Rajasthan Court September 1951 Judgments
Bairon Bux Vs. Rajmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj100
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Additional Sessions Judge Bundi recommending that the composite order of the Magistrate 1st Class Patna in Bundi District be quashed. A complaint was made by the opposite party Raj Mal under Sections 145 and 107 of the Code of Criminal procedure that the field known as Bambulwala No. 620 situated in Choti Godoll was in his ownership and actual possession but the applicant Bhairon Bux and others prevented him from ploughing and sowing the field. The applicants were using force and there was apprehension of breach of peace. The possession of the opposite party be declared and retained over the field and the applicants be ordered to furnish security for keeping peace.2. The learned Magistrate sent this application of the opposite party to police for report and on receipt of the report he made an order that the case be registered under Sections 107 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ...
Tag this Judgment!Newad Ram Vs. Kishan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj149
ORDERRanawat, J.1. This is a revision application filed by the complainant Newadram against an order of the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, dated the 5th July 1951, by which the four accused persons who had been committed to his Court by the City Magistrate, Bharatpur, to stand their trial under Section 302, I.P.C., were allowed to remain on bail. The Government Advocate has supported the application of the complainant. A notice was issued to the opposite parties.2. The argument of the learned counsel of the applicant is that the accused persons have been committed to Sessions under Section 302, I.P.C., which is an offence punishable with death or transportation for life and under Section 497, Criminal P.C., it was not open to the Magistrate to have allowed the accused persons to remain on bail. The learned Sessions Judge, it is said on behalf of the complainant, did not apply his mind to the facts of the case in making an order in favour of the accused, 'Prima facie' it is argued there was...
Tag this Judgment!Jankiballabh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj103
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is a reference by the learnedSessions Judge, Jaipur City recommending that theconviction and sentence of Jankivallabh applicantunder Section 203(4) of Jaipur City Municipalities Actby the First Assistant City Magistrate, Jaipur beset aside and he be acquitted. 2. The applicant was prosecuted on a report by the Building Inspector, Jaipur City Municipality dated 31st October 1950 that he was running a factory with an electric Motor machine of 11 1/2 H. P. in his house without a license.3. It was not denied by the applicant that he was using an electric motor machine of 11 1/2 H. P. in his house without a license, but he pleaded that he had thereby committed no offence under Section 203 (4). The learned First Assistant. City Magistrate, Jaipur held that the accused was guilty of the contravention of Section 2 of the Dangerous and Offensive Trade Bye Laws and convicted him under Section 203(4) of the Jaipur City Municipalities Act 1943 (hereinafter to be referred as ...
Tag this Judgment!Jahangir Khan Vs. Zahur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj129
Ranawat, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against an order of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City dated the 9th March, 1950 holding that the document which was the basis of the suit was not a pro-note but an agreement. He therefore ordered the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty and on payment of such stamp duty held that the document was admissible into evidence. The plea of the petitioner in this case is that the lower Court was wrong in holding that the document was not a pronote. According to him the requirements of Section 2 (22) of the Jaipur Stamp Act are satisfied in this case as regards the document which is the basis of the suit and it is contended that the document ought to have been held to be a pro-note. This objection was raised by the defendant in the lower Court and was disallowed.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the opposite party in this revision that under Section 36 of the Jaipur Stamp Act this question ...
Tag this Judgment!Nanagram Vs. Ghinsilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj107
Ranawat, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners Nanagram and Ballilal are the owners of a shop in Johri Bazar of which the opposite party Ghinsi Lal is the tenant. The petitioners purchased this shop from Khavas Eala Baksh on the 30th of May, 1937 when the opposite party Ghinsilal was in possession of it as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 55/- and after the purchase of the shop by the petitioners, Ghinsi Lal attorned in favour of the petitioners and executed a rent note on the 10th of July, 1937 stipulating to pay Rs. 65/-Jharsai per month. On the 11th of January, 1940, another rent note was executed by Ghinsi Lal by which the monthly rent was reduced to Rs. 50/- Indian Coin. The petitioners constructed a verandah in front of the shop on the 1st of November, 1943 at a cost of Rs. 1200/-and on the 26th March, 1948 the rent of the shop was increased to Rs. 70/- Indian Coin per month and a fresh rent note was executed by the opposite ...
Tag this Judgment!Har Deo Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj148
ORDERSharma, J.1. The applicant Har Deo claimed an amount of Rs. 575/4/- which were recovered from the possession of his son Bhadur. The proceedings were taken under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Railway Magistrate, Jaipur but as after the examination of some of the witnesses, the applicant did not appear in Court on a date to which the case had been adjourned, the Learned Magistrate dismissed Hardeo's application for default, Hardeo went in appeal to the Court of Sessions, Jaipur and the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur holding that no appeal lay, but the matter was such in which interference was necessary, treated the appeal as an application for revision and has made a reference to this Court recommending that the order of the Learned Magistrate dated the 18th April 1951 dismissing Har Deo's application for default, be set aside and the Magistrate be asked to pass appropriate orders under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allowing the app...
Tag this Judgment!ShamsuddIn Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj53
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Shamsuddin under Article 226, Constitution of India, for the issue of a writ in the nature of'mandamus' or prohibition or 'certiorari' to the State of Rajasthan. 2. The facts, which have led to this application, are not in dispute. The applicant, Shamsuddin, was elected as a member of the Nagaur Municipal Board on 10-9-1949 and his election was notified in the Rajasthan Raj-Patra dated 21-12-1949. The applicant worked as a member of the Board till January, 1951. Thereafter, it appears that he had to go to Bombay and stay there for a long time in connection with his business. He, therefore, sent his resignation from the membership of the Board by post from Bombay to the Collector of Nagaur on 8-6-1951, and this was received by the Collector on 12-6-1951. Shortly afterwards, the applicant found that he would not have to stay longer in Bombay. Therefore, on 23-6-1951, he sent a telegram to the Collector of Nagaur withdrawing his resignation which...
Tag this Judgment!Omprakash and anr. Vs. Bansidhar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj130
Sharma, J.1. Omprakash and his father Gappuram have filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 28 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, with a prayer that all the proceedings by the Rent Controller, Jaipur, purporting to be taken under Section 10 of the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947--hereinafter to be referred to as the Jaipur Order--and orders of the Rent Controller dated the 10th November and 17th November, 1949, and 3rd and 6th June, 1950 as well as the orders of the Collector dated the 4th April, and 2nd May, 1950 in connection with shop No. 231 situated in Chaura Rasta, Jaipur City, be quashed and a writ of prohibition be issued not to hand over the possession of the said shop to Bansidhar, opposite party No. 1, and the seal and lock put by the Rent Controller be removed and the possession of the shop be left to> the petitioners and also a writ of certiorari or any other proper order be issued for the above purposes.2. This application has...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Lal and ors. Vs. Bhagwat Singh Mehta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj22
Bapna, J. 1. This case has come up before the Full Bench of this Court, as there was a difference of opinion between two learned Judges of the old Rajasthan High Court, and under Section 22(2)(b) of the United State of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1948, the case was referred by the learned Judges to a Pull Bench. The case had been pending before the old Rajasthan High Court, and has come by transfer to this Court under Section 49 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance (No. XV of 1949). 2. The relevant facts are that there was a firm Ummaid Mal Dharam Chand carrying on money lending and other business at Udaipur, in which there were four partners, viz., Roshan Lal, Lakshmi Lal, Fateh Lal, and Omkar Lal. The first two had one-third share each, and the last twohad the remaining one-third share. Disputes having arisen among the partners, they approached hiS hiGHNESS the Maharaja of Udaipur for dissolution of partnership and winding up of its affairs. By an order dated 'Sawan Sud' 9 'Samw...
Tag this Judgment!Zorawal Mal and ors. Vs. Sagar Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Raj26
Bapna, J.1. This is the defendants' appeal in a money suit. The plaintiffs have filed cross-objections for being allowed interest pendente lite and till realisation.2. The respondents and their father Bhaniram, since deceased, sued the appellants and their father Shrichand for recovery of Rs. 2000/- on the basis of a Khata dated Adad Such 13 Section 1988. It was alleged that the defendants were indebted to the joint family firm of the plaintiffs and on Asad Sudi 13 Section 1988, a sum of Rs. 1183/11/9 remained due against the defendants. Thereafter interest was added for a period ending Asad Sudi 13 Section 1991 making the amount due Rs. 1403/12/6 in payment whereof Rs. 195/- were received and the entry of payment was signed by Shrichand leaving a balance of Rs. 1207/12/6. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 792/3/6 as interest till the date of suit making the claim at Rs. 2000/-.3. Shrichand admitted his signature on the balance of Rs. 1183/11/9 outstanding on Asad Sudi 13, Section 1988, and a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »