Rajasthan Court August 1956 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.
Mst. Bhoori Vs. Thakur Gulab Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Raj10
Bapna, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a money suit.2. Thakur Ehoor Singh, father of the respondents, instituted a suit against Mst. Bhoori, widow and heir of Pt. Madho Prasad, for recovery of Rs. 2061/6/- on the allegations that the deceased used to obtain loan from the plaintiff, and as a result of accounting on 23rd January, 1945, the deceased acknowledged his indebtedness to the plaintiff at Rs. 1525/-, and agreed to pay the amount within one year, but that if he would not do so he would pay interest at 1 per cent, per annum. It was pleaded that Madho Prasad died, and the property was in the possession of Mst. Bhoori as also one Shyam Sunder alleged to be the adopted son of Madho Prasad, and the suit was instituted against both the defendant.Shyam Sunder denied his adoption or having anything to do with the property of Madho Prasad. Mat. Bhoori also did not admit the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff had produced the khata Ex. 1 dated 23rd January, 1945, which was the ba...
Tajkhan Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ96
Modi, J. 1. This is an appeal by the accused Tajkhan who has been convicted under Section 161 read with Section 116, I. P. C., and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to two months' further rigorous imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Udalpur, acting as a Special Judge. 2. The material facts are these. The appellant is a dealer in wool and cotton, and carries on business in the name of Daud]i Mohammadji andhas his office at Udaipur. The properties of the firm, according to the appellant, are of two brothers Hussain All's and Nazir Ali and the appellant is Hussain Ali's son and has been looking after the entire business. It is common ground that the appellant was an assessee for purposes of income-tax within the jurisdiction of Mr. Gupta, Income-tax Officer at Udaipur, and his (appellant's) case for assessment came before that officer on 9-1-1952. P.W. 3 Shri Bhattacharya was his counsel and both had appeared before the Income-tax Officer...
Chiranjilal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj81
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. These are four connected writ applications of Chiranjilal, Madansingh, Udaibhan and Ramsingh against the Union of India and the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Jodhpur. We shall deal with them together as their facts are exactly similar, and the points raised are exactly the same. 2. The case of the applicants is that they entered service of the former Jodhpur Railway as clerks in the grain shop in 1946. Though the applicants have not said so in so many words in their applications, it appears that the grain shop department was a temporary department. This is clear from what they have said in paragraph 3 of their petition, namely, that they were rendered surplus on the grain shop department being wound up in 1952. Their case further is that on the winding up of this department they were absorbed with effect from 1st of January, 1953, in a clerk's grade from Rs. 55 to 130. Later, they were transferred to the Bikaner division as trains clerks in the same grad...
Hanuman Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj281
Banawat, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the Rajasthan Board or Revenue dated the 6th of October 1955, dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner and upholding the judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, of the 1st November 1954, by which he held that the suit brought by the petitioner in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Jaipur, was barred by the general principles of res judieata. 2. The facts leading to this petition are as follows : 3. The petitioner, Hanuman Prasad, made an application under Section 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) to the Anti-Ejectment Officer of Jaipur, which was allowed on the 29th January 1953, and he was ordered to be reinstated. A revision petition was filed in the Court of the Board of Revenue against the said order of the Anti-Ejectment Officer and it was allowed and the order of re-instatement was set aside on t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›