Rajasthan Court July 1957 Judgments
Ghansa Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj226; 1958CriLJ1231
K.K. Sharma, J.1. The appellants Ghansasingh, Harbans Singh, Pyarasingh, Niranjansingh, Singarasingh and Lalsingh were challaned in the court of the Second Extra Magistrate, First Class, Alwar, for riot, murder and charges of grievous and simple hurts under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants are Majhabi Sikhs and it is alleged that the appellant Lalsingh resided in a portion of the same house in which Atmasingh, also a Majhabi Sikh, resided with his son Kandharasingh, his wire Mst. Isar Kaur and his daughter Surendra Kaur in village Jhareda, district Alwar.At about 2-30 P. M. on 30-4-1955 Jogen-drasingh son of Lalsingh appellant had killed a cock of Atma Singh and had thrown, it away. Mst. Isar Kaur protested to Lalsingh about the conduct of his son who instead of remonstrating with his son threatened Mst. Isar Kaur that his son had only killed a cock, but ho would kill her men. Mst. Isar Kaur protested against this threat and Lalsingh asked his wife Mst. Kes...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Rai Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj91
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Raghunath Rai against the State of Rajasthan, the Director of Local Bodies, Jaipur, and Gauri Shanker Khadaria.2. The case of the applicant briefly is this. The applicant is the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Nohar. Gauri Shanker, opposite party, is a member of that board. It is said that taxes were due as arrears and had not been paid by the city fathers themselves. Consequently, a resolution was passed by the Municipal Board to the effect that a list of arrears due from the city fathers should be prepared.A list was accordingly prepared and in that list a sum of Rs. 10/- was shown as due from Gauri Shanker, opposite party. This list was delivered to each member including Gauri Shanker, opposite party, in January, 1956. It is not in dispute that Gauri Shanker had received this list which showed that he owed Rs. 10/- as arrears.It is also not in dispute that he neither paid the amount nor raised an objec...
Tag this Judgment!Duduwala and Co. and ors. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj20; (1959)ILLJ75Raj
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are three applications for issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the Industrial Tribunal at Jaipur.2. We propose to decide them by one judgment as the points raised to them are common. It seems that disputes are going on between Messrs. Duduwala and Company on the one hand and their employees on the other, represented by Khan Mazdoor Congress, Bhilwara, a registered union of workers.In one of the cases the dispute was referred to the Tribunal on the 16th of June 1956, in the other on the 25th of August 1956 and in the third on the 4th of September 1956. Soon after the parties had appeared before the Industrial Tribunal, applications were made both on behalf of the employers and the Union for appearance through certain representatives.The Union applied for appearance through Shri R. P. Ladha, a practising, advocate. The case of the Union was based on Section 36(1)(b)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Shri R....
Tag this Judgment!Pratinga Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj282; 1958CriLJ1349
ORDERI.N. Modi, J.1. This so called revision is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Jalore, dated 1-5-1957, by which he transferred a case against the petitioner under Section 411, I.P.C., pending in the Court of the First'Class Magistrate, Jalore.2. It is contended that the application for transfer before the District Magistrate was made by the complainant Harji and not by the State and further that the application was opposed by the State, and yet the learned District Magistrate, for reasons whieh are not very clear or cogent, has ordered the transfer of the case from the Court of the Magistrate where it had been pending right up to the stage of arguments.3. A preliminary objection has been raised before me that this application should not be entertained here because it is the invariable practice of this Court not to entertain revisional applications unless, the party coming up in revision has first approached the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate as the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Vs. Secretary Municipal Board, Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj32
ORDERModi, J.1. This is a reference by the Munsiff Jodhpur City under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and raises the question of the validity of Section 220 of the Jodhpur Municipal Act, 1943. Section 220 runs as follows :'No suit shall be instituted against the Board or against any member, officer or servant thereof in respect of any act purporting to be done in its or his official capacity, without the sanction of the Government.'2. The facts leading up to this reference may be stated very shortly. The petitioner Prahlad carries on trade in Ghee and grains in Udaimandir in the city of Jodhpur. It is alleged that he obtained on rent certain land, measuring 10 feet by 10 feet lying in front of the shop at which he carries on his business, originally from the development department a few years ago, and has been paying a rent of Rs. 3/- per mensem to the Jodhpur Municipality for the same and that the municipality had started interfering with his possession on the 29th June, 1...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Tarachand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj108; 1958CriLJ692
J.S. Ranawat, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against an Order of the City Magistrate, Jaipur dated 1st June, 1956 by which Tara Chand was acquitted for the reason that the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector had failed to furnish copies of the documents filed with the complaint to the accused.2. The facts of the case are that in pursuance of a warrant issued by the District Superintendent of Police, Jaipur, certain premises were searched on 5th May, 1956 by Sri Jaisingh Sub-Inspector, incharge of the police station, Kotwali, Jaipur, under Section 5 of the Gambling Act and Tarachand was arrested and certain instruments of gambling found on the premises were taken possession of by the police. Tarachand was produced before the Magistrate by Sri Jaisingh and a complaint was filed by him against the accused. On the date fixed for hearing of the case the Magistrate examined the accused who pleaded not guilty.The Court then directed the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector to furnish copies of the prosecutio...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalal Jasraj Vs. Ambalal Badarmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Raj321
Modi, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal by the defendant Ambalal against the judgment of a learned. single Judge dated the 16th February, 1954, affirming a decree of the District Judge, Udaipur, for redemption of a mortgage.2. The facts leading up to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. The plaintiff-respondent Ambalal's grand-father gave a possessory mortgage of the suit shop to the defendant-appellant for Rs. 569/- on Asad Vadi 10, Smt. 1975. The original mortgagor took a further loan of Rs. 55/ against the security of this very property. On the death of the latter, his son Badarmal, brought a suit to redeem this property, and obtained a decree which was upheld by the highest court in the former Udaipur State, namely, Mehdrai Sabha, on the 28th February, 1933.By this decree it was declared on the strength of an award by an arbitrator to whom the matter was referred by common consent of the parties that Badarmal do obtain possession of the suit shop oh payment of a sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bansilal on Behalf of Shri Ekling Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Raj326
Modi, J. 1. This is a petition by Bansilal on behalf of Shri Ekling Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Gangapur, under Sub-section 2 of Section 66 of the Indian Income Tax Act.2. The material facts are these. The asses-see is a partnership firm carrying on the business of ginning and pressing of cotton at Gangapur, district Bhilwara. The Income-tax Officer, Udaipur, (Ward A) by his order dated the 31st July, 1953. assessed the firm to income-tax for the assessment year 1951-52, the relevant accounting period being the year ending on the 30th June, 1950. The assesses had made an application to the Income-tax Officer for registration of the firm and submitted a deed of partnership dated the 12th September, 1950, along with certain other documents executed between the partners in sup-port of the application.The deed showed that the firm as on 12-9-1940 consisted of nine partners including Kashiram. father of the petitioner Bansilal, and Gauri-shanker and Shankerlal and six others. Their...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Vs. Mst. Mohan Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Raj71
Ranawat, J. 1. This is an appeal by Mst. Mohan Bai against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jaipur City dated 22nd January, 1957. 2. Mst. Mohan Bai, who is the legally wedded wife of Mohan Lal, filed a suit against her husband in the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur City on 15th March, 1956 for dissolution of marriage on the ground that her husband had married a second wife before the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that his other wife is still living. The suit was contested by Mohanlal on the ground that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to take advantage of her own wrong inasmuch as she refused to live with her husband and it was for this reason that the husband had to contract a second marriage. The lower Court decided the suit against the defendant and held that there was no substance in the plea of the defendant regarding the wife taking advantage of her own wrong. A number of other points were also agitated in the lower Court, but we are not concer...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›