Rajasthan Court November 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.
ismail Vs. Rajasthan State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj96
D.S. Dave, J. 1. This is an application by one Ismail, resident of Sojat City, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and arises under the following circumstances:2. In connection with the municipal elections for the town of Sojat, the Collector Pall, who is non-petitioner No. 2, appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sojat, non-petitioner No. 3, as a returning officer for the elections. Non-petitioner No. 3 thereupon invited nomination papers to be filed by 25-7-1956. The petitioner submitted his nomination paper to non-petitioner No. 3 for his election as a member of Sojat Municipal Board from Ward No. 10. The only other person who submitted his nomination paper from the same Ward was non-petitioner No. 4, Narain. On 28-7-1956, the returning officer scrutinized the nomination papers and rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner as also of non-petitioner No. 4.The petitioner's nomination paper was rejected on the ground that he did not fulfil thequalification as provided...
The Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd. Vs. Municipal Board Kishangarh and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1960Raj135
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred to a Full Bench for reply:''Whether the Municipal Board, Kishangarh, could validly impose in exercise of the powers undet Section 128(xiv) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, licence fee or tax on factories situated within the boundary of Kishangarh Municipality to be collected on the basis of Horse Power of the factories.'2. The facts which have led to this reference may be briefly narrated. The applicant is a joint stock company having its registered office at Kishangarh and is carrying on business of production and sale of cotton yarn and cloth at that place. The State of Rajasthan by means of a notification No. F-2(157) LSG/50 dated 21st August 1950 published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 25th November, 1950 sanctioned the imposition of a licence fee on flour mills and other factories at a certain rate based on Horse Power.This was done under Sub-section (2) of Section 135 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916...
Sethi Marble Stone Industries and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj140
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Sethi Marble and Stone Industries and others in which the validity of The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955, (hereinafter called the Rajasthan Rules) made by the Rajasthan State, and the royalty imposed in accordance with certain notification issued thereunder is questioned as ultra vires and void.2. The petitioners are stone merchants and are also manufacturers of stone ballast and chips and carry on business as such at Chittorgarh. They work certain quarries themselves and also purchase stone from other quarry-owners who have their quarries in Chittorgrah and certain other places within a radius of 10 miles from that place. The petitioners carry stone to their factories and prepare chips and ballast therein and then sell them.Opposite Party No. 2 Chunnilal is a contractor appointed by the State of Rajasthan forcollecting royalty by virtue of a contract taken by him at a public auction, t...
Suraj Prasad Vs. Moolchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj188
K.L. Bapna, J.1. This is a revision against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Baran, dated 29-4-1952.2. The petitioner wanted to institute a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000 under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act against Moolchand and three other respondents in connection with the death of his wife Smt. Parbati Bai and for that purpose made an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The death of Smt. Parbati Bai took place on 26-8-1950 as a result of her being injured by a Truck No. 515 on 20-7-1950. The first three defendants were said to be the owners of that truck and the defendant No. 4 was the driver at the time. The application was made on 27-8-1951. The defendants contested the application but the learned Civil Judge, on facts found that the petitioner was unable to pay the court-fee for the claim of Rs. 10,000, which he had made. He, however, rejected the application on the ground that the claim was not framed in the manner permitted by Law. Under Section 2 of the ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Abdul Aziz
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj127; 1958CriLJ694
ORDERD.S. Dave, J. 1. This is an application in revision by the State against the order of the learned Seasions Judge, Jodhpur, dated 15-4-1957.2. The facts giving rise to it are that one Abdul Aziz was challaned by the police for offences under Sections 231, 232, 234 and 235 I. P. C.After preliminary enquiry, the City Magistrate, Jodhpur, committed him to the court of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, where the trial is proceeding. During the course of the trial, learned counsel for the accused requested the learned Sessions Judge to summon and examine the Deputy Bullion Registrar and Coin Expert, India Government Mint, Bombay. The application was contested by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that his statement which was recorded. in the committing magistrate's court under Section 510, Cr. P. C. could be admitted in evidence under Section 33 of the Evidence Act, that his report could also be used in evidence under Section 510 Cr. P. C. and it was not necessary to summon him. The learned...
Ramswarup Vs. Mst. Kesar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj218
D. S. Dave J.1. The above noted appeal and revision arise out of same case and therefore they are disposed of together. 2. The facts giving rise to them are that Ramswarup, who is appellant in the appeal and non-petitioner No. 1 in the revision application, has filed a suit for possession of gold and silver ornaments and utensils in the court of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur. It has been averred by him that he was adopted as a son by Shrikishan, deceased husband of defendant No. 1, Mst. Kesar. Bansilal, defendant No. 2 is brother of defendant No. 1. 4 It has been alleged by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 has given certain ornaments to defendant No. 2 and that she wants to deprive the plaintiff of other ornaments and utensils which are in her possession on behalf of the plaintiff. He has filed with the plaint two lists -- first being about those articles which are said to have been given away to defendant No. 2 and the other about the ornaments and utensils which are still in ...
Arjunsingh Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj347
ORDERD.S. Dave, J.1. This is an application in revision by accused, Arjunsingh, who has been convicted by the Magistrate, First Class, Udaipur, under Section 429, I.P.C. and Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to an aggregate fine of Rs. 350/-. In default of payment of the fine, he has been sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. He went in appeal to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, but was unsuccessful and therefore he has come to this Court in revision.2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on 26-7-54 he was driving a truck No. RJY 347. He was going from Udaipur towards Bhakra Ghati and when be was passing over a bridge some cattle were corning from the opposite side. It was alleged that he was driving at a dangerous speed with the result that his truck struck against one buffalo belonging to one Mst. Umaidi Bai. The buffalo fell down the bridge and received various injuries which resulted in her death 8 days ...
Keshawanand Gupta Vs. Afroza Begum and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj221
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Keshawanand Gupta under Section 30 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance (No. 15 of 1949) (hereinafter called the Ordinance) praying that orders be passed directing the opposite parties to return the minor Vinodkumar alias Ismail to the custody of the applicant. It is not necessary for present purposes to set out the facts pleaded in the application. It is enough to say that the application is being opposed by the opposite parties and a preliminary point as to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this application has been raised. We are at present concerned with this preliminary point relating to jurisdiction. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary to determine this question, are these. The applicant, Keshawanand Gupta is a resident of Mirpur, Jammu Kashmir, but was residing at Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh when the present application was made by him. The opposite parties are said to be husband and wife and were, at the time the appli...
Chhagan Raj and ors. Vs. Sugan Mal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj237
K.N. Wanchoo C.J.1. This is an appeal by Chhagan Raj and others against the order of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, dismissing the application of the appellants for setting aside an ex parte decree.2. The facts which have led to this appeal are these. A suit was brought against Band Mal, father of the appellants, on 9-8-1951. 21st September, 1951, was fixed for hearing. Band Mal was served, but did not appear on that day. A telegram was sent to the court by one Raghunath Mal praying for adjournment on the ground that Band Mal was ill. The court refused to adjourn the case on this telegram on the ground that it was not sent by a person who was a party to the suit.It took ex parte evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs on that date and an ex parte decree followed thereafter on 27-8-1951. Thereupon, an application was made on 11-10-1951, for setting aside the ex parte decree. The case of Band Mal was that he was ill on that day and could not, therefore, appear in court.The decree-holder responde...
Hanuman Dutt Vs. Hazarimal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj235
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder in an execution matter.2. The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly narrated. The appellant, Hanumandutt, decree-holder got a decree for Rs. 7195/15/-against the judgment-debtor, respondent Hazarimal from the court of Civil Judge, Ratangarh. In execution of that decree, he applied for attachment of a sum of Rs. 7200/- which was due to Hazarimal from the Public Works Department at Bikaner.A notice was issued under Order XXI, Rule 52 to the Executive Engineer, Bikaner, requesting him that the money may be held subject to further orders of the court. In response to this notice, the Executive Engineer sent the whole amount to the Court at Ratangarh and it was received there on 15-4-1952. The actual amount that remained in the hands of the court was Rs. 7191/-, the remaining being the transmission charges.On the same day the judgment-debtor objected that the attachment of the money was illegal and, therefore, the court had no...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »