this is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the district judge, pali, dated 31st march, 1955. the plaintiff-respondents have also filed cross-objections. they initially came up before a single judge of this court who after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, considered that an important point called for determination in the appeal, namely, whether under the facts and circumstances of this case the patta ex. p-l was required to be registered under the provisions of the marwar patta ordinance. he consequently referred this point to a larger bench. the matter having come before a division bench of this court it was ordered on 25th of august, 1961 that the whole case may be referred to the larger bench. the single judge thereafter, on 18th november, 1961, referred the whole case to the division bench and this is how the matter has come before us. 2. the facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly stated as follows: achaldas, who is now dead and is represented by the respondents, his sons sundermal, vimalraj and grandson ugamraj, the latter two minors through their next friend achaldas of village khod, instituted a suit in the court of the judicial superintendent, sojat, against the appellant bachhraj for possession of a piece of land situated in village khod shown as 'abcd' in the plan submitted with the plaint, and for mesne profits amounting to rs. 14/- at the rate of rupee 1/- per month. the plaintiffs' case was that they .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 1962 (HC)

Banshi Dhar Vs. Ghisalal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-15-1962

Reported in : AIR1962Raj225

beri, j.1. this is a plaintiff-appellant's application for the appointment of a receiver to collect the rents or the property which is the subject-matter of a purported simple mortgage during the pendency of the appeal before this court. 2. material facts leading to the present controversy are these. the defendants-respondents before us, on 19th september, 1950, secured a loan of rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff-appellant, mortgaged a property situate in nasirabad and executed a registered deed. the mortgage was simple. the loan was to be repaid within two years and it bore interest at the rate of 12% per annum and in the event of there being a default in the payment of interest for three months the rate of interest to be charged was 15% per annum. the respondents only paid a sum of rs. 1,200/- by way of interest on different dates and it appears that nothing was paid towards the principal. the plaintiff, therefore, instituted a suit for the sale of the mortgaged property. on the date of the suit the plaintiff-appellant's claim had reached the figure of rs. 20,600/-, but he relinquisned rs. 4,100/- and only claimed a relief for rs. 16,500/-. during the pendency of the suit a receiver was appointed by the learned trial court who, it is said, collected a small sum of money. the suit was resisted by the defendants-respondents on various grounds. it was eventually dismissed because the trial court held that the document purported to be the mortgage deed was not duly attested and, .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //