Rajasthan Court August 1951 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.
The Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Raj161
Wanchoo C.J.1. This is an application by the Mewar Textile Mills Ltd., Bhilwara, under Article 226, Constitution of India. By this application, the applicant challenges the appointment of Shree Sukhdeo Narain, retired Judge of the High Court of the former State of Jodhpur, as the Industrial Tribunal under Section 7, Industrial Disputes Act (No. XIV [14] of 1947), It may be mentioned that Shree Sukhdeo Narain is no longer working as the Industrial Tribunal now, as his appointment was terminated some time after the present application had been filed; but we have heard arguments on this application in spite of the termination of Shree Sukhdeo Narain's appointment, because, if the application prevails, the proceedings taken before Shree Sukhdeo Narain will all become void.2. The main point that has been urged in support of the application is that the appointment is invalid, because Shree Sukhdeo Narain does not fulfil the qualifications laid down for a Tribunal under Section 7(3), Industri...
Jamna Das Vs. Gulraj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj1
Ranawat, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by Jamna Das against Gulraj in the Court of the Munsif, East Jaipur on 15-7-1947, for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing light and air of a window of the plaintiff's house. The houses of both the parties are adjoining to each other, in the city of Jaipur and there is a kitchen on the top floor of the plaintiff's house, in which there is a window over-looking the house of the defendant, which, it is said, has been closed by the defendant by erecting a wall by the side of the wall of the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff claimed that he had acquired a right of easement by prescription as he has been receiving light and air through that window for more than 20 years. The smoke of the plaintiff's kitchen was also let out through the same window. The defendant admitted that the window had been in existence since the year 1872, but he pleaded that it was constructed with the consent of t...
Arjun Lal Vs. Hiralal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj11
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Arjun Lal under Article 133(b) of the Constitution of India for a certificate under causes (a) and (b) of that Article. Learned counsel urges that the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the Court of first instance and still in dispute on appeal was and is not less than Rs. 20,000/-, or that, in any cast the judgment, decree or final order involves directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of the like amount or value.2. The suit, in this case, was filed by the petitioner for partition of his one-third share in a certain house in the Civil Court at Udaipur. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court. There was an appeal, which was also dismissed, and then there was a second appeal to the Mahadraj Sabha, which was equivalent to a High Court in the former State of Mewar, which was also dismissed. There after, on account of some peculiar circumstances, wnich were prevalent in the State of Mewar in those ...
Taru Lal and ors. Vs. Mangi Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj9
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. These are two connected appeals from the same judgment and decree of the District Judge of Rajsamand, dated the 28th of August, 1948. Appeal No. 46 is by Taru Lal and others who are defendants, and appeal No. 47 is by Mangi Lal and Meera Lal who are plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs brought their suit under Order XXXIV, Rule 14. Their case was that they were sub-mortgagees of the defendants. They had on an earlier occasion filed a suit for the money due to them and had obtained a decree for Rs. 1,753/6/9. In that suit, however, there was no prayer for sale on the basis of the sub-mortgage and, therefore, no decree for sale under Order XXXIV had been passed. When the earlier decree was put into execution, the plaintiffs wanted to put the property to sale. They were then met with the objection that the property could not be put to sale as there was no decree under Order XXXIV for sale in their favour. This dispute was taken up to the High Court of Udaipur. The High Court deci...