Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Year: 1966 Page 1 of about 11 results (0.011 seconds)

Sep 09 1966 (HC)

Laxmichand and ors. Vs. Ramkumar and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-09-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Raj272

kan singh, j.1. this is a plaintiff's appeal and is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned district judge, alwar, whereby he dismissed the plaintiff's suit except for a simple money decree in a sum of rs. 320 against fatehlal only. the action was commenced by the plaintiff-appellant kanhaiyalal on 22-2-1945 in the court of the district judge, alwar and by it he sought a declaration that fatehlal (defendant no. 2) was the adopted son of one hiralal and he had a right to mortgage the shop in dispute with him and and he sought the consequential relief of possession of that shop from the defendants. the case with which the plaintiff-appellant came to the court was briefly this :2. the dispute relates to a shop situate in the alwar city. it originally belonged to one hiralal who died in the year 1920 without leaving any male issue. hiralal was survived by his widow smt. dhanni. according to the plaintiff fatehlal defendant was adopted by smt. dhanni sometime in the samvat year 1982 corresponding to the year 1925. at the time of his adoption fatehlal was said to be a minor aged about 15 years. he was the natural son of one jugal kishore who is said to be the real brother of hiralal. ramkumar defendant was another son of jugal kishore. the plaintiff proceeded to say that the shop was let out to him on rent by smt. dhanni on behalf of her adopted son fatehlal for a period of 10 years on 29-12-1925. according to him, an indenture was executed by the plaintiff in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 1966 (HC)

New National Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Vs. State of Rajasthan ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-18-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Raj42

modi, j. 1. this is a writ petition by the new national chemical and pharmaceutical works, bharatpur, through its proprietor h. c. malhotra under article 226 of the constitution.2. it is admitted that the petitioner has been carrying on the business of manufacture of medicinal and toilet preparations since 1956. on the medicinal and toilet preparations (excise duties) act, 1955 (act no. 16 of 1955 hereinafter called the act) having come into force with effect from the 1st april, 1957, the petitioner obtained a licence in form l-1 in accordance with rule 83 of the medicinal and toilet preparations (excise duties) rules, 1956 (hereinfter called the rules) made under the aforesaid act. it is further admitted that the petitioner got his licence renewed from year to year until the 31st march, 1960.before this licence expired, the petitioner had made an application on or about the 22nd february, 1960, to the commissioner, excise and taxation of this state for renewal of his licence in form l-1. the petitioner's grievance, however, is that the licence was not renewed and instead he received a letter from the deputy commissioner excise and taxation, ajmer division, jaipur, to the effect that a sum of rs. 4637.98 paise was due from him to the department and that it should be paid immediately and further that his licence would not be renewed until such amount was paid. as the details of the aforesaid amount had not been furnished under the letter in question, the petitioner asked for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1966 (HC)

Yogendra Nath Handa and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-21-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Raj123

order1. we have before us three writ petitions under article 226 of the constitution filed by three members of the rajasthan legislative assembly respectively, by which they seek to challenge the validity of certain proceedings of the rajasthan legislative assembly taken on 26th february, 1966 and 28th february. 1966, and pray for issuances of appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondents. as the writ petitions raise certain common questions, they can conveniently be dealt with together.2. writ petitions of servashri yogendra nath handa and manikchand surana were argued by shri c.l. agarwal and that of shri ramanand aggarwal was argued by shri r.k. garg the writ petitions referred to certain events that took place in the rajasthan legislative assembly on 26th feb 1966 and 28th february 1966, and they are like this.3. the governor of rajasthan summoned the rajasthan legislative assembly to meet for its budget session on 26th february, 1966, at 11.00 a.m. accordingly the assembly met in the assembly hall on 26th february. 1966. the governor of rajasthan entered the hall to deliver his address under article 176 of the constitution however before the governor could deliver his address, one of the three petitioners namely, shri ramanand aggarwal started addressing the governor about his having issued certain ordinances and for some other actions of his and he submitted that it would have been better of instead of issuing ordinances, the necessary. bills were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1966 (HC)

Longmal and ors. Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-22-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Raj214; (1969)IILLJ266Raj

beri, j. 1. these six writ petitions of the members of the police service of the state of rajasthan raise some common questions and, therefore, they could he conveniently disposed of by one judgment. petition no. 1645 of 1964 2. bhawanishanker verma, after receiving his training at kishangarh, joined the rajasthan police service as sub-inspector in january, 1956. when he was working in kota on 27th august, 1962 the superintendent of police, kota (respondent no. 3) by his notice (ex. 1) asked him to show cause why his grade increments for two years be not stopped for ever because in the course of a departmental enquiry against him he had put an offensive question to circle inspector chhagan lal alleging that he had taken a bribe of rs. 200/-from constable khatola in a departmental enquiry against him. bhawani shanker verma replied this charge but he was awarded the punishments of stoppage of two yearly grade increments with its effect on future (ex. 2). an appeal was preferred by him to the deputy inspector general of police, kota udaipur range, which was dismissed in may, 1963 (ex. 3). a review was preferred before the governor of rajasthan but without any success. he has now filed this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india on the ground that section 7 of the police act, 1861 empowers the authorities named therein to inflict only those penalties which are specified in that section. language of rule 3(1)(f) of the rajasthan civil services (classification, .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 1966 (HC)

Radhakishan and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-04-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Raj1

d.s. dave, c.j.1. the petitioners radhakishan and badrinarain, in this case, are khandelwal mahajans and residents of jaipur. they are partners in a firm which is known as shivjiram ramkumar. they have filed this writ application under article 226 of the constitution of india. it relates to a two-storeyed building situated near mirza ismail road at jaipur.2. the petitioners' case is that the said building belonged to one ashan ali khan who mortgaged it with possession with seth bijaylalji, father of petitioner badrinarain, and bhuramalji, father of petitioner radhakishan, for rs. 7,999 and executed a mortgage-deed on 30-7-1944. at the time of the mortgage, the building was in physical possession of ashan ali khan's tenants. when the mortgage-deed was presented for registration, the sub-registrar invited objections, but since no objection was received, that document was registered by him. ashan ali khan had purchased an open land in front of the said building from the municipal council in 1943-44 he constructed verandahs on the ground-floor and the first floor thereafter. for making this construction, he raised another loan by effecting a second mortgage of the same property on 7-7-46 for an additional amount of rs. 9,999 in favour of the same mortgagees. the petitioners purchased the ground-floor of the said building from ashanali khan for rs. 19,999 by means of a registered sale-deed dated 23-11-54. both the previous mortgages were paid off out of this amount obtained by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 1966 (HC)

Gopi Shanker and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-21-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Raj159; 1967CriLJ922

l.n. chhangani, j.1. these seven appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the additional sessions judge no. 1, jodhpur, dated 23rd of december, 1965. in sessions case no. 16 of 1965/31 of 1965 the additional sessions judge tried the seven appellants for offences under sections 376, 342 and 323, indian penal code. after trial, he found them all guilty and convicted them and awarded sentences as detailed below :-- gopi shankeru/s 376, p.o. 5 years r. i. & fine of rs. 500/-; in default, one year's r.i. u/ss 342 |6 months r.i. &fine; of rs. 50/-; in default, two month r. i. on each count.323 | r/w 34 | mahesh chand u/s 376 5 years r.i. &fine; of rs. 100/-; in default, six months r.i.shiv kumar | dhan singh | sher singh | tulsi ram | u/ss 342 | 6 months r i. &fine; of r. 50/-; in default, two months r. i. on each count.ram chander | 323| r/w 34 || all the sentences to ran concurrently. 2. each of the seven convicts has filed a separate appeal challenging his convictions and sentences and these seven appeals are being disposed of together.3. the facts on which the prosecution is founded may be briefly stated as follows:-- mst draupdi--the prosecutrix pw/1 was married with arjun pw/2 in or about the year 1982 in jodhpur. mst. draupdi's parents resided during the relevant period in a house in mohalla navchowki, jodhpur, whereas, her husband resided at mahamandir. two months before the incident which occurred in the night between 3rd and 4th of june, 1965, and which has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 1966 (HC)

Chandmal Naurat Mal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-05-1966

Reported in : AIR1968Raj20

order1. the case before us comes on an office report to the effect that a joint petition filed by 41 petitioners for restraining the respondents from enforcing the provisions of the rajasthan agricultural produce markets act (act no. 38 of 1961), 1961, the rules made thereunder and the bye-laws made by the krishi upaj mandi samiti, kishangarh. is not maintainable in view of rule 375 of the rajasthan high court rules, 1952 hereinafter to be referred as the 'rules', on the ground that the relied claimed by the petitioners cannot be said to be founded on the same cause of action the office points out that while the petitioners may have similar or identical causes of action, they cannot be said to have the same cause of action within the meaning of the rules.2. the learned counsel for the petitioners contested the correctness of the office report and as, since the enactment of rule 375 of the rules by s. r. o. no. 6 of 9-10-64 a practice has grown up in this court not to entertain such joint writ petitions, we invited a full dressed argument and have also given notice to the learned government advocate. rule 375 occurs in chapter xxii part iv of the rules is as follows:'rule 375 (1)--an application for a direction under article 226 of the constitution other than a writ in the nature of habeas corpus shall be presented to the registrar who shall direct that the application be laid before a division bench or a judge sitting alone, as the case may be, according to the provisions of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 1966 (HC)

Atma Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-22-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Raj239

bhandari, j.1. the following four questions have been referred by a division benchof this court to a larger bench:(1) whether rule 2 of the rules made by the collector, ganganagar under section 22 of the rajasthan municipalities act, 1959, lays down the requirement that the draft electoral rolls along with the notices must inter alia, be placed at the office of the municipality concerned and at two conspicuous places in each ward therein under clauses (a) and (b) of the said rule, or, this provision relates only to the publication of the notice? (2) if the answer to the above question is in favour of the petitioners, whether the want of publication of the draft electoral rolls in strict conformity with the aforesaid rules amounts to a defect of a fundamental nature in the process preliminary to the election, and if so, whether such a defect would, by itself, be sufficient to vitiate the election in a writ petition? (3) whether anop chand's case (supra) correctly lays down the law in so far as it confined the operation of the decision of the supreme court in radhey shyam's case (supra) to that class of cases only where there may be no rules as regards the revision of the electoral rolls, or its principle would equally apply to such cases where rules in that behalf may have been framed and are fundamental and have been breached? (4) whether the cases, for example, jugal kishore v. the state of rajasthan (supra) and ram krishna v. the state of rajasthan (supra), which have taken .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 1966 (HC)

Smt. Kanchan Vs. Babu Bhai and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-01-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Raj184

d.m. bhandari, j.1. this civil second appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration filed by shrimati kanchan, wife of dharamchand gandhi plaintiff-appellant against veer chand gandhi respondent no. 10 and jai shanker brahmin whose legal representatives are defendant respondents nos. 1 to 9 in this appeal. the case of the plaintiff-appellant is that jai shanker defendant had obtained a money decree for the recovery of rs. 7,224-3-6 against veerchand gandhi defendant on 29-7-57 in execution of which he got attached two houses situate in village kohra, more particularly described in para. no. 2 of the plaint, these houses belonged to vaneychand gandhi son of veerchand gandhi who had separated from his father in sambat 1987. the said vaneychand made a gift of these two houses on 13-9-1955 and executed a registered deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff appellant who was the daughter-in-law of the donor.the plaintiff-appellant filed an objection application under order 21, rule 58 c. p. c. in the executing court which was dismissed summarily. she, therefore, filed the suit for a declaration that the said two houses were not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree obtained by jai shanker against veerchand. the suit was contested by the decree holder. he denied that there was any partition between veerchand and his sons or that the house in dispute belonged to vaneychand. his case is that vaneychand had executed the deed of gift only to defeat and defraud the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 1966 (HC)

KutbuddIn and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-07-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Raj257

orderb.p. beri, j. 1. this is a bail application under section 498 cr. p. c. on behalf of four accused persons who are facing their trial before the district magistrate, jaipur under section 3 read with section 9 of the indian official secrets act, 1923 (act xix of 1923) (hereinafter called 'the act') and rules 39 and 41 of the defence of india rules. 2. mr. nuri appearing for the applicants urged that they were arrested on 19th september, 1965 and excepting for a brief interval when they were admitted to bail by this court, they have been throughout in custody. section 3 of the act, urged the learned counsel, envisages two categories of offences. the first is when any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state, inter alia, obtains, collects, records or publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official code or pass word, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy, then he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 years, if the offence is committed in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, mine, minefield, factory, dockyard, camp, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of government or in relation to any secret official code. in other cases, which belong to the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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