Rajasthan Court January 1951 Judgments
SatnaraIn Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1384
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The accused-applicant stands convicted Under Section 353, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- or in default to undergo three months' R.I. The findings of the two courts below are clearly to the effect that the accused-applicant assaulted a public servant and that the assault was made on the public servant, while he was acting in the execution of his duty as such. The findings arrived at to the-effect by the two courts below have not been challenged at the time of arguments before the? Court. It is thus obvious that the accused-applicant has rightly been convicted Under Section 353, Penal Code.3. The accused-applicant has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- or in default of such, to undergo three months' R.I. The accused-applicant is a small boy, and has no previous conviction to his credit. It would, in the circumstances, meet the ends of justice if his sentence of fine is set aside and he is directed to be released on...
Tag this Judgment!Manak Chand and ors. Vs. the Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Raj139
Ranawat, J.1. Manak Ohand & four others have filed this petn. for a writ of certiorari or prohibition or other proper order Under Section 28, Rajasthan H. C. Ordinance, 1949, or under Article 226, Const. Ind. against the Municipal Council, Jaipur City & the Assessment Officer of the Municipal Council.2. The facts of this case are not much disputed. The Municipal Council, Jaipur, passed a resolution on 6 5-1947 Under Section 78. (a), City of Jaipur Municipal Act, 1943 (hereinafter refd. to as the Act) for the imposition of property tax within the limitation of the Jaipur Municipality at the rate of 5% per annum on the letting value of the houses & lands. A Sub-Committee was also formed to draft the rules for the imposition of this tax & finally the rules, after they were framed, were published in the State Gazette on 15-9-1947 & objections Under Section 78 (c) were invited by the Municipal Board. The Municipal Board, after having consd.. all the objections that were filed, submitted a r...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Raj22
ORDERRanawat, J.1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shahpura, Granted bail to Kaluram and 11 others on 16-2-1950 in a case that was pending in his Court under Section 302, I. P. C. A revision was filed against that order in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur, who transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge on the prayer of the Public Prosecutor that the revision application may be treated as an application under Section 497(5), Cr. P. C. made an order cancelling the bail of the accused. The accused have filed this revision application against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, dated 23-11-1950. A separate application under S. 498, Cr. P. C. has also been filed on behalf of the accused in this Court. Both these cases are being disposed of together.2. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that the Additional Sessions Judge had no authority to make an order under Section 497(5), Cr. P. C. for the cancellation of the bail o...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. Rasula and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Raj117
Nawal Kishore, J.1. This is a first appeal by the pltf Mohanlal of Ladnun & arises out of a suit for pre-emption which was dismissed by the learned Dist J., Nagaur.2. On 16-3-1943 Ganpatia & others mtged by conditional sale the house in dispute situated at Ladnun in favour of Rasula & his son Hasan for Rs. 1000/- at Rs. 1/9/- per cent per mensem on account of interest. It was stipulated in the mtge deed that in case the mtgors failed to redeem the mtge by repaying the mtge money within two years, the house will be deemed as having been sold to the mtgees. This period of two years expired on 16-3-1945 but nothing seems to have transpired on that day or thereafter till 6-6-1947 when the mtgees obtained a patta for the house in dispute. On 12-8-1947 Mohan Lal sued for possession of this house by pre-emption on the ground that it touched his house towards the north. The deft Rasula for himself & as the guardian of his son Hasan resisted the suit & pleaded that he had a superior right of pr...
Tag this Judgment!Abheysingh Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Raj81
1. This is a revision by Abhey Singh against the order of the Munsif of Jabazpur in a civil matter. The facts giving rise to this revision are these : Abheysingh had filed a suit against Kesrimal, Bakhtawar and Uda for a declaration that 'the lands in suit were not liable to be attached and sold in execution of a decree passed against Bakhtawar and Uda and in favour of Kesrimal. At a later stage, the State Council of the former State of Mewar was also impleaded as a defendant. On 1-12-1948, an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the present petitioner. Thereupon, on 12-12. 1948, an application was made on behalf of the State Council for setting aside the ex parte decree. This application was, however, dismissed for default on 14-2 1949. Then on 12-3-1949, the Government Pleader made an application for restoration of the application of 12-12-1948. This application was allowed and the application for restoration dated 12-12-1948 was restored. Abheysingh came up in revision against th...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Mal and ors. Vs. Mohammed Bux and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Raj133
Nawal Kishore, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit instituted by them for possession by pre-emption.2. The property in dispute is a house marked A in the plan Ex. P. W. 1 on the record. It was sold by Partap Mal on 13-10-1944 to Mohammed Bux and the latter sold it again on 28.9 1945 to Bhanwar Lal; and his three sons Madan Lal, Paras Mal and Prakash Chand and his daughter Mt. Sunder Bai. In the meanwhile, Bhanwar Lal purchased house marked C in the plan in his own name and that of his sons Madan Lal, Paras Mal and Parkash Chand adjoining the house marked A from Bansi Lal on 23-5-1945. There is another house marked B in the plan which had been purchased by Bhanwas Lal in the name of his wife Mt. Mansukhi Bai. Thus, on 1 10-1945, when the plaintiffs Suraj Mal, Shikhar Chand and Nauratan Mal instituted the suit to pre-empt the sale of house marked A in the plan, Bhanwar Lal was already the owner of houses marked B and C as well. Accordingly, it was plea...
Tag this Judgment!Khubi Lal Vs. Hira Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Raj121a
Bapna, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of a single Judge of the Rajasthan H. C. dated 28-10-1949. One Hukam Chand obtained a decree against Kishen Lal in St. 1944 for redemption of a shop. The shop was originally mtged by Nawal Chand Nihal Chand with Sawai Ram Samuram who sub-mtged it to Hukam Chand, & the latter mtged his rights in the property with Kishen Lal. The terms of the decree as passed by the Mahdraj Sabha, Udaipur, in St. 1944, were that on payment of Rs. 110/10/3 by Hukam Chand, the resp Kishen Lal shall deliver possession of the property in suit to the pltf Hukam Chand. The decree-holder made an appln thereafter that as he was not in a position to pay the mtge money in a lump sum, the amount may be ordered to be paid by instalments but that he may be put into possession of the mtged property. This petition was dismissed in St. 1953 for default.2. After a lapse of nearly 50 years, Khubi Lal filed an appln for execution of the decree on 7-10-1947 in the Ct of Mun...
Tag this Judgment!Madangopal Kabra Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Raj94a; [1951]20ITR214(Raj)
ORDER1. This is a test case under the Indian Income-tax Act. The petnr. Madangopal Kabra resides & carries on business in the district of Jodhpur in the United State of Rajasthan where income-tax had not been levied prior to 1-4-1960. In the Rajasthan Gazette dated 13-5-1950, the following notice was published:'In pursuance of Sub-section (1) of Section 22, Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI [11] of 1922) we the Income-tax Officers mentioned in Col. 1 of the table below hereby give notice to every person subject to our jurisdictions as specified in the corresponding entry in Col. 3 whose total income during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to income-tax to furnish within sixty-five day3 from the data of publication of this notice a return in the prescribed form & verified in the prescribed manner setting forth (along with such other particulars as are required by the said form) his total income & total world income during that year.Penalty.-Any person who fails...
Tag this Judgment!Nathulal Vs. Collector, Sawai, Jaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj36
Dave, J. 1. This is a miscellaneous application filed by one Nathulal against an order of the Collector, Sawai Jaipur, Shri Sanwaldan Ujjwal, dated 37-2-1950. It was presented under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, and Section 28, Rajasthan High Court Ordinance of 1949, but what the petitioner really seeka is a writ of prohibition against the said Collector.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the applicant leased out his building situated outside Sanganer Gate in the city of Jaipur to one Gurudutt Singh partly in 1947 and partly in 1948 on a total rent of Rs. 250 per month. On 19-5-1948 the tenant Gurudutt Ringh filed a petition before the Kent Controller, Jaipur, fordetermining a standard rent for the said premises on the ground that the contractual rent was very excessive. The Rent Controller thereupon fixed Rs. 100 as the standard rent. The applicant, landlord, preferred an appeal against that order to the then Deputy Commissioner of Jaipur, Shri Bam Kanwar Sharma, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmichand Vs. Gokal Prasad and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Raj67
Nawalkishore, J.1. This is a pltf's appeal against the judgment of the learned Dist J., Jodhpur, holding that the terms of surety bond did not make the surety liable in the execution proceedings. The facts relating to this case are these:2. Laxmichand applt instituted a suit against Rao Raja Gordhansingh for the recovery of Rs. 2,249/- in the Ct of Civil Judge, Jodhpur, & on 23-2-1949 applied for the issue of a warrant of arrest before judgment against the deft under Order 38, Rule 1, C. P. C. On 28-2-1949, a warrant was ordered to be issued accordingly & Gokal Prasad, resp, stood surety & executed a bond as follows:^^eqdnek eqUntkZ vucku esa eqnk;ys ds cj f[kykQgLc vkMZj 38 :y 1 tkjh gqvk vkSj tekur nsus dk gqDe btykl okyk ls gwvk bl fy;seSa eqlEeh xksdy izlkn oYn f'koykyth y...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›