Rajasthan Court October 1955 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.
Mst. Gulab Bai Vs. Mst. Manphool Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj98
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Manphool Bai under Order 12, Rule 5 of the Supreme-Court Rules, and it is prayed that this Court should issue a certificate that the appeal has not been effectually prosecuted by the appellant. 2. The circumstances leading to this application may be briefly narrated. A suit was brought by Mst. Manphool Bai in November, 1943, for arrears of rent and ejectment against Laduram who was tenant of the shop in dispute, and Mst. Gulab Bai who was also' made a defendant though no relief was claimed against her. It may be mentioned that Manphool Bai claimed to be the daughter-in-law of Gulab Bai by virtue of the adoption of her husband by Gulab Bai, end filed the suit as the widow of the adopted son Phool Chand. The suit was decreed by the first Court, but on appeal the District Judge set aside that decree, and dismissed the suit. Thereupon, there was a second appeal in this Court, which was allowed on 2-1-1952, and the suit was decreed against Laduram....
Dhanna Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ238
ORDERModi, J.1. This is a revision by Dhanna against an order of the Sessions Judge, Merta, dated the 31st March, 1954, by which he set aside the conviction of Dhanna under Section 411, I. P. C., but still ordered that the camel recovered from his possession be made over to the complainant Parsaram.2. It appears that some time in January, 1952, a camel belonging to Parsaram disappeared from Bhajnagar where he had gone with his cattle and the camel for purposes of grazing. Parsaram made a report in thana Kishenganj but no trace of the camel was found then.On the 13th August 1952 Parsaram happened to go to the cattle-fair at Parbatsar and there he found the camel in the possession of the petitioner Dhanna whom he recognized to be his. He immediately made a report and Dhanna was challaned, tried and convicted for an offence under Section 411, I. P. C., by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parbatsar.The Magistrate directed that the camel be handed over to the complainant Parsaram. The petitio...
State Through Police Vs. Ratan Lal and Udai Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ658
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. Ratan Lal of Bhinal has been charged with an offence under Section 9, Punjab Security of the State Act, 1953, as extended to the State of Ajmer by notification No. S.R.O. 379, dated 31-1-1954. The charge reads:That you, on the 12th day of November 1954 at Kekri at about 8-30 P.M., delivered a speech in connection with Kekri Municipal elections, which is Ex. P. 1 which contains Ex. P l (a) to Ex. P l(e) and which speech calculated to undermine the security of the State, public order, decency or morality and which amounted to defamation or incitement to an offence prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of the State Act 1953 as extended to the Ajmer State and within my cognizance... 2. It was urged before the learned Additional District Magistrate that Section 9 of this Act was in. valid |and the learned Additional District Magistrate has made a refere...
Hakim MartIn De Silva Vs. MartIn De Silva Ii and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj275
Bapna, J. 1. The present matter relates to the determination of proper court-fees in an appeal under section 54 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition. Act from the decision of the District Judge, Jaipur City, on a reference under section 30 of the Jaipur Land Ac-quisition Act. 2. A certain property, known as Hakim Martin's house, situated on the east side of the Amer Road in Jaipur City, was desired to be acquired under the Jaipur Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed Rs. 10,883/12/- to be the proper compensation for acquisition, but he could not decide the relative claims of the various claimants. Hakim Martin s/o Guston De Silva as Tihai of the family claimed the whole amount for himself by explaining that the other claimants were living in the house with, his permission by way of grace. The other claimants Martin De Silva II. Louis De Silva, Zavier De Silva, Angelo De Silva, and James Michael urged that they were entitled to certain shares according to their shares in...
Sainiks Motors and ors. Vs. State Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj65
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Sainiks Motors and two others under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and arises in the following circumstances: 2. The applicants are permit holders of certain buses plying on the Jodhpur, Pali, Sojat-Bar-Beswar route. It appears that there was some inconvenience to the public and the buses of the applicants, which orginally terminated at Bar, were allowed to go up to Beawar. It also appears that the permits were countersigned by the Ajmer authorities. There was also another bus service between Bilara and Bar and that was similarly extended for the same reason to Beawar and the permits in that case also were countersigned by the Ajmer authorities. In 1954, however, there was an application by these operators holding permits from Jodhpur to Beawar and Bilara to Beawar to the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, by which they obtained an order that the extension granted up to Beawar would be subject to the condition that the Jodhpur-Be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›