Rajasthan Court May 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.
Kishan Narayan Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Raj350
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by one Kishan Narayan, owner of a printing press in Jodhpur, against his conviction under Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, for a breach of Section 3 of the Act.2. The only question for determination in this case is whether a leaflet, which has been held by both the courts below to have been printed in the press of the applicant, is a book within the meaning of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, as it stood in 1952.Questions of fact cannot be gone into in revision in the face of concurrent finding of facts by the two courts below. Section 3 lays down that every book or paper printed within India shall have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing. The contention of the applicant before the court below was that the leaflet in question does not fall within the definition of 'book' contained in the Act.'Book' is defined as including every volume, part or division o...
Ganga Ram Vs. Keshava Deo and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Raj10
Bapna, Ag.C.J. 1. This is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of money. 2. The respondent, Kesliava Deo, instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur City, against Bhanwar Lal and Ganga Ram for the recovery or Rs. 2001/- as principal and Rs. 40/- as interest, on the allegation that defendant No. 1 Bhanwar Lal had borrowed Rs. 2001/- from the plaintiff on 16-2-1949, and had executed a pro-note for the same, but he failed to pay the amount when called upon to do so. The suit was instituted on 18-4-1949. Defendant No. 2 was impleaded as being also liable on the pro-note, as defendant No. 1 was alleged to have borrowed the amount on behalf of himself and defendant No. 2. 3. Bhanwarlal did not participate in the trial, but defendant No. 2 Ganga Ram denied all the allegations in the plaint, and raised an objection that the pro-note was not admissible in evidence owing to insufficiency of stamp. 4. On 6-1-1951, the plaintiff filed an application for permission to ...
Bhanwar Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj257
Bhandari, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioners are shopkeepers carrying on business at Ajmer in the erstwhile State of Ajmer. The Legislative Assembly of Ajmer passed the Ajmer Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1956 (Ajmer Act No. IV of 1956) (hereinafter called the Act), which received the assent of the President of India on 25-6-1956, and came into force on 1-8-1956. On 17-12-1956 the petitioners were called upon to get their shops registered for the year 1957 under Section 4 of the Act by payment of Rs. 2/- per year as registration fee. This petition was filed on 20-12-1956, challenging validity of the Act on several grounds. The material points which are taken up in this petition as amplified at the time of arguments may be summed up as follows : 1. That the Legislative Assembly of Ajmer was not competent to enact the said Act and it is ultra vires the State Legislature. 2. That the provisions of the Act are in con...
Bishambhar Dayal Vs. Gopal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj256
Bapna, Ag. C.J. 1. This is a revision by the decree-holder in the execution proceedings. 2. Bishambbar Dayal, legal representative of Mohanlal and Prabhu Dayal, decree-holder filed an application for execution of the decree on 18-7-1950. The decree was dated 12-7-1937. The judgment-debtor raised an objection that the execution was barred under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The decree-holder in reply said that the execution of the decree was stayed by order of the then Alwar Government by various notifications for a period from 7-10-1938 to 31-10-1940, and if this period was to be excluded, the application for execution could proceed. On behalf of the decree-holder, the provisions of Section 15 of the Limitation Act were relied upon. The learned Munsif was of the opinion that the time could not be excluded as the orders were not by a Court but the executive orders of the Government, which were not contemplated in Section 15 to have the effect as claimed. The decree-holder file...
Sheopatsingh Vs. Narishchandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Raj324
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act No. 43 of 1951 (hereinafter called the 'Act') by Shri Sheopatsingh against the decision of the Election Tribunal at Ganganagar declaring his election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly to be void on a petition under Section 81 of the Act by Shri Harish Chandra. 2. The election for the membership of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Hanumangarh Constituency was held in the month of February and March 1957. Shri Sheopatsingh and Shri Ramchandra contested the election. Shri Sheopatsingh polled 18,530 votes and Shri Ramchandra got 17,136 votes. Shri Sheopatsingh was accordingly declared elected by the Returning Officer on 18-3-1957. Polling took place on alternate days commencing from 25-2-57 and ending on 11-3-57. 4th February, 1957 was last date for withdrawing the nomination papers.3. The petition was filed by Shri Harish Chandra who is an elector in the Hanumanrarh Constituency. T...
Harakchand and anr. Vs. Khetdan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj107
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders Harakchand and another against the judgment and decree of the District Judge Balotra dated the 12th August, 1954 by which he reversed the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge Balotra and held that the decree-holders' application for execution was barred by time. 2. It is necessary to state the following facts in order to appreciate the contentions which have been raised by the decree-holders in this appeal. The decree-holders obtained a decree for Rs. 4000/-and costs against Sameldan on the 13th September, 1932. Sameldan died during the course of the execution proceedings, and, therefore, his son Khetdan the present respondent was substituted on the record in place of Sameldan. The decree-holders filed an execution application on the 5th November, 1941, and this was dismissed in partial satisfaction on the 8th April, 1942. Thereafter they filed another application for execution on the 5th April, 1948. This was dismissed for defa...
Rugga Natha and ors. Vs. Moona Nanda and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj153
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. These are two connected cases. The facts, which have given rise to them, are these :2. Rugga brought a suit in the Court of Assistant Collector, Nawa, for a permanent injunction restraining Ratna, Moona and others from interfering with his possession over the northern half of field known as Pancholiawala consisting of plots Nos. 293 and 294 on 21-6-1956. On the same day the Assistant Collector granted a temporary injunction in favour of Rugga, which was confirmed on 28-6-1956. Against this order Ratna filed an appeal on 3-7-1956, to the Additional Commissioner, who stayed the operation of the order of temporary injunction.3. On 5-9-1956 Rugga filed an application under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the same field against Ratna, Moona and others in the Court of the Magistrate on the allegation that there was an apprehension of breach of peace taking place as the opposite party was trying to dispossess him on account of the fact that the...
Nanag Ram Vs. Mool Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Raj262
Bapna, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings.2. The respondent obtained a decree for recovery of money from the Court of Munsif, Behror, on 10-10-1930. His first application for execution of the decree was made on 23-7-1934, when the law of limitation was contained in a Schedule appended to the Alwar State Code of Civil Procedure, 1926. That application was disposed of on 13-4-1939. In between, on 13-10-1934, the Alwar Regulation No. IV of 1934 introducing the Indian Limitation Act with certain modifications was brought into force.The next application for execution was submitted on 12-2-1944. Several objections were taken on behalf of the judgment-debtor, but only two of them require consideration at this stage. One objection is that the application was presented after the expiry of 12 years from the date of the decree, and, therefore, the execution was baned under Section 222 of the Code of Civil Procedure in force in the former Alwar State. The...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›