Rajasthan Court August 1956 Judgments
Rajmal Vs. Islam Mahomed
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Raj6
Bapna, J.1. This is a revision against a decision of the Civil Judge of Jhalawar in appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 137/-.2. The petitioner had Instituted a suit on the basis of a bond dated 10th April, 1950, in which the defendant had agreed his indebtedness to be Rs. 213/-, and after mentioning payment of Rs. 43/- had agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 170/- by instalments of Rs. 10/- p.m. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 75/- on account of principal and Rs. 62/- by way of interest.3. The defendant denied having any dealings with the plaintiff or having executed the document or making any payment.4. The trial Court, after evidence, gave a decree to the plaintiff, but on appeal that decree was set aside, and the suit was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff has come in revision,5. Learned counsel has raised one questionof law, viz., that two witnesses Basantilal and Motilal who had been produced to identify the handwriting of the defendant were brushed aside by the appellate Court on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Pannalal and anr. Vs. Firm Ballaram Basia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj391
ORDERBapna, J.1. This is a revision against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Alwar, dated 15th May, 1956, allowing an application for restoration of a suit which had been dismissed for default.2. The plaintiff, after the dismissal Of the suit for default, made an application for its restoration accompanied by two affidavits in support of the grounds mentioned in the petition for setting aside (?) restoration. Notice was issued to Mr. Umrao Lal, Advocate for the defendants, who on 4th May, 1956, wrote on the back of the notice that his power to represent the defendants had come to an end by the order of dismissal of the suit. The Court, however, did not agree with the view of Mr. Umrao Lal, considered service on him as sufficient service on the defendants, accepted the affidavits, produced on behalf of the plaintiff, and directed restoration 'by order of 15th May, 1966. The defendants have come in revision.3. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the order of dismissal...
Tag this Judgment!Girdharlal and ors. Vs. Md. Hanif
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj399
ORDERBapna, J.1. This is a revision against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur City, dated 24th September, 1954.2. One Ganesh Lal had a decree against Hakim Afsal Hussain, and in execution of the decree got a certain property of the judgment-debtor sold. The property was purchased by Mohmmad Hanif and the sale was confirmed on 12th August. 1948. The money deposited by the auction-purchaser was paid to the decree-holder. Subsequently to this the Custodian of Evacuee Property made an application under Section 17(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance (No. XXVII of 1949) stating that the property had been evacuee property, and the sale thereof should be set aside. This petition was allowed by the Court on 22nd July, 1950.The sale was set aside, and the decree-holder was directed to pay black into the Court the money which he had received for refund to the auction-purchaser. The decree-holder filed an appeal, which was held incompetent, and the same view was upheld...
Tag this Judgment!Somraj Vs. Jethmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj392
Modi, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant Somraj in a suit for eviction and arrears of rent.2. The plaintiff Jethmal's case was that fine defendants Somraj and another had taken the suit shop on rent from the plaintiff on Migsar Vad 1. Smt. 2004 (corresponding to 29th November, 1847) at a rent of Rs. 45/- p.m. and that they had paid rent up to Smt. 2006. Baisakh Sudi 15 (corresponding to the 2nd May, 1950) but thereafter had failed to pay rent for a period of five months and a half up to Smt. 2007, Asoj Vadi 30 (corresponding to 11th October, 1950). The plaintiff, therefore, instituted his present suit for a sum of Rs. 247/8/,- as rent for the said period and for eviction on the 17th October, 1950.3. it is unnecessary to state any facts in so far as they bear on the question of eviction as that question is no longer in dispute between the parties.4. The defendants resisted the suit. Their main contention was that on their complaint under the Marwar House 'Bent Control Act (No...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. JaIn and ors. Vs. Labour Commissioner, Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj35
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by N. K. Jain and others on behalf of M/S Dnduwala & Co., Bhilwara (hereinafter called the applicant) under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Labour Commission, Rajasthan and others, and arises in the following circumstances.2. Messrs Duduwala and Co. Bhilwara carry on mica mining, and manufacture and sale of mica.One of the mines exploited by it is Toonka mine, and naturally workers are employed in this mine. The Labour Inspeetor, after inspecting the mines, made an application under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act (No. XI) of 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) before the Labour Commissioner in June 1954. In that application, it was urged that the applicant had not paid wages for Sundays to the workers, and had therefore contravened Section 13 of the Act, read with Rule 23 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 (here-in-after called the Rules). The Labour Inspector prayed that the applicant be directed to make payment of the w...
Tag this Judgment!Ramprasad and anr. Vs. Gram Panchayat, Bhadana and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj43
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. These are two applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Ramprasad (No. 13/1956) and Ramdeo (No. 14/1956) against the Gram Panchayat, Bhadana and its Sarpanch Ramdhan. We propose to deal with them together as the point raised in both these applications is the same. 2. The applicants contend that the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Bhadana has issued a public notice to the effect that owners of five houses in Bhadana have died heirless and, therefore, these five houses would be auctioned in case nobody appeared and preferred claims, presumably before the Panchayat, with respect to these houses. Ramprasad applicant claims one of these houses, while Ramdeo applicant claims two of them one as owner and the other as a licensee on behalf of the owner. The applicants contend that the Panchayat has no power under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (Act No. 21 of 1953) to take action for escheat and, therefore the Panchayat should be forbidden from proceeding further into...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Sunder Sharma Vs. Election Tribunal, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj189
ORDER1. This is an application by Shri Brij Sunder Sharma under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari, against the Election Tribunal, Jaipur, and 8 others, for. setting aside its order dated 30th April, 1956, and also for prohibition against the said Tribunal directing it not to forward its order dated the 30th April, 1956, to the Election Commission. In the alternative, writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution against the said Tribunal for setting aside the said order has been prayed for. It has further been prayed in the alternative that under Article 227 of the Constitution the said order be quashed. 2. The circumstances leading to this petition are as noted below: (2a) In November, 1953, a bye-election was held to fill in a seat of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Sironj constituency in district Kotah, Shri Abhinna Hari, respondent No. 2, Shri Madan Lal Agarwal, respondent no. 3, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhandhania Kedia and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj15; [1957]32ITR719(Raj)
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1), income-tax Act, and has been made at the instance of M/s. Dhandhania Kedia & Co., Udaipur (hereinafter called the assessee).2. This reference came up for hearing on 17-4-1956. On that date counsel for the assessee were present, but counsel for the Commissioner, Income-tax, was not present. Arguments were heard ex parte, and judgment was reserved. Before, however, the judgment could be delivered, an application was made that counsel for the Commissioner of Income-tax could not appear as he had no knowledge of the date fixed. Notice was issued on this application, and 31-7-1956 was fixed for hearing.The assessee did not seriously contest the application for rehearing, and only prayer that if the case was to be reheard, it should be heard on the merits on the date fixed, namely 31-7-1956. As the judgment had not been delivered, we thought at best to hear both parties on the merits, and did so on...
Tag this Judgment!Khubilal and anr. Vs. Maloomsingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj21
Modi, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for redemption of a mortgage and a learned single Judge before whom the appeal came originally has referred it to a Division Bench.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises has had a chequered history. The suit was brought in the first instance in 1941 in a Court of the former State of Udaipur. It is unnecessary for the purposes of the present appeal to give the history of this case in detail. It is enough to say in this connection that the District Judge of Pratapgarh by his judgment dated 21-9-1931, without deciding any other issues which arose in tin's case, himself raised the question of limitation and holding that the plaintiffs had brought their suit a hundred years after the execution of the mortgages which they sought to redeem dismissed it.The plaintiffs then came in appeal to this Court, and a Division Bench to which one of us was a party held by its judgment dated 25-11-1952 that the manner in which the learned Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Man Mohan Singh Nagpal Vs. Government of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj396
ORDERBapna, J. 1. This is a revision against the decision of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Jaipur, dated 20th January, 1954. 2. The petitioner filed a suit against the Government of Rajasthan in the Court of Small Causes on the 10th Of February, 1953, for recovery of Rs. 375/- on the allegation that he was a licensee for the sale of foreign liquors in respect of a Ear and Restaurant situated at Prem Prakash Cinema, and he used to pay a licence fee of Rs. 150/- per year to the Customs and Excise Department. It was alleged the on the 6th April, 1950, the Customs and Excise Department of Rajasthan asked the plaintiff licence-holder to pay a fee of Rs. 1500/- per year instead of the previous fee of Rs. 150/- a year. The plaintiff declined to pay the amount, but he was told that if he did not pay up the amount his Bar and Restaurant would be closed by force. It was then that the plaintiff paid Rs. 375/- for three months under protest to the Customs and Excise Authorities on the 7th October,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »