Rajasthan Court October 1950 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ramachandra Vs. Daulatram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Raj59
Dave, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 C. P. C. by a tenant named Ram Chandra against the appellate order of the District Judge, Alwar, dated the 30th March 1950, reversing the order of the Rent Controller Alwar, dated the 23rd November 1949.2. Mr. Ram Avtar appearing for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection that this Court is not authorised to interfere with the order complained of under Section 115 C. P. C. According to him, the District Judge, Alwar, who was appointed as an appellate authority under Section 10 of the Rent Control Order was a persona, designate and while deciding the appeal he was not functioning as an officer of the civil Court subordinate to the jurisdiction of the High Court. The applicant's advocate has urged in reply that there were two parties before the District Judge; he was discharging a judicial function in deciding the dispute between them; he was therefore working as a Court and he being subordinate to this High C...
Devilal Vs. Ganpat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj94
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is an appln. by one Davilal for revision of the order of the learned Ses. J. of Sawai Jaipur, granting bail to the opposite party, Gangasingh, in a case under Section 302, I.P.C.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appct. & also the learned counsel for the opposite party. It has been argued on behalf of the appct. that the case having been challaned under Section 302, I.P.C., the learned Ses. J. was legally wrong in admitting the opposite party to bail. On behalf of the opposity party it has been argued that in the first instance revision does not lie in a case like the present by a private party. It was also argued that this Ct. has no power to cancel the order of the bail granted by the Ses. J. Further, it was argued that in any case the Ses. J. had very wide powers of bail under Section 498, Cr. P. C. & the learned Ses. J. having exercised his discretion under the said section, this Ct. would not be justified in cancelling the bail.3. I have considered ...
Kalyan Sahai Vs. Firm LachhminaraIn Shambhulal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj11
Ranawat, J.1. The firm of Lachhminarain Shambhulal acting through Lachhminarin filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif at Dausa on 20-10-1946, against Bhangwan Sahai and Kalyan Sahai for an amount of Rs. 573-7-0 with the allegations that the defendants had a partnership firm at Ranoli which used to deal in cloth, and which from time to time took from the plaintiff's firm cloth and cash to the extent) of Rs. 1,115-7-0 out of which an amount of Rs. 558 was paid to the plaintiff, thus leaving a balance of Rs. 557-7-0 against the defendants. The plaintiff added Rs. 16 by way of interest to the amount of Rs. 557-7-0 and claimed Rs. 573-7-0 from the defendants.2. Kalyan Sahai, one of the defendants, disputed the claim of the plaintiff but Bhagwan Sahai admitted the claim in full. Kalyan Sahai alleged that there was no partnership firm of Bhagwan Sahai and Kalyan Sahai at Ranoli, and that the dealings alleged by the plaintiff did not take place.3. After trying the case the Munsif, on 29-4-194...
Kartaram Vs. General Manager, Rajasthan Railway
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj51
Nawalkishore, C.J.1. This is a petition by Kartaram under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari.2. The petitioner was employed as Head Clark in the Audit Department of the Rajasthan Railway at Udaipur since 6-11-1944. Previous to this, he was serving in the Bikaner Railway and as stated in the petition, possibly had unblemished career, but it was conceded that it cannot influence a decision of the question whether dismissal of the petitioner by the Manager of the Rajasthan Railway, Udaipur, on 6-61950 was justified, and therefore we will not refer to it. According to the allegations contained in the petition, some enquiry was being held by the Anti-Corruption Officer at Jaipur against Mr. Padam Singh Khamesra, General Manager, regarding certain corrupt practices and Kartaram petitioner was directed to appear as a witness before the Anti-Corruption Officer at Jaipur on 4-1-1950. A duty pass was issued to him and fee went to Jaipur for the purpose...
The State Vs. Rameshwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj30
Nawal Kishore, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Jaipur and Gangapur at Jaipur acquitting the accused Rameshwar of the offence a under Section 376/511, Penal Code.2. The accused, it may be pointed out, was tried for this offence in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge who convicted and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250 and in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months. On the grounds mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment with which we will deal elsewhere, he did not agree with the view taken by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Accordingly to the prosecution story, Mt. Purni, a girl of eight years of age, was living with her mother, Mt. Ghisi, in a house which is situate in the sama locality as and opposite to that of the accused Rameshwar., On 23-10-1946, sometime in the afternoon, when the incident took place, Mt. Ghisi happened to be away, as she had left in...
Nandkishore Vs. Mangilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj59
ORDERDave, J.1. This is an application in revision by the plaintiff against an order of the Civil Judge at Jaipur, dated 27-12-1948, rejecting his application for amendment of his plains in part.2. The learned Advocate for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection that the present petition is beyond the scope of Section 115, Civil P. C., and the revision therefore does not lie. In support of his argument, he has referred to Mt. Suraj Pali v. Ariya Pretinidhi Sabha, A. I. R. (23) 1936 ALL 686 :(I L R (1937) ALL 17 F b), Dhaja Rai v. Emperor, A I. R. (35) 1948 ALL 241 : (49 Cr. L. J. 287) and Venkatagiri Aiyangar v. H. R E. B. Madras, A. I. R. (36) 1949 P. C. 156 : (76 I. A. 67). The view of the Allahabad High Court and the observations made by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. H. R. E. B. Madras, A.I.R. (36) 1949 P. C. 166: (78 I. A. 67), recently came into discussion in a case Gambhirmal v. Gyanchand, A. I. R. (37) 1950 Raj 20. It was a case in...
State Vs. Jaigovind
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj89
Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal by the State under Section 417, Cr. P. C., against the acquittal of Jai Govind, accused. He was tried for the abetment of an offence under Section 386 and in the alternative under Section 411, Jaipur Penal Code, but was acquitted by the Ses. J. at Jaipur City. The circumstances which led to his prosecution are as under: On 19-8-1949, Thakur Saheb Kushal Singhji of Geejgarh, hereinafter to be referred to as the Thakur Sahab, received by post a letter Ex. 15, in a cover, Ex. 16. The letter was in block capitals and read as follows :'Thakur Kushal Singh,You are hereby given 10 days' time to collect Rs. 25,000 in used Rs. 10 notes (not serial nos.) bind them in 25 bundles put them in a cardboard box, wrap it securely in paper, tie with strings & seal the knot.On Monday, 29th August, take the parcel in your car on the Agra Road up to Mile 4, Reach there at 7.15 P.M. Go about 300 feet beyond the mile-mark. Send your driver back on foot to give the parcel to our...
Kishen Singh Vs. Dungaria and Karinga
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Raj166
Trilochan Dutt, J. 1. This is an application for revising the order of the learned District Judge, Rajsamand, dated 21st of July 1949. 2. A suit for the possession of some agricultural land was brought by the applicant Kishen Singh against the non-applicants Dungaria and Karinga, in the Court of the Munsiff Nathdwara, and a decree for possession of said land was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants, who are non-applicants in the present revision, filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Munsiff, in the Court of the District Judge, Rajsamand, which Court is defunct now. On the 21st of July 1949, this appeal came up for hearing before the learned District Judge. During the course of the arguments, a point was raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the appeal cannot proceed further under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Ordinance No. 9 of 1949. The learned District Judge passed stay order in the appeal and consigned the file of the appeal to record roo...
Ramjilal and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj33
Nawalkishore, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Ramjilal and Mohanlal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, convicting and sentencing them under Sections 366 and 366B, Penal Code, to 8 years' rigorous imprisonment under each count. The sentences were made to run concurrently.2. According to the prosecution version, p. w. 1 Sardar Singh a refugee from the Western Punjab was residing at Hardwar in May 1949. His wife was dead and he had an aged mother and two minor girls, Gyan Kanwar and Mahendra Kanwar, aged 12 and 11 years respectively. It appears that, both these girls were in the habit of preparing floru balls for the fish and offering them for sale at the Har-ki-pedi. On 27-5-1949, accompanied by their grandmother, they had gone there for this purpose, while their father Sardarsingh had gone to the forest to fetch fuel. At about 12 noon, they were returning alone to their residence while their grandmother had stayed behind at the Har-ki-pedi. Ramjilal accused had...
Abdul Sakoor and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj93
ORDERBapna, J.1. This is a petn. for bail under Section 498, Cr. P. C.2. Abdul Shakoor & 8 others are being prosecuted for contravening the provisions of the Rajasthan Iron and Steel (Control of Productions and Distribution) Order, 1949, viz, Rules 5 & 14 of that order. The said Iron & Steel Order was passed & promulgated by the Govt. by virtue of the powers conferred by Section 3, Rajasthan Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1949, (XIII [13] of 1949.) The punishment is provided in Section 6, Essential Supplies Ordinance.3. The case for the prosecution is that certain iron goods were supplied at controlled rates to Lohar Co-operative Society of Nagaur & the accused showed sale of articles prepared from the material to certain fictitious persons. An appln. for bail was moved before the Sub-Divisional Mag., who rejected the same. Another appln. under Section 498 was moved before the Ct. of Session but the learned Ses. J. was of opinion that Section 13, Rajasthan Essential S...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »