Rajasthan Court February 1956 Judgments
Hemsingh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ156
ORDERDave, J.1. This is an application in revision by Hemsingh, Kolia and Thania against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, dated 21-4-1955.2. The facts giving rise to it are that six accused including the three petitioners were challaned by the police in the Court of the sub-divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, under Section 397, I. P. C, The case was transferred to the Court of Additional First Class Extra Magistrate, Jodhpur. After making an inquiry, he committed Kanaram, Surja and Kheraj to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, for standing their trial under Sections 395 and 397, I. P. C.The petitioners were discharged by him. After committal, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge on 8-1-1955. On 15-1-1955, the Public Prosecutor presented an application to the Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 436 and 437, Cr. P. C. It was urged that the three petitioners were wrongly discharged by the committing Court, that ...
Tag this Judgment!Habib and ors. Vs. Daulatram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj121
Modi, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by the decree-holders Habib and others against a judgment of the Civil Judge, Bhilwara, dated 26-4-1954.2. The appellants are mortgagees. The respondent judgment-debtors executed a mortgage on 22-7-1947, of a house in favour of the appellants for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. On the same date the mortgagees leased back the house to the judgment-debtors who executed a rent-note whereby they agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- as rent to the mortgagees.The mortgagors failed to pay the stipulated rent with the result that the mortgagees brought a suit and obtained a decree for Rs. 6200/-, as rent, on 29-11-1952. The mortgagees in execution of this decree attached the house. The judgment-debtors raised the objection that it was not open to the decree-holders to bring the property in question to sale, as such a sale was forbidden by the provisions of Order 34, Rule 14, C. P.C.The case of the judgment-debtors was that there was an understanding between the ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Babulal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj28; 1956CriLJ550
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is a reference by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Fatehpur under Section 432, Criminal P. C. The question raised before him was that the Police Act (5 of 1861) was not legally enforced in Rajasthan. He has, therefore, referred the question whether the Police Act (5 of 1861) is legally enforced in Rajasthan and is thus a valid piece of legislation in Rajasthan. 2. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the State that the reference Is invalid as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not said in so many words that his opinion is that the Act is not legally enforced and is not a valid piece of legislation so far as Rajasthan is concerned. There is no doubt that he has not said so in so many words, but a reading of his reference order shows that he was inclined that way and under these circumstances, we over-rule the preliminary objection. 3. The manner in which the Police Act (5 of 1861) came to be applied to Rajasthan is this : On 24-1-1950 the Rajasthan Ad...
Tag this Judgment!Gokulchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj62
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Gokulchand on behalf of Messrs Tejpal Gokulchand under Section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act.2. The applicant is a cloth dealer in Udaipur. His income was assessed by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1952-53, that officer did not accept the trading result based on the account books of the applicant, and added a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the profits as shown in the account books on the ground that the profit disclosed was low, and there was no stock register.The applicant appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer with the modification that he reduced the additional amount from Rs. 10,000/-to Rs. 7,000/-. The applicant went up in further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal which upheld the decision of the Assistant Appellate Commissioner.Thereafter, the applicant applied to the Appellate Tribunal for stating a case to this Court. That application was, however, dismissed. Consequently th...
Tag this Judgment!Jairam Vs. Mangla and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj159; 1956CriLJ1230
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are two connected, applications by Jairam for special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal under Section 417 (3), Criminal P. C.2. The facts, which have led to these applications, are briefly these : Jairam filed a complaint against eleven accused persons, nine of whom are opposite parties in these two applications. Ths Magistrate convicted five out of the eleven persons, namely Bhera, Ramnath, Prabhu, Umeda and Rawat. Four were acquitted namely Mangla, Hardin, Jumar and Chainsingh.There was an appeal to the, Sessions Judge by the five accused who were convicted, and the Sessions Judge acquitted these five also. Thus nine out of the eleven persons were acquitted. We are not concerned in these applications with the remaining two, as one of them died during the pendency of the trial, and the other was prosecuted by the police, and Section 417(3) does not apply to his case.3. As these applications are the first of their kind to come up before this Court, we th...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhyalal and ors. Vs. Ramkumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj129
Modi, J.1. These nine appeals are directed against a common judgment of the District Judge, Bikaner, and raise identical questions. They originally came for hearing before a learned single Judge who thought fit to refer them for decision to a Bench, as the valuation of the appeals taken collectively is above Rs. 5000/-.2. The appeals arise out of nine suits filed by the plaintiff Ramkumar against the present appellant Kanhyalal, and Bansilal and Hazarilal father and son respectively. The plaintiff's case as disclosed in the plaint in case No. 331 of 1949 was that defendants Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Bansilal and Hazarilal being father and son, were members of a joint Hindu family and carried on a joint family business, that they were building contractors and required money in connection with the execution of certain contracts which they had undertaken, and, therefore, Hazarilal as manager of the joint family business borrowed a sum of Rs. 1000/- from the plaintiff under the surety ship of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramadayal Vs. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj57
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Ramdayal under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ, direction or order to the Custodian Evacuee Properly, Rajasthan, and arises in the following circumstances: 2. The applicant purchased a building in Jodhpur City on the 22-12-1947, for Rs. 17,500/-, and paid the money to Nisarali Khan and Sadiq Ali Khan, the vendors, and got possession on the same day. As Nisarali Khan and Sadiq Ali Khan became evacuees, an application was made on the 13-1-1950, for confirmation of the sale in favour of the applicant. The Deputy Custodian, Jodhpur, held that the application for confirmation was time-barred, and also held that the property was, in all probability, worth Rs. 38,000/-, and certainly not less than Rs. 30,000/-. Thereupon, the applicant appealed to the Custodian Rajasthan, and the Custodian held in November, 1951, that the application for confirmation was within time, and ordered that the case would be heard on other points on a date to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Mansingh Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj136
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Mansingh for writ of certiorari against the decision of the Board of Revenue in a correction of papers case during settlement operations in the district of Jaloro.2. The facts, which have led to this application, may be briefly narrated. The applicant claims that he was granted half illage of Charli in Tehsil Ahore, Dist. Jalore by the jagirdar of Abore whose younger brother he is Some time thereafter settlement operations started in this village, and in July, 1951, during these operations, an entry is said to have been made ex parte in the revenue records in which Bersingh, opposite party No. 5, was shown as a co-sharer of certain land attached to 8 wells, and as full owner of certain other lands. The applicant's claim with respect to these lands was that he was the sole owner of these lands by virtue of the grant from the jagirdar of Ahore, and the entries made ex parte by the Settlement Department were incorrect. Consequently he applied to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›