Rajasthan Court March 1952 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.
Ratanlal Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ187
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The accused-applicant stands convicted under Section 7 of Central Act XXIV of 1946 and sentenced to pay a fine of Re. 100.3. The accused-applicant is the Honorary Secretary of the Ganesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. to which a licence had been issued to sell controlled foodgrains. The shop was checked by the Rationing Department on 15.9.1949 and the stock was found short. He was accordingly prosecuted and convicted for not maintaining correctly the Stock Register and the Sales Register.4. The only point raised in revision on behalf of the accused-applicant is that he should not have been held liable for the shortage and consequently for the incorrect entries and should not have been prosecuted, convicted and sentenced therefor, vide Section 9 of the Act. His ground of defence was that ho had already brought to the notice of the Rationing Department that he was experiencing a great difficulty not being a technical man in running the shop and...
Hiralal Vs. Kanhyalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj184
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is an application by Hiralal plaintiff to revise the order of the Civil Judge Alwar staying the suit under Section 151, Civil P. C. The plaintiff is an assignee of a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent and arrears subsequent to the decree from one Ram Kumar who is the defendant pro forma in the present case. The decree in the ejectment and arrears of rent suit was given by the High Court Alwar in favour of Ram Kumar against Kanhayalal defendant 1. It is this decree which was assigned to the plaintiff. On the strength of that decree the plaintiff has obtained the possession of the property from Kanhayalal. This suit has now been filed for the recovery of arrears of rent accruing after the date of previous suit. Before the suit was filed, Kanhayalal filed another suit in the Court of the District Judge, Alwar for a declaration that Fateh Lal was an adopted son of Mt. Dhanni and was consequently entitled to the shop in suit. Fateh Lal has mortgaged the shop in ...
Dharam Chand Vs. Punam Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj6
Wanchoo, C.J.1. The question that arises in this case is whether' the memorandum of appeal is sufficiently stamped. It appears that the appellant filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as damages for malicious prosecution. The plaint of that suit has been rejected by the Civil Judge, Sirohi under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court and has valued the memorandum of appeal at Rs. 10,000/- but he has paid only Rs. 2/- as court-fees. The office report is that the memorandum of appeal should have been stamped with a court-fees of Rs. 475/-. The appellant was asked to make good the deficiency and he has objected that the memorandum of appeal is sufficiently stamped.2. Reliance was placed on behalf of appellant on Schedule II, Article 11 of the Court Fees Act which provides for a fixed court-fee in case of memorandum of appeal when the appeal is not from a decree or an order having the force of a decree. We are clearly...
Nirmal Kumar Vs. the Commissioner, Jaipur Divn., Jaipur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj33
Sharma, J. 1. This is an application by Nirmal Kumar minor for a writ of 'certiorari' to send for the requisition file of the house known as Chandan Mahal, and after a perusal thereof, to quash the order of requisition, and to re-deliver the possession of the property known as Chandan Mahal and the shop underneath to the petitioner. In the alternative, the issue of any direction or order as might be deemed fit under the circumstances of the case has been prayed for.2. The case of the petitioner is that he owns and possesses the promises on the first floor known as Chandan Mahal and three shops on the ground floor. This property is situated in Chaura Rasta, Jaipur city. The first floor of the property, that is Chandan Mahal, was in the occupation if Ramlila Committee, who had their effects lying therein. The respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Jaipur, requisitioned thefirst floor and sealed one shop on the ground floor under the orders of the respondent No. 1, Commissioner, Jaipur Di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›