Rajasthan Court December 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.
Lumbaram Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ231
ORDERDave, J.1. This reference comes on the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, dated the 16th of August 1955.2. The facts giving rise to it are that four persons namely Lumbaram, Kheraj, Pitha and Ghewaria were arrested by the Police on 2nd of May 1955 because they were suspected of committing the murder of one Nawalaram Jat on the previous day. After investigation, the Police challanged three of them. Against the fourth, namely Lumbaram, it was reported that the evidence against him was not sufficient for his prosecution and therefore, he should be discharged.The negative report against Lumbaram was rejected by the First Class Magistrate, Jodhpur on the ground that no evidence was recorded till then in the court. He ordered that the accused would stand his trial along with others. Against this order, Lumbaram filed an application in revision in the court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur.The learned Sessions Judge has expressed a doubt if the procedure adopted by the Magistrate i...
Hanwantchand Vs. Principal, Maharaj Kumar College, Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj158
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Hanwantchand against the Principal, Shri Maharaj Kumar college, Jodhpur, and the University of Rajputana, Jaipur, for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the opposite parties.2. The case of the applicant is briefly this; He is a resident of Jodhpur, and appeared at the Intermediate Examination in Commerce in 1955 held by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer. This examination is recognised by the University of Rajputana, and the applicant passed in the second division. He had not studied in any College or recognised institution, but appeared as a private candidate as that is permitted by the rules of the Ajmer Board.After passing the. examination, he applied for admission in the third year commerce class of Shri Maharaj Kumar College, Jodhpur. The principal, however, refused admission to him, and based his refusal on the instructions received from the R...
Jethmal Singh and ors. Vs. Ranjeet Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj171
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by the respondents of this appeal, and they pray that the appeal has abated as Dheersingh and Mangalsingh appellants died more than a year ago, and their legal representatives have not been brought on the record so far. 2. The application is opposed on behalf of the appellants, and their case is that as the legal representatives of the deceased appellants were brought on the record in the lower Court, to which the suit has been remanded, they should be deemed to be on the record, and there was no necessity of any application in this Court by the appellants for bringing the legal representatives of these two deceased appellants' on the record. In the alternative, it is prayed that if this Court is of the view that an application should have been made in this Court, the delay that has taken place may be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the persons, who have been already brought on the record by the lower Court, may be brought on ...
Baboolal and ors. Vs. Nathmal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj126
Dave, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for redemption of a shop situated in the Sadar Mandi, Jaisalmer. The boundaries of the shop are given in the plaint and need not be repeated here. The suit was originally brought by Baboolal son of Chintamandas, but later on Phoolchand and Sujansingh were also impleaded as plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case was that the said shop was mortgaged by Chintamandas, father of the first plaintiff, with the defendant Nathmal's father Moolchand for Rs. 475/- on Posh Vad 3 Samwat 1981, and he was also placed in possession thereof.Thereafter, on 9-11-1940, the plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant through the Court for the redemption of the property, but he did hot give any reply. It was therefore prayed that Rs. 475/-which the plaintiffs had deposited in the Court should be given to the defendants and they should be ordered to hand over possession of the property to the plaintiffs.2. One of the defendants, namely Ramlal presented his writ...
Mangilal Sharma Vs. Appellate Tribunal of State Transport Authority, R ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj167
Bhandari, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner Mangilal praying that the order of the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur, respondent No. 1 dated the 14th of June, 1954 cancelling, under Section 60(d) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, the permit for plying a stage carriage be set aside and respondent No. 1 and the Regional Transport Authority Jodhpur Division Jodhpur respondent No. 2 be prohibited from interfering with the plying of bus of the petitioner. 2. The circumstances under which respondent No. 1 ordered the cancellation of the permit of the petitioner are as hereunder:-- 3. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodh-pur, published a notification in Rajasthan Raj-patra dated the 4th of October. 1952 inviting applications for permits for plying stage carriage on Makrana Parbasar-Bassi route for three years The petitioner's application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authorit...
iftikhar Ahmad and ors. Vs. Bharat Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj165
Dave, J. 1. This is an application by the appellant Htikhar Ahmad and others under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for review of our order dated 4th of October 1955 whereby they were directed to pay ad valorem court-fee within fifteen days time. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that his clients do not contest the amount of the decree, but they are simply contesting their personal liability to pay the decretal amount, that the appeal is therefore governed by Schedule II, Article 17 and not by Schedule I, Article 1 of the Court-fees Act. 3. We have given due consideration to the above noted argument. It may be observed that in the first instance, the review application is incompetent because it is not covered by Order 47, Rule 1. An application under this rule can be made only if there is a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by hi...
Karam Singh Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ234
ORDERDave, J.1. This reference comes on the report of the learned Additional District Magistrate Jodhpur, dated the 17th of January 1955. He has made a recommendation that the offence of Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B alleged against the accused Karamsingh was committed in Phagwara in Pepsu State, that the Extra First Class City Magistrate has, therefore, no jurisdiction to enquire into the matter and so the proceedings should De quashed.2. It appears that the question of jurisdiction was raised by the accused Karamsingh in the court of the Extra Magistrate First Class, Jodhpur, but it was held by him that the facts alleged by the prosecution disclosed a case under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, he had jurisdiction to proceed in the matter.3. It Is alleged by the prosecution that one Meharsingh wanted to go out of India, but the Patiala Government had refused to give him the required permission in February 1952. He was however, very anxious to go to a fore...
Pabia and ors. Vs. Badia and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj175
1. This is a second appeal by the defendants in a suit for injunction.2. The plaintiffs Badia, Pakhia, Nawala and Tala claimed that they were Bapidars of Khasra No. 169 situate in village Deoli, Tehsil Desuri, and that they were in possession of the said land. Their case was that the defendants, (except the jagirdar of Deoli) who owned houses on the north-western and south-western side of their land had built a number of doors opening on to the plaintiffs' land and also carved out a new way through the said land and, therefore, they prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiffs' land for purposes of passage and also an injunction enjoining them to close the doors in question.Out of the defendants, Samratha, Poma, Natha. Nawala, Bala, Hirka, Mania, Pannia, Moti, Nawla and Hakia admitted the plaintiffs' claim and stated that they had opened the doors in question and the way at the instance of the jagirdar and that these did not exist ever before. The other...
Gangaram and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ235
ORDERDave, J.1. This is an application in revision by Gangaram and thirty-three others against the order of the District Magistrate of Bhilwara, dated the 4th of February 1954.2. The facts giving rise to it are that 70 persons were challenged by the police in the Court of the Extra Magistrate, Jahajpur for offences under Sections 148, 447, 379 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. On the 4th of June 1952, all of them failed to appear in the trial court and, therefore, their personal bonds were forfeited and the court directed notice to be issued to them under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Thereafter they filed their reply in the court on 30th of June 1953. Some of them took the plea that they could not come to the court on account of two deaths in their village and they had to join the cremation ceremony. Others took the plea that they had to attend the court at Shahpura in another case and, therefore, they could not come.The Magistrate found that twelve of them were required ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›