Rajasthan Court December 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 State Vs. Jujarsingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Raj80; 1959CriLJ520
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal made bv the Second Class Magistrate, Sirohi, dated 26-9-1956, in a case under Section 4 read with Section 11 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (No. XI of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The material facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows. The respondent is the owner of motor truck No. R. J. W. 284. He got it registered on 29-4-1954, but he did not pay the tax with respect to it as required by Section 5 of the said Act for the period between 1-4-1954, and 31-3-1955. The respondent was consequently prosecuted under Section 4 read with Section 11 of the Act. The trial Magistrate acquitted him.The reason which prevailed with the learned Magistrate was that the respondent was not given a fitness certificate for this vehicle and, according to the Magistrate he was, therefore, not in a position to use the vehicle, or, in other words, that it could not be postulated of a case like ...
Gauri Shanker Vs. Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj192
K.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a petition by Gaurishanker under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Municipal Board of Jhunjhunu (hereinafter called the Board) and the State of Rajasthan.2. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner is residing within the municipal limits of the town of Jhunjhunu. He is a citizen of India and does his business in Jhunjhunu under the name and style of Messrs. Chhanguram Basantlat. He imports goods of general merchandise such as tea, biscuits, soap, oil and cigarettes etc., from outside and sells them in retail and mostly in wholesale to the merchants of Jhunjhunu and of neighbouring villages. The Board levied octroi duty on every import of goods within the municipal limits and has been collecting the said duty from 1st July, 1953. The petitioner along with several other citizens of the town took objections before the Board and the Collector of the District on several occasions against the said levy of octroi duty and its collecti...
Shah Alim UddIn Vs. Satish Chandra Agarwal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj155
K.L. Bapna, J. 1. At the last General Election for the membership of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Jaipur Johari Bazar Constituency No. 15, held on 25-2-1957, Shri Satish Chandra Agar-wal was declared a returned candidate on 9-3-1957. Mr. Shah Alim Uddin, one of the unsuccessful candidates, presented an election petition before the Election Commission on 20-4-1957, under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act No. XLIII of 1951).Besides the returned candidate, Mr. Satish Chanclra Agarwal, four other persons, Mr. Ghaffar Ali, Mr. Kewal Chand, Mr. Shyam Lal Verma and Mr. Arvind Kumar, who were contesting candidates, were made respondents. The prayer in the petition was that the election of respondent No. 1, Mr. Satish Chandra Agarwal, the returned candidate, be declared void, and further that the petitioner, Mr. Shah Alimuddin, who had secured the highest number of valid votes be declared to have been duly elected from the said constituency.The Electio...
Hanuman Prasad Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj291
K.L. Bapna, J.1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act.2. On 11th September, 1951 Seth Hanuman Prasad presented the following document for registration :'Declaration regarding gift of Rupees three lacs from Shri Murlidhar Mansinghka to Shri Hanuman Prasad Murlidhar Mansinghka.'We Murlidhar Mansinghka and Hanuman Prasad Murlidhar at present residing at Bhilwara(Rajasthan State) respectively solemnly affirm andsay as follows : .'I, Murlidhar Mansinghka for myself say that my son Hanuman Prasad has completed the age of 18 years. With a view to assist him in carrying on his own business, I have out of natural love and affection which I bear towards him made a gift to him of the sum of Rupees three lacs which amount was paid to him on my account by a Hundi drawn by me on Shri Mansinghka Oil Mills Ltd., Bombay in favour of my son Hanuman Prasad. My son Hanuman Prasad has received the sum of Rupees three lacs from Shri Mansinghka Oil Mills Ltd., Bombay on 8th day of Sep...
Matoliram Vs. Lala Nanumal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj260
K.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bharatpur in a money suit. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2000/- from the defendants on the basis of a certain document which has been des-cribed by the lower appellate court to be an acknowledgment. This document is dated Jeth Badi 6th, Smt. 2003 corresponding to 23-5-1946. He stated that the said document was executed by the defendants for a sum of Rs. 2900/- but crediting the payments and debiting the defendants with the cost of notice and interest, the plaintiff claimed Rs. 2000/- in all. The suit was brought in the court of Civil Judge, Bharatpur on 1-3-1950. 3. The defendants admitted the execution of the document in suit but said that it was executed on account of the coercion of the plaintiff and that it has been executed without understanding the previous accounts. They also pleaded bar of Section 69 of the Partnership A...
Heersingh and ors. Vs. Veerka and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj181
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is an appeal in election matter. The appellants were admittedly not a party to the proceeding before the election tribunal. They have, therefore, along with their memorandum of appeal, also submitted a petition praying for being allowed to institute this appeal. The question is whether we should grant the permission and entertain this appeal. This question is interesting and is also of importance.2. We may state a few facts bearing on the point which arises for determination. Respondents Veerka (alias Veerka Ram) and Mohabat Singh were declared elected to the legislative assembly of this State from the Sirohi Constituency at the last general election. Veerka was an independent candidate belonging to a scheduled caste for the reserved seat in this constituency and Mohabat Singh was a candidate of the Congress Party for the other seat, which was general. Tejaram was also a candidate for the reserved seat but he was unsuccessful. The latter filed an election petition ...
Gena and ors. Vs. Birdhichand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj189
D.S. Dave, J.1. This is the judgment-debtors' appeal in execution proceedings and arises in the following circumstances :2. On 13-11-35, respondent, Birdhichand, obtained a money decree from the High Court ofJudicature at Bombay in its ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction against 5 persons, namely Narsilal, Hansa, Umaid Mal, Khuma and Ghena, on 27th November 1958, he got the said decree transferred from Bombay High Court under Section 39 and Order 21, Rules 5 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Code to be executed against defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 5. On 13-1-54, he presented an application for execution of the same decree in the Court of the Civil Judge, Pali. It was mentioned in that application that the total decretal amount including interest realisable upto the date of the application was Rs. 19,776-8-0, that Rs. 191-9-0 were received from the judgment-debtors on 23-9-41, and therefore, a prayer was made for realising Rs. 19,585 from the judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors, in their tur...
Moolsingh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj158; 1958CriLJ962
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is an application by Moolsingh and Sajjansingh under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus praying that the petitioners be set at liberty.2. The petitioners were detained under Section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act by an order of the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer, dated 8th August, 1957. The petitioners were supplied with the grounds of their detention by the Magistrate on the same date.They have now come up to this Court challenging the validity of their detention. Their main contention is that the grounds of detention furnished to them are irrelevant and too vague to enable them to make, an effective and proper representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.3. Petitioner Moolsingh was supplied fifteen grounds for his detention and the petitioner Sajjansingh was supplied as many as sixteen. We have perused these grounds. The principal reason, which seems to have...
Ramkishen RamnaraIn Agarwal Vs. Vallabh Dass Chunnilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj255
K.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant Ramkishen against the appellate judgment anddecree of the learned Additional District Judge, Jaipur dated 9-2-1952. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed by Respondent Balabhdas and others for the recovery of Rs. 274/- from the defendant appellant. Out of this amount Rs. 230/-were claimed as principal and the remaining as interest and cost of notice. It was alleged that the plaintiff was a Kachha Ahrtiya and the defendant carried on certain transactions in yarn and gold Mohars in the Ahrat of the plaintiff. It was alleged that five bales of yarn were purchased and sold in the Ahrat of the plaintiff and that there was a profit of Rs. 143/12/- to the defendant on that account. Itwas further alleged that 100 gold Mohars were purchased and sold by the defendant in the plaintiff's Ahrat as detailed below : 14-11-4325 goldMohars purchased at the rate of Rs. 74/8/- perMohar.16-11-4325 goldMohars purchased at the rate of Rs...
Ramdeo Vs. Gulabchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj183
K.K. Sharma, J.1. This is an application in revision by the defendant challenging the order of the learned Civil Judge, Sambhar dated 29th March, 1952 holding the document which was the basis of the suit to be a bond and ordering the payment of deficiency of stamp duty and penalty thereon. This case has been referred to Division Bench by a Single Judge of this Court.2. The defendant being dissatisfied with this order has come to this Court in revision. We have heard Sri B. L. Luhadia on behalf of the applicant and Sri H. G. Mathur on behalf of the respondent. The document in question is attested and the executant after having found a balance of Rs. 4500 against him promised to pay it up to Magsar Sudi 15th Smt. 2007 with interest at the rate of annas eight per cent per mensem. The definition of bond given in Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act is as follows:'(5) 'Bond' includes : -- (a) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obli...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »