Rajasthan Court April 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.
Surajmal and ors. Vs. Hiralal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj60
Bapna, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Civil Judge, Baran.2. In an execution petition before the learned Civil Judge, the judgment-debtor raised an objection that he was a resident of Sironj, which is now in Madhya Pradesh under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and, therefore, the Court at Baran had no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings. The learned Civil Judge has referred the matter to this Court for decision under Section 125(2) of the States Reorganisation Act.3. On going through the record, it appears that suit No, 3 of 1952, which ended in a decree, was instituted by Surajmal, Ramgopal, and Rajmal, residents of Chhipabarod in Rajas-than against Hiralal, Pannalal and Dhannalal, residents of Sironj, on the allegations that 100 bags of maize were sent by the firm of the plaintiffs carrying on business at Chhipabarod on the 5th of December, 1950, to the defendants' firm at Sironj for sale and remittance of the sale proceeds to the plaintiffs.The allegation of the pl...
Pukhraj Vs. Mohammed Ali
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Raj279
ORDERModi, J. 1. This is a revision by the defendant Pukhraj against the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court Judge, Jodhpur, by which he decreed the plaintiff's suit. 2. The plaintiff carried on business of supplying bicycles on hire. His case is that on 1-4-1952, the defendant took out a bicycle from him on hire and failed to return it. In fact, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had reported on that very day that the bicycle had been lost. Thereafter the plaintiff gave a notice on 6-5-1952, to the defendant to pay the price of the lost bicycle; but as the defendant gave an evasive reply, the plaintiff brought thepresent suit on 29-10-1952, in which he claimed back the bicycle or in the alternative a sum of Rs. 154 as price of the bicycle, and a sum of 0-7-6 as notice expenses and a further sum as future rent from the date of the suit to the date of delivery of the bicycle or its price at the rate of Re. 1/- per day. The defendant totally denied the claim. The Small Ca...
Mool Chand Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Raj33; 1959CriLJ233
ORDERD.S. Dave, J.1. This reference comes on the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated 8-2-1957. The facts giving rise to it are that the Municipal Board, Bikaner, through its Executive Officer, presented a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner City, against one Mool Chand for an offence under Section 160 of the Municipal Act.The case was tried by the Second Class Magistrate since it was transferred to him. He issued summons to the accused and fixed the case for hearing on 25-8-1956. The case could not be taken up on that day since it turned out to be a holiday. The case was then adjourned to 25-9-1956; but it could not be heard since the Magistrate had gone to Kotah for giving his own evidence in some case.The case was, therefore, fixed for hearing on 16-10-1956. On this date the plea of the accused was recorded and then the case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 7-11-1956. When the case was taken up on this date (7-11-1956), counsel for t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›