Rajasthan Court April 1956 Judgments
Rajasthan Bar Council Vs. Nathuram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj179; 1956CriLJ1350
Modi J. 1. This is a contempt of Court matter set in motion by the Secretary, Rajasthan Bar Council, against two Sub-Inspectors of Police Nathuram and Harnamsingh in relation to the arrest of Shri Fateh Chand Kothari, an advocate of this Court, practising at Churu.2. The material facts which have culminated in the present proceedings are briefly these. Shri Kothari was briefed by one Sagarmal in a complaint filed by him under Sections 452 and 506, I.P.C. against his son-in-law Maniram and another person Manoharlal (obviously a friend of Maniram) in the Court of the Extra Magistrate, First Class, Churu, on 22-7-1953.The allegations made by Sagarmal were that his daughter Mt. Lilawati was being treated by her husband Maniram with great cruelty and so she had come to her father's house, that Maniram and Manoharlal had come over to Churu about four days ago and met Sagarmal on the night of the 21st July and called upon him to send Mt. Lilawati with them else they threatened that they would...
Tag this Judgment!Dungardas and anr. Vs. Custodian Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj163
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Dungardas and another under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Custodian Evacuee Property, Rajasthan, and the Deputy Custodian Evacuee Property, Ganganagar.2. Dungardas's case briefly was that certain proceedings were taken against him by the Additional Custodian, Ganganagar, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8000/- said to have been deposited with him by one Moulabux who later became an evacuee. These proceedings were dropped in August, 1949.Thereafter, fresh proceedings in the same master were started by the Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property Ganganagar in October, 1952. Dungardas objected to fresh proceedings being taken on the ground that the matter had already been adjudicated upon in 1949.This objection was overruled, and Dungardas was directed to deposit the amount along with 6% interest. He preferred an appeal to the Custodian, which was dismissed.Thereafter, he went in revision to the Custodian General, New Delhi, and the revision ...
Tag this Judgment!Sohanlal and anr. Vs. Devachand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj11
Modi, J. 1. This is a revision by the defendants Sohanlal and Laohchand against an order of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh, restoring on payment of certain costs a suit which had been dismissed for default of the plaintiff's appearance2. It is unnecessary to set forth the pleadings of the parties for the purposes of this revision.Suffice it to say that the plaintiff opposite partybrought a suit against the defendants petitioners,among other reliefs, for specific performance of analleged oral contract of sale with respect to a portion of a house which was alleged to be ancestrahproperty but part of which had fallen to the sharof certain co-sharers therein and the latter hadsold the same to the defendants.The suit was instituted on 31-5-1951. Issueswere framed on 17-4-1952, and the case was postedfor the plaintiff's evidence for 24-5-1952. On thatdate by mutual consent between counsel for theparties, the case was adjourned to 6-8-1952, andowing to an intermediate application filed by theplai...
Tag this Judgment!Tekchand Vs. Banwarilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj185
Modi, J. 1. This is a petition by Tekchand under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari in connection with the rejection of his nomination paper.2. The petitioner is a resident of Karanpur which is a municipality under the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, 23 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rajasthan Act). The case of the petitioner is that he stood as a candidate for the municipal elections of the Karanpur municipality, which were scheduled to be held on 5-12-1955, and filed his nomination paper from Ward No. 3 for that purpose.Opposite parties 1 to 3 also filed their nomination papers from the same ward. On the day fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers, opposite party 1 Banwarilal objected to the nomination paper of the petitioner on certain grounds which are not material for the purposes of the present application. The Returning Officer who is opposite party 4 accepted this objection and rejected the nomination paper of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Ram and ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Jodhpur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj145
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are five connected writ applications by five railway servants against the order of the District Magistrate, Jodhpur, under the Payment of Wages Act (No. 4) of 1936 (hereinafter called the Act), and have been heard together as common points have been raised in them. We shall dispose them off by one judgment.2. It is best to set out the facts of each case briefly, and we shall then indicate common points of law that arise in these cases. 3. Case No. 54 is by Anantram. He was in the service of the then Jodhpur Railway. In March, 1951, he was served with a charge-sheet by the then Chief Engineer and was removed from service on 26-3-1951. The order of his removal was set aside on or about 1-4-1953. However, another charge-sheet based on the same charges was framed against him on 29-4-1953.It appears that the earlier order of dismissal was set aside on the ground of defect in procedure, and that was why Anantram was again served with a fresh charge-sheet, on the same ch...
Tag this Judgment!Shivsingh Vs. Harjiram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj39
Modi, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Shivsingh against the opposite party Harjiram and the Board of Revenue praying that a writ of certiovari or any other writ, direction or order be issued against them and the decree passed by the Board of Revenue dated the 22nd April, 1955, for Rs. 375/- be quashed.2. The facts leading to this revision may be shortly stated as follows. The petitioner is jagirdar of Nokha, Tehsil Nagaur, and the opposite party No. 1 Harjiram was his tenant with respect to a field called Badi Jao situate in village Nokha. Harjiram brought a suit against the petitioner on the ground that he had been unlawfully dispossessed of the said field by the latter in Smt. 2000 and thereby he was deprived of the mesne profits thereof amounting to Rs. 500/- annually for the Samwat years 2000 and 2001.He also stated that he had filed a suit in the first instance in the Hasiat court on the 10th July, 1944, the jagir of Nokha being under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Rasulji Buxji Kathawala Vs. Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi and an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj54; [1957]32ITR592(Raj)
Wanchoo, C. J. 1. This is an application by Firm Rasulji Buxji Kathawala against the Income-tax Commissioner, Delhi, and the Seventh Additional Income-lax Officer, Ajmer, holding his office at Udaipur, and also designated us Income-tax Officer, A Ward, Udaipur, under Article 226 of the Constitution, for a writ in the nature of Mandamus, Prohibition or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction or order.2. The case of the applicant is that it is a registered firm carrying on business of manufacturing and setting Kattha at Udaipur. The Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, served a notice on the applicant on the 29-3-1954, under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act calling upon him to make a return of his income for the assessment year 1945-46 on the ground that certain income had escaped assessment.The proceedings were later transferred to the Income-tax Officer. A Ward, Udaipur, who was alsodesignated as Seventh Additional Income-tax Officer,Ajmer. In pursuance of this notice, the applicant f...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Rama
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj190; 1956CriLJ1430
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Rama by the Sub-divisional Magistrate Ballabhnagar.2. The case for the prosecution was briefly this.3. Ghisulal, Sales Ameen, accompanied by a number of persons, went to village Ratnapur-ki-Sarai, in order to effect attachment of the property of Kalu and Bhura against whom a decree for Rs. 131/11/- was in execution. On arrival at the village, a buffalo with its calf was pointed out to the Sales-Amin, and it was attached. Thereafter, the attached cattle were entrusted to Daulatram.The Amin along with those who were with him, as well as Daulatram then left the place with the cattle. They had gone a short distance when Rama accused, who is the younger brother of the judgment-debtors arrived armed with a lathi. He hit the buffalo with the lathi and snatched the rope, with which Daulatram was leading the buffalo, from his hands. He also snatched the rope of the calf which was in the hand of another person with the resul...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›