Rajasthan Court December 1958 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.
Bhaironlal Vs. Doongarsidas and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj250
Dave, J.1. This is an appeal by Bhaironlal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, (No. 43 of 1951) which will hereinafter be referred as the Act,against the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Jaipur,dated 31-1-1958.2. The facts giving rise to it are that in the General Ejections, which were held in 1957 for membership of the Rajasthan Assembfy, one of the constituencies, namely, Jamua Ramgarh, was a double member constituency. For the general seat there were three contesting candidates, i.e., Bhaironlal (appellant), Doongarsidas (respondent No, 1) and one Fateh Singh. Respondent No. 1 got the maximum number of votes and so he was declared elected. The appellant and Fateh Singh were defeated. Fateh Singh is not a party to this appeal.For the reserved seat, there were only two candidates and respondent No. 2 Ramlal defeated his rival Chhaganlal. The appellant challenged the validity of the election of respondent No. 1 only. In the petition which was filed by him he h...
Radhey and ors. Vs. Girwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj196; 1959CriLJ1114
ORDERJ.S. Ranawat, J. 1. This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate of Bharatpur.2. The facts leading to the reference may be put thus:A complaint was lodged on 3-12-1956, by Girwar in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bharatpur against Radhey, Makhan and others under Sections 447, 352, 504 and 506, I. P. C. The case was transferred by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Bharatpur for disposal according to law. The Magistrate, after issuing process to the accused, on 6-5-1957 dismissed the complaint under Section 259, Criminal P. C., for the reason that the complainant was absent.The complainant, however, filed a fresh complaint on the same day on the same facts in the Court of the learned Magistrate, First Class, and fresh proceedings were taken by the Magistrate and after issue of process to the accused evidence of the complainant was recorded. An objection was raised on behalf of the accused that the Magistrate once havi...
Kesrimal and anr. Vs. Dalichand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj140
ORDERI.N. Modi, J.1. This is a revision by the plaintiffs. Kesrimal and another in a suit for money against' the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Balotra dated 28-5-1954 by which he upheld the dismissal of the suit by virtue of the provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act.2. The material facts leading up to this revision may shortly be stated as follows:3. The case of the plaintiffs Kesrimal and Pukhraj was that they were carrying on business in the name of Kesrimal Pukhraj and that they were partners of a firm, which was registered and that there were no other partners in the firm except these two. It was then alleged that there were money dealings between the plaintiffs' firm and Pratapmal deceased, father of the defendants opposite parties from samwat 2001 migsar vad 4th to Samwat 2006 kartik vad 14 and that the said Pratapmal on the last mentioned day, after going through the accounts, executed a khata in favour of the plaintiffs' firm for a sura of Rs. 379/1/- and...
ilahi Bux Vs. Jamila Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj143
D.S. Dave, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Kotah, dated the 31st August, 1.954.2. The facts giving rise to it are that plaintiff Mst. Jamila Bai filed a suit in the court of the Munsif Ramganj Mandi on 27-3-1952 for possession of an immovable property on the basis of title. The description of the property in dispute is given in detail in the plaint and need not be repeated here. The defendant did not contest the plaintiff's title to the property. His objection was that the property in dispute was mortgaged with Seth Motilal Kastoorcband, that the said mortgage was redeemed by the plaintiff, but at the time of redemption the defendant had naid a sum of Rs. 215/- to the mortgagees at the direction of the plaintiff, that the disputed 2 bhandars were therefore kept in possession of the defendant and he had a charge over this property. Thus, he expressed his willingness to part with the property on payment of Rs. 2...
Chaturbhuj Chhogallal of Beawar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj193
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. These are connected applications under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) by Messrs. Chaturbhuj Chhogaial of Beawar against the Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax.2. The facts which have given rise to these applications are these. A Hindu undivided family carried on business under the name Chaturbhuj Chhogaial at Bcawar, The main business was the purchase and export of wool. Jagannath was the manager of the joint family firm. A disruption of the joint family took place in the year relevant to the assessment year 1944-45. Thereafter the same business was carried on by the divided members of the family in partnership under the same firm name, the partners being Jagannath, Harnarayan and Rammivas. The case of the assessee was that for purposes of financing the business, short term deposits were accepted. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1944-45, total deposits amounting to Rs. 338000/- were taken a...
Sheonath Singh Vs. Madanlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj243
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff Sheonath Singh in a suit for possession and cancellation of a will.2. The material facts may be shortly stated as follows. It is common ground that Kansingh deceased and the plaintiff Sheonath Singh are first cousins. On 15-11-1948, Kansingh made the will Ex. 1 in favour of one Madanlal by which he be-quested all his movable and immovable property to the said Madanlal. Sheonath Singh thereupon instituted the present suit during the life-time of Kansingh on 29-12-1948, on the allegations that Kansingh was a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and the former and that he had no right to make a will of the joint family property in the manner in which he did. The suit was originally brought against Kansingh only and was merely for a cancellation of the will. Kansingh subsequently died on 28-9-1949.Thereupon the plaintiff amended his suit, im-pleaded Madanlal as defendant in place of Kansingh deceased and prayed for po...
B.S. Jakhar Vs. Govt. of Rajasthan and Mining Engineer Deptt. of Mines ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj220
Sharma, J.1. This is a petition by Chowdhary B. S. Jakhar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. According to the petition, the petitioner was permitted to quarry Bajri in the area of three plots measuring 200' x 200', 100' x 50' and 100' x 50' in vil-lage Pamari Pichupara, Tehsil Baswa in district Jaipur in accordance with the lease agreement under the Rajas than Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules). This permission was upto the 31st of March, 1958, and it was under rule 57(2) of the Rules under annual quarry leases. In the next year the petitioner applied for permit for 3 plots measuring an area of 400'x400', but the same area was delineated into 12 plots or' 200'x200' each and the petitioner was again permitted to quarry in the area of these 12 plots in accordance with a lease agreement.The petitioner says that the permission is valid upto 31-3-1959 and the highest rent at the rate of Rs. 48/- per plot has been charged from him...
Birdha and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj124; 1959CriLJ770
J.S. Ranawat, J.1. These are two appeals by Birdha and others from the judgment of the additional Sessions Judge of Kishangarh dated the 28th of October, 1957, convicting the four appellants under Section 333 I. P. C. and sentencing Devkaran Sahadev and Birdha to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment each and Sarwan to 6 months rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case was that Johari P.W. 1 was a Forest Guard having protected forest of Mohanpura under him. On the 25th of October, 1956, he went to village Khatoli from Kishangarh and on his way back he passed through the protected forest of Mohanpua-ki-ghati at about 10 a.m. He saw cattle grazing in the protected forest and as no cattle were allowed to graze in that area he tried to round them up. The accused Devkaran and others drove the cattle outside the boundaries of the protected forest in order to prevent their seizure. Devkaran then grappled with Johari and made him fall down on the ground. He sat of thefore-part of Johari's body an...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›