Rajasthan Court August 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.
Shri Bishveshwar Vs. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj101
Bapna, J. 1. This is a reference by a Division Bench, and arises in the following circumstances : 2. Shri Bishveshwar, petitioner, instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Sirohi, for recovery of Rs. 5000/- on 6-2-1937, against Thakur Balwant Singhji Jagirdar of Thikana Pandly, as legal representative of Tiwari Shiv Lal and Mst. Champa. It was transferred to the Court of Revenue Officer by the Civil Judge by an order dated 16-7-1938. On 31-8-1945, the suit was dismissed for default. It was restored by the Hevenue Member of Sirohi State by order dated 28-11-1948. The defendant filed a revision-before the State Council of Sirohi against the order of restoration, and it came before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, for disposal. The revision was heard by Shri Chhail Behari Lal, Member of the Board of Revenue, who recorded an order that 'Subject to the concurrence of my learned colleague, I would accept the revision petition! and set aside the order of restoration passed by the Revenu...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, Ajmer, Rajasthan and Madhya Bharat ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj30; [1956]29ITR165(Raj)
Wanchoo, C. J. 1. This is a reference by the Appellate Tribunal under the Income-tax Act.2. The following question has been referred to this Court for answer :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the higher exemption limit of Rs. 7,200/- in terms of the proviso to para. A in part I of Schedule I of Section 2, Finance Act of 1951?'3. The facts of the case are these: The assessee Messrs Dhannalal Devilal of Jaipur filed a return for the assessment year 1951-52, and claimed the benefit of the higher exemption limit as provided in para. A in part I of Schedule I of S. 2, Finance Act of 1951. The firm in question was at that time owned by two minors . named Sita Ram and Madhav who were members of an undivided Hindu family.Further at the relevant time this family had ., two other members, namely the widowed mother and the widowed grand-mother of the two minors. The question arose whether is view o...
Sat Behwaric and Co., Jaipur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj76; [1956]30ITR151(Raj)
Sharma, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66 (2), Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and the question referred by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Branch) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Tribunal) is as follows: 'Whether upon a the interpretation of Clause 17 of the agreement dated 31-5-1934 the commission in respect of sales made in Part B States accrued and arose to the assessee at Dhariwal'. 2. The assessee is Sat Behwaric and Co. and is a selling representative of the New Egerton Wollen Mills Company, Branch of the British India Corporation Limited whose offices are situated at Dhariwal in the State of the Punjab. This latter company be hereinafter referred to as the Dhariwal Mills. An agreement was entered into between the assessee and the Dhariwal Mills on 31-5-1934. This agreement will be referred to as the agreement. There are different clauses in that agreement dealing with different matters but only Clause 17 is relevant for t...
Chotteylal Vs. Hari Kishen
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj45
Sharma, J.1. This in an appeal by Chotteylal defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City in a suit for the recovery of Rs, 2120/- on a pronote. The suit was originally filed by Harikishendass respondent 1 against the appellant Chottelal on the allegations that a pronote for Rs. 2000/- was executed by the appellant in favour of respondent 2 Kishenchand Lekhraj on 1-10-1948.The consideration was, however, really paid by Harikishendass and it was for his benefit that the pronote was executed. Kishenchand was made a defendant pro forma in the suit. A prayer was made for the recovery of Rs. 2000/- principal and Rs. 120/-interest i.e. for the total sum of Rs. 2120/-. This suit was filed on 20-5-1949 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City.2. The principal respondent Chotteylal filed his written statement pleading that the pronote in suit was inadmissible in evidence being insufficiently stamped. It was further pleaded that no suit could be filed ...
LaxminaraIn Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj34; 1956CriLJ266
Sharma, J.1. The appellant Laxminarain has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kotah under Section 302, I. P. C., and sentenced to transportation for life.2. The prosecution case is that the appellant Laxminarain who is the nephew of Devlal, cut jokes with' a fourteen years old girl named Mst. Badri who was related to Devlal's wife on her mother's side, a few days before the occurrence which took place in the night between 4 and 5-2-1953. This annoyed Mst. Badri and she complained to her husband, and the complaint was also brought to Devlal deceased. Devlal took the appellant Laxminarain to task.A few days after, the appellant molested Mst. Ram Nathi, wife of Devlal. Mst. Ramnathi complained to Devlal and Devlal gave the appellant a beating, a day before the occurrence. On the date of occurrence in the night, the deceased and Mst. Ramnathi were sleeping in their house when the appellant entered therein and gave three axe blows on the head of Devlal.Devlal fell down and soon a...
indernath Modi Vs. Nandram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj231
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Shri Indernath Modi against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jodhpur, which had come up for hearing once before, and some of the points in dispute were decided on the 7th of October, 1952, That judgment will be treated as a part of the present judgment, The facts are all given in that judgment and it is not necessary to repeat them in detail here. Suffice it to say that the suit by the plaintiff-appellant was for recovery of possession on the basis of a mortgage said to have been made by one Nandram and his brother Achlu on Baisakh Badi 7, St. 1975 (22nd April. 1919). After the mortgage, Nandram executed a lease in favour of the mortgagee and remained in possession as a tenant.The original mortgagee Jainarain however sued Nandram on his failure to pay the rent, and got a decree for ejectment and obtained actual possession by execution on the 19th of November, 1931. Thereafter, there was trouble between Jai Narain and Mst, Sarupi, mothe...
Daulat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj33
Bapna, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner Daulat Singh has alleged that he was given a contract by Thakur Lakshman Singh of Ghanerao to cut and remove trees from his forest known as 'Mahaveer Block' 1000 acres in area situated within his Jagir, on 14-6-1953, for a period of five years. It was alleged that the petitioner made an application to the Government of Rajasthan on 17-6-1953, for the grant of a licence to cut the trees as required by the Rajasthan Removal of Trees (Regulation) ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No. 8 of 1949). The Government of Rajasthan at first agreed to let the petitioner cut the trees from 50 acres of forest each year, but thereafter went back on their order on 25-1-1955, and refused permission to the petitioner for cutting the trees.It was alleged that the petitioner having obtained the right to cut the trees from the forest of Thakur Lakshman Singh of Ghanerao, had acquired a fundamental right which could not ...
Dayachand and ors. Vs. Sanwalchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj6
Dave, J. 1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Balotra, dated 13-7-1953 whereby their suit has-been dismissed.2. The plaintiffs in this case 'were seven innumber. Their case was that plaintiffs 1 and 2 Multanmal and Dayachand and one Nenmal, who wasthe deceased father of plaintiff 3, carried on business to the name and style of Multanmal Juharmaland Company. Defendants 5 and 6 were also sonsof the deceased Nenmal but they had separated fromthe father in his lifetime and so they were impleaded only as pro forma defendants.It was averred that the remaining defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were members of a joint family and that defendants 1 and 2 Sanwalchand and Babulal, who were Kartas of 'that family, borrowed from the plaintiffs' firm Multanmal Juharmal and Company Rs. 9801/- on Fagan Sud 11 Samwat 2001 and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 8 annas per cent per mensem.The claim was thus founded on a Khata dated Fagan Sud 11 Samwat...
The State Vs. Mithalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj20; 1956CriLJ107
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are six connected appeals by the State against the acquittal of Mithalal accused by a First Class Magistrate. As the main point involved in all these appeals is the same, we propose to dispose of them by one judgment.2. The case for the prosecution may be briefly stated. Mithalal is a goldsmith and carries on the work of preparing ornaments in Jodhpur. The six complainants in these six cases either gave gold only or gold as well as, cash or cash only to Mithalal for the purpose of preparing ornaments. The case of these six complainants was that Mithalal misappropriated the gold or cash given to him and disappeared from Jodhpur. Consequently, they reported the matter to the police and Mithalal was prosecuted under Section 406, Penal Code.3. The Magistrate took evidence and framed a charge against Mithalal under Section 406, Penal Code. But after the case was' over, he did not decide questions of facts raided in these cases and acquitted the accused on the on the gr...
In Re: General Assurance Society Ltd., Ajmer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj61
Bapna, J. 1. In these 8 cases a reference has been made by the learned Single Judge. 2. The Indian Companies Act was applied to Rajasthan with certain modifications by the Rajasthan Adaptation of Central Laws Ordinance (No. 4 of 1950 promulgated on 24th January, 1950) and Section 3 of the Act was modified so as to substitute Government of United State of Rajasthan for Central Government under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. On 9-8-1950, the Government of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred by the modified proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act issued a notification empowering the District Courts (District Judges) in Rajasthan to exercise all the jurisdiction conferred by the Indian Companies Act, upon the Court. 3. On 1-4-1951, the Part B States Laws Act came into force and the Indian Companies Act (No, 7 of 1913) was applied in its entirety subject to certain amendments. One of such amendments was insertion of Section 2 (b) by which the co...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›