Rajasthan Court April 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.
Yusuf and ors. Vs. Authorised Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Ra ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj51
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are eleven applications under Article 226 of the Constitution by various persons challenging the taking of proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act against the applicants. We shall dispose them of by one judgment as a common point of law is raised in them.2. It is not necessary to set out the facts of each case separately. It is enough to say generally that the case against the applicants was that they had left India for Pakistan in 1947 after the partition. They had certain lands in India; but these lands were restored to them in 1948 when they came back to India. In 1951, however, the Patwari of their village reported to the Assistant Custodian, Ganganagar, that the applicants had gone to Pakistan.On this, proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (No. 31 of 1950), hereinafter called the Act, were taken against the applicants and their property was declared evacuee property ex parte. In 1952 the applicants made an appl...
Sumermal and ors. Vs. Birdhichand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Raj318
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J. 1. These two cases have been referred by a learned Single Judge to a Division Bench for decision as an important question of law which is common to both of them arises therein. The learned Judge has formulated the question in these words:'Whether an acknowledgment or part payment to be good and valid must have been made within the period prescribed by the law of limitation which was in force at the date the suit we brought, or it would also be good if it was made within the period of limitation which was in force at the time the acknowledgment or part paymentwas made or even if such acknowledgment or part payment was made during the special period of limitation permitted by subsequent Acts that is either under Section 4 of the Marwar Limitation Act of 1949 or under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Limitation Act, (Adaptation) Ordinance of 1950 or Section 30 of the Limitation Act as applied to the State by Part B States Laws Act 1951.'2. Having formulated the question, the ...
Mool Singh Vs. Pokardas and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj15
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant Moolsingh against an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur, by which he reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded the suit for a decision on the merits.2. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendant by an agreement dated Bhadwa Vadi 8 Smt. 1999 (corresponding to 1942 A.D.) made a Baras-kati mortgage of his share in village Khurda being his Jagir, for a sum of Rs. 4998/12/-, the Baras-kati being for a period of 13 years. The plaintiffs enjoyed the Baraskati for a period of five years, whereafter the possession of the Jagir was taken back by the defendant and instead, the defendant executed a new agreement Ex 1. on Bhadwa Sudi 8 Smt. 2004 corresponding to the 22nd September,. 1947.By this agreement the defendant agreed to pay eight instalments of Rs. 401/- each, the instalments to be paid on posh Sudi 15 every year and it was further stipulated between the parties that if the instalment was not paid on the due d...
Daulat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Raj284
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Daulat Singh, officiating stenographer to the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur against an order of the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan dated 31st October, 1956 removing him from service. The applicant filed an appeal to the Government which was also rejected. The rejection was communicated under letter dated 17th August, 1956. The present application was filed on 19th October, 1956.2. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary clerk in the Police Department in the former Jodhpur State on 22nd April, 1948. He was appointed as a temporary stenographer with effect from 12th May, 1951 by the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur and was transferred to Nagaur in the same capacity on 29th May, 1952. He was integrated as a clerk in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur under order No. 11/P 5-1-59/420 dated 26th February, 1952 of the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan. His services, howeve...
Gulab Chand Vs. Firm Hanuman Bux Rama Kishan, Sambhar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj223
ORDERK.K. Sharma, J.1. The plaintiffs, Firm Hanuman Bux Rama Kishan and Surajmal filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 254/- against Gulab Chand petitioner in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Sambhar, on 7-2-1951, on the basis of an entry in the Rokar Ex. P. 1 of the respondent firm.2. The defendant denied the execution of Ex. P. 1, and also pleaded that the plaintiff firm having not been registered, it was not entitled to bring a suit by virtue of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).3. Certain issues were framed, and the issue regarding the non-maintainability of the suit by virtue of Section 69 of the Act was decided first. The learned Civil Judge by his order dated 8-10-1952, decided that the suit was maintainable. He further decided the remaining issues, and ultimately decreed the plaintiffs' suit in toto by the judgment dated 15-1-1953.4. The defendant went in appeal, and the learned District Judge, Jaipur District, by his judgment d...
Janwatraj Vs. Jethmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Raj343
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff Janwatraj in a suit for money. The suit was decreed by the trial court but has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Balotra.2. The plaintiff's case, put briefly, was that there was a partnership firm consisting of himself, the defendant Jethmal and certain other persons, which carried on business in the name and style of Oswal Brothers, The firm did business in the manufacture of pen-holders and required some machinery for that purpose. The plaintiff's case 'was that a sum of Rs. 3000/- was given to one Umar Bhai for purchasing the machinery and thereby a loss of Rs. 3000/- had been incurred. This loss was divided between the partners of the firm, and the defendant executed a khata for a sum of Rs. 561/8/- on Sawan (Second) Sudi 4 of Smt. 2004 (equal to 20th August 1947) by which it was agreed that the defendant would pay the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff if the said Umar Bhai refused to pay it.Umar Bhai did not pay any...
Ghaurul Hasan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Raj172
K.N. Wanchoo.J.1. This is an application by Ghaurul Hasan s/o Rahim Bux, Abdul Bari s/o Abdul Ganni, Mohammad Ayub s/o Ab.iul Ganni, Tahira Begum wife of Ghaurul Hasan, Vlst. Zebunnisa wife of Abdul Bari and Z.unurnd Begum wife of Mahammad Ayub under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the District Magistrate of Nagaur, dated the 8th of February 1957 by which the registration certificates issued to the applicants under the Citizenship Act (No. 57 of 1955) hereinafter called the Act, were cancelled and they were ordered to return to Pakistan within three days, failing which they would be deported according to law.2. The case of the applicants was briefly this. The applicants were all horn in India, as it was before the partition of 1947. They migrated from the territory of India, as it is, after the partition of 1947 to the iterritory of Pakistan sometime in the year 1947. Thereafter they came to India on two occasions on temporary visits after obtaining passports a...
Jethmal Ramswaroop and ors. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Raj262; [1959]10STC270(Raj)
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are two connected cases under Article 226 of the Constitution and will be disposed of by one judgment as the point raised in them is the same. Case No. 29 is filed by three firms of Balotra, namely Messrs, Jethmal Ram Swarup, Messrs. Bansidhar Hastimal and Messrs. Madholal Rames-warlal. Case No. 150 is also filed by a firm of Balotra, Messrs. Bansidhar Kanmal.2. The applicants in the two cases prepare Misri, Batasa, Makhana, Ola and toys from sugar and sell them in the market. Their case is that their preparation is really nothing more than sugar and as sales-tax is already paid on the sugar used by them, no further sales-tax can be charged on the articles prepared by them out of sugar. In the alternative, their case is that these articles prepared by them are Deshi sweetmeats which are exempt under serial No. 14 of the Schedule to the Rajas-than Sales Tax Act (No. XXIX of 1954) hereinafter called the Act. Consequently, no sales-tax could be charged on sales ...
The Pali Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Raj175; (1959)ILLJ282Raj
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by the Pali Electricity Co. Ltd., under Article 226 of the Constitution challengingthe order of the Industrial Tribunal in connection with a dispute between the applicant and one of its employees.2. The case of the applicant is briefly this. The applicant is supplying electric energy in the town of Pali. Nathuratn, opposite party No. 2 is a wireman in the employ of the applicant. There was an accident to Nathuram while he was working on behalf of the Company on 5-1-1957. As a result of that accident, Nathurarn was unable to work and remained in hospital from 5th January to 29th February 1957. During that period the applicant paid him Rs. 50 by way of gratuity. The applicant also advanced Rs. 75 to him and paid him the full wages for the month of January 1957. It appears that the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (No. 34 of 1948) was brought in force in this area on 1-12-1956. In consequence of that, the applicant had to make contributions...
Jawanmal Vs. Mt. Bhanwari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Raj214; 1958CriLJ1099
K.N. Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by Jawanmal against the order of the Sessions Judge of Jodhpur acquitting Mt. Bhanwari and three others of an offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. We must say at the outset that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge suffers from one serious defect. It does not show what facts were found by him as to the incident which took place on 9th of September, 1953. He practically started applying the law without finding the facts of the incident resulting in this case. We have, therefore, to find the facts for ourselves before we consider the question of law undoubtedly involved in this case. 3. The case started on the complaint of Jawanmal appellant which was made on 10th of September, 1953. There were five accused in the complaint and they were accused of offences under Sections 147, 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of Jawanmal was that he was owner of certain house in Mathania which he had purchased from his father-i...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »