REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MAHARAJ JAGAT SINGH Appellant

V/S

LT.COL.P.N.CHOPRA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HERRINGTON V.BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHWAR NATH GUPTA V. ADMINISTRATIVEGENERAL AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
KAMALCHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER V. RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND NARAIN RAODESAI V. VALLABHARAO NARAYANARAO DESAI [REFERRED TO]
THE FIRM RAGLIBIR SINGH JASWANT OF QUETTA V. NARIJANSINGH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
KALAPPATTI ERAVAMANNATTIL ITHAMMA MARUVALAMMA'S SON KRISHNAN AND ANOTHER V. THANKURISAI PULIYANKALATH KOMA MARUVALAMMA'S DAUGHTER WANT MARUVALAMMA ANA OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
M/S. AMAR NATH OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
NIHAL CHAND V. RAM NIWAS [REFERRED TO]
SUDHANSUSEKHAR SINGH DEO HRUAYA CHANDRA DEB BIRABAR HARICHANDAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
KUNWAR SHRI VIR RAJENDRA SINGH KUNWAR SHRI VIR RAJENDRA SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHAIYA RAMANUJ PRATAP DEO VS. LALU MAHESHANUJ PRATAP DEO [REFERRED TO]
ANANT KIBE VS. PURUSHOTTAM RAO [REFERRED TO]
S B INDUSTRIES FREEGUNJ VS. UNITED BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AHMADUNNISA BEGUM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RASI DEI VS. BIKAL MAHARANA [REFERRED TO]
CHAITANYA NAIKO VS. KANDHINO NAIKO [REFERRED TO]
T KRISHNASWAMY CHETTY VS. C THANGAVELU CHETTY [REFERRED TO]
JAMBAGAVALLI AMMAL VS. GOVINDARAJA KANDLAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHORE DAS VS. BALRAM SAH [REFERRED TO]
BENOY KRISHNA MUKHERJEE VS. SATISH CHANDRA GIRI [REFERRED TO]
KUNWAR VIR RAJINDRA SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 21st March, 1990 passed by Mr. Justice Charanjit Talwar dismissing an application under Order XL rule 1 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff for appointment of a receiver.

(2.) The brief facts are that Swai Man Singh, Maharaja of Jaipur, died on 24th June, 1970 and respondent No. 1 succeeded him. But on 6th February, 1949, the late Maharaja had entered into an agreement with the Union of India. The said agreement provided that the Maharaja would be entitled to "the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all the private properties" belonging to him and that "succession according to law and custom, to the gaddi" and to "the personal rights, privileges, dignities and titles of the Ruler" were guaranteed. These commitments and guarantees are 'contained in Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Covenant.

(3.) The main controversy pertaining to these articles is with regard to the interpretation of the words "personal rights" in Article 14. It is contended on behalf of respondent No. I that the right to succeed to the private property of the Ruler is covered by this phrase whereas the appellant disputes this contention.

Click here to view full judgment.

MAHARAJA JAGAT SINGH Vs. SAWAI BHAWANI SINGH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address