Rajasthan Court October 1957 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.
The Punjab National Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. Jethmal Danmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj223
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the Punjab National Bank Ltd. and three other banks (hereinafter called the Banks) against the order of the District Judge of Jodhpur in an insolvency matter. (2) The brief facts leading to this appeal may be mentioned at the outset. An application was made by Messrs. Jethmal Danmal and another (hereinafter called the respondents) for declaring Messrs. Sherchand Multanmal and its partners insolvent (hereinafter called the insolvent) under Section 9 of the Insolvency Act. The District Judge adjudicated Messrs. Sherchand Multanmal and its partners insolvent on 21st of July, 1954. A receiver was appointed to take possession of the property of the insolvents. One of the acts of insolvency mentioned in the petition was that the insolvents had given fraudulent preference to the Banks. After the order, of adjudication, the Banks made an application to the District Judgepointing out that no notice, as required underSection 19(2) of the Insolvency Act ...
Noor Mohammad Vs. Piru Bhai and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj280
K.K. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Baran dated 23-8-1952.2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit out of which this appeal has arisen for the recovery of Rs. 1193-8-9 on the allegations that he had purchased seven bags of Dhania Dal at the rate of Rs. 92/- per maund from Messrs. Bheralal Duli-chand, Commission Agents of Baran on 27-6-1950. The Dhania Dal weighed 13 mds. 38 seers and 4 chhataks. The cost of empty bags was Rs. 8-12-0 at the rate of Rs. 1-4-0 per bag and 0-12-9 was on account of Dhannada (charity). Thus the total amount came to Rs. 1293-8-3. The plaintiff pledged this Dhania Dal on 1-7-1950 with the defendant-respondent for a sum of Rs. 1293-8-3 and paid this amount to Messrs. Bherulal Dulichancl. The plaintiff asked the defendant several times that he should deliver the Dhania to the plaintiff on payment of the pledge money.The defendant, however, did not deliver the said commodity in ...
Man Kanwar Vs. Salehraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj137; 1958CriLJ801
D.S. Dave, J. 1. This reference comes on the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 23-7-1957.2. The facts giving rise to it are that in a criminal case No. 371 of 1956 (State v. Salehraj offence under Section 325 I. P. C.) pending in the Court of the City Magistrate, Jodhpur, one Mst, Man Kanwar has been cited by the prosecution as a witness. On 30-4-1957 the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector moved an application in the trial court saying that Smt. Man Kanwar was a 'pardahna-shin' lady and therefore a commission should be issued for her examination.This application was turned down by the court with the remark that the witness could come to the court with a 'pardah' and the court would see that the court room would be closed and only the parties and counsel would be allowed to remain there at the time of her examina-tion. Being dissatisfied with this order Mst. Man Kanwar filed a revision application in the court of the learned Sessions Judge.The learned Judge has remarked that en...
Gopal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj152
K. L. Bapna, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City.2. Kotwali Police, Jaipur produced a challan on 17-4-1956, against one Radhey Shyam for an offence under Section 307 I. P. C. triable by the court of session. The complainant Panchu subsequently, filed a complaint on 22-5-1956 again-st six persons including Radhey Shyam for having committed the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. in respect of the same incident. The Assistant Collector and Magistrate First Class, Jaipur City passed an order consolidating the two proceedings and began to proceed against all the accused in one proceeding. An application was submitted on behalf of one of the accused Gopal that the procedure prescribed under Section 208 Cr. P. C. and subsequent sections be followed in the case. The Magistrate, however, preferred to proceed according to the procedure laid down in Section 207A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Gopal filed a revision and the learned Sessions Judge was of the view t...
Shaitana Vs. the Rajasthan Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj164
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred to this Full Bench for decision, viz. :'Whether rtlief under Section 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, is available to a joint tenant who is not in exclusive possession of any particular portion of the land but is jointly in possession of the whole holding along with other joint tenants?'2. The brief facts which have led to this reference, may be given here. Sedhu, who is opposite party in this court, filed an application under Section 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (No. IX of 1949) hereinafter called the Ordinance.) His case as found by the Board was that he, along with Shaitana who is the applicant in this court, were co-tenants of certain holdings and his share was half. Shaitana dispossesed Sedhu and in consequence Sedhu applied for reinstatement under Section 7. The application was opposed by Shaitana and two main points were urged on his behalf.(1) That the application had not...
Sheokaran Vs. Dulla and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj180; 1958CriLJ970
K.L. Bapna, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Single Judge of this Court. One Sheokaran filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nawalgarh on the 20th June 1956 on the allegations that in village Kirodi there was a Kothi known as Sadanwali which had two Dhanas, the western Dhana being used to irrigate 30 bighas kham of which the complainant enjoyed 7 1/2 bighas and that in Khasra No. 2929, he was in possession of half the land. It was alleged that the opposite parties Duladas son of Lakhadas Lachmandas son of Bodu and Surja son of Lakhadas had prevailed upon the Patwari to make wrong entries in the Gasht Girdawari. It was alleged that the complainant was nevertheless in possession of the land of which the opposite parties were trying to wrest from him and there was danger of the breach of the peace. Notice was issued under Section 112, Criminal P. C. to show cause why the opposite parties may not furnish security for keeping the peace. As it happened, the Magistrat...
Chandanmal and anr. Vs. Saleraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj298
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs appellants Chandanmal and another in a suit for redemption. The suit has been dismissed by both Courts below. 2. The appellants are descendants of the mortgagors. The respondents are said to be the descendants of the mortgagees. The relevant pedigree tables were recited in the plaint. The plaintiffs' case is that the suit house was mortgaged by their ancestor Bhuta to Manakchand, Birdichand, Shivchand and others by a mortgage deed dated Kali Vadi 3 of Smt. of 1936 (corresponding to some time in 1879 A.D.) for a sum of Rs. 430/5/-Akheshahi coin which was stated to be equivalent to Rs. 269/6/- in Indian rupees. The mortgage was usufructuary, and it was stipulated between the parties that the house would carry no rent and the money no interest. The plaintiffs appellants further alleged that when they gave notice to the defendants lespondents to redeem the suit house, the latter declined to give redemption by saying that the partie...
Jeo Raj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Raj73
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a writ application by Jeo Raj and 39 others, who are residents of village Deoli, under Article 226 of the Constitution by which they seek to challenge the validity of a tax which is called a tax on buildings under Clause (e) of Section 64 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (No. 21 of 1953).2. The petitioners' case is that there is a village panchayat consisting of villages, Deoli, Isali, Jaitpura, Wadia and Mukanpura and has its headquarters at Deoli. The panchayat was constitutedin 1955 and opposite party No. 3, Khanger Singh, is the Surpanch or it. It is further alleged that on the 21st January, 1956, the Surpanch issued a notification to the effect that the Panchayat had decided to levy a house tax on the residents of village Deoli, under Clause (e) of Section 64 of the said Act.By this notification a profession tax was also sought to be levied on the residents of other villages comprising this Panchayat, but with that we are not concerned. The notification furt...
Banshilal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj119
D.S. Dave J.1. This is a writ application by Banshilal and 9 others under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arising out of the following circumstances:2. In exercise of the powers conferred upon non-petitioner No. 1, i.e. The Rajasthan State, under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, a Gram Panchayat was constituted for Kanod in Udaipur District. The election of the Panchas of the said Panchayat was held on 5-8-1955. The Petitioners were declared to be duly elected panchas in the said election by notification No. 31541/42 dated 30-9-1955. The petitioner No. 1, Banshilal, was elected as Surpanch, petitioner No. 2, Madanlal was elected as Upsarpanch and the remaining 8 were elected as panchas. They took their oath of office and started working.3. The petitioners' allegation is that since they were members of the Praja Socialist Party, the Congress Party first tried its best through Roshanlai, Vishvanath Vyas and Udailal to persuade them to join the congress pa...
Mangilal and ors. Vs. Collector of Bhilwara and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj84
Wanchoo, C. J. 1.This is an application by Mangilal and others under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari against the order of the Collector, Bhilwara, in a Panchayat election matter.2. The case of the fourteen applicants is that twelve out of them were elected to the Gram Panchayat Hamirgarh on 2-10-1955. They were all members of the Jan Sangh Party and the Congress Party was defeated in the elections. Consequently, opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11, who were members of the Congress Party, filed an election petition before the Collector under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Election Rules, 1954 (hereinafter called the Rules).The enquiry into the petition was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter the Collector set asids the election of the twelve applicants under R. 20. Consequently, the applicants have come up to this Court and their main contentions are these:(1) That Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules providing for decision of elections are ultra vires, as n...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »