Rajasthan Court January 1959 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.
Pathena Mandal Co-operative Stores Ltd. and ors. Vs. Mangulal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj148
D.S. Dave, J.1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants against the order of the learned District Judge, Bharatpur, dated 19-10-1953, remanding the case for retrial.2. The facts giving rise to it are that respondent No. 1 Mangulal filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2412/8/- in the court of the Civil Judge, Bharatpur, on 22-12-1951. His case was that in January, 1949, a co-operative society in the name of Pathona Mandal Co-operative Stores Ltd., was formed and got registered. The plaintiff purchased 25 shares of Rs. 100/- each and thus his total contribution was Rs. 2500/-. About 2 years prior to the institution of the suit, the registration of the society was cancelled and a liquidator was appointed. It was further stated that the said co-operative society had incurred losses and therefore each shareholder was required to pay Rs. 3/8/- as loss on each share. Thus, the total loss which came to the share of the plaintiff was Rs. 87/8/- and he was entitled to receive the remaining amoun...
Ganpatsingh Vs. Brijmohanlal Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj114
D.M. Bhandari, J. 1. By his order dated the 15th of January, 1958, Shri Kishen Lal, Member Election Tribunal, Ajmer dismissed the election petition of Shri Kalyansingh filed by him against Shri Brij Mohan Lal, Shri Kumaranand, Shri Ganpatsingh and four others on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 117(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (No. 43 of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act). Shri Ganpatsingh has filed Appeal No. 20 of 1958 under Section 116A of the Act.He has also filed a writ petition No. 88 of 1958 and has challenged the order of the Tribunal dated the 15th of January, 1958 in both these proceedings. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of Shri Brij Mohan Lal that Shri Ganpat-singh who had not filed the election petition but was merely a respondent in that election petition could not challenge the aforesaid order either by filing an appeal or by filing a writ petition.2. The election petition relates to the election of a me...
Pahelwan and ors. Vs. the Authorised Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Prope ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj106
K.L. Bapna, Ag. C.J. 1. These are six applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, in which identical questions of law are involved. 2. On information received by the Assistant Custodian, Ganaganagar, that the applicants had gone to Pakistan, proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (No. 31 of 1950) were taken against each one of the applicants, and their property was declared evacuee property ex parte. In 1952, the applicants made an application to the Assistant Custodian to the effect that they had not migrated to Pakistan, but had merely left for the neighbouring villages on account of famine. They, therefore, prayed that the ex parte orders passed against them be set aside on proof of their assertion. The Assistant Custodian rejected these applications in Tune 1953, but on appeal their cases were remanded for a fresh decision. Fresh notices were issued by the Assistant Custodian, and after enquiry the lands in the possession of the applicants were decl...
Syed HussaIn Ali S/O Syed Siddiq Ali and ors. Vs. the Durgah Committee ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj177
Bapna, Ag. C.J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution presented by nine Khadims of the tomb of Khwaja Moiuddin Ohishti of Ajmer, Syed Hussain Ali, Syed Cayasuddin, Syed Mohammad Anis Kaptan, Syed Nansh Mohammad, Syed Qaiam Ali, Syed Hussain Ali II, Syed Mohammad Siddiq, Sheikh Haji Mohammad, and Sheikh Siraj Mohammad, against the Durgah Committee constituted under the Durgah Khwaja Sahcb Act, 1955 (No. 36 of 1955) for a declaration that the said Act is ultra vires the Constitution, and for a direction restraining the respondents from enforcing its provisions. 2. Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti was born in the province of Sijistan to the east of Persia some tune in 1142 A. D., and came to India some time towards the end of twelfth century, and settled down at Ajmer. He was a sufi of the Chishti order, who attracted a large number of followers, and was held in great veneration during his lifetime. He died in or about 1236 A. D., and was buried at Ajmer. His grave was origi...
Shri Ratan Vs. the State Transport Authority, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj175
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Shri Ratan against an order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 6-12-1956. 2. The facts which have given rise to this application are these. Shri Ratan petitioner was the owner of motor bus No. RJF 323 which was registered in his name on 14-5-1955. He transferred this bus in favour of Loon Siugh non-petitioner by means of a written document, On 1-5-1956 Loon Singh filed an application to the Registering Authority, Rikaner, under Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act) for recording the transfer of ownership. This application was made more thaw 30 days after the transfer. The petitioner appeared before the Registering Authority and objected to the recording of the transfer on two grounds. His first ground was that the transfer was void as it was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation. The Registering Authority overruled this objection holding that ft had no power to...
Thakurji Sriji of Jaipur and ors. Vs. Mst. Gulab Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj136
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant Thakurji Sriji, which being a temple has been filed through Gulabchand and others against the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur, dated 16-9-1953, in a suit for pre-emption. The appeal raises a point which is interesting and which does not appear to be directly covered by authority,2. The facts in so far as they bear on the contentions raised before me in this appeal may be stated very shortly. Certain rooms and a verandah in a house situate in Chowkdi Ghat Darwaza, Gheewalon-ka-Rasta in the city of Jaipur belonged to one Moolchand. The latter sold them to Thakurji Sriji situate in the same building by a registered deed dated 23-2-1948. The respondent Mst. Gulab Bai filed a suit for pre-emption on the ground that she was a co-sharer in the same building. The suit was brought on 28-7-1948. The trial Court partly decreed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 31-7-1952, and the operative portion of the decree was in these term...
Samdu Khan Vs. Madanlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj101
K.L. Bapna, AG. C.J. 1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings. The respondent Madanlal instituted a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts in the court of Civil Judge, Merta. He valued the suit at Rs. 5,250/- and paid court-fee on that valuation according to Section 7 (iv) (f) of the Court-fees Act. A preliminary decree was passed on 31st of January, 1957. An appeal was filed to the High Court by the defendant, but as reported in Samdu Khan v. Madanlal, 1957 Raj LW 464 : (AIR 1958 Raj 62, it was decided by the Full Bench that the appeal lay to the District Judge. The appeal was consequently submitted to the District Judge and it is said to be pending. 2. As it happened, further proceedings continued in the trial court and a final decree was passed on the 16th of November, 1957 in which the defendant Samdukhan was held liable to pay Rs. 67,089/14/- to Madanlal as a result of the accounting between the parties. The defendant filed an appeal against this final ...
The Durgah Committee, Ajmer Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj112; 1959CriLJ657
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This purports to be a criminal revision against an order passed by a Magistrate of Ajmer under Section 234 of the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation No. 6th of 1925, which runs as follows : --'Any tax, water-rate or fee (other than a school-fee) and any costs, damages or compensation, or other moneys payable to, or claimable or recoverable by, a Committee under this Regulation or any rule or bye-law may, after demand has been made therefor in the manner prescribed by rule, be recovered, on application to a Magistrate having jurisdiction within the limits of the municipality, or in any other place where the person by whom the amount is payable may, for the time being, reside, by the distress and sale of any moveable property within the limits of such Magistrate's jurisdiction belonging to such person : Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the Committee, as its discretion, from suing for the amount payable in any competent civil court.' 2. A preli...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Girdharilal Chunnilal Modi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj126
Jagat Narayan, J.1. These are two appeals against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur, on 22-12-1952.2. Girdhari Lal instituted a suit on 2-2-1950, out of which these appeals have arisen. The allegations were that the Public Works Department of the then Jaipur State invited tenders for the construction of a hospital at Jhunjhunu, and the tenders submitted by Girdhari Lal were formally accepted on 4-2-1947 (Ex. 2). It is alleged that the term of the agreement was that the construction should becompleted within one year of the date of the commencement of the work.The date of the commencement was mentioned. to be 12-4-1946, when the Executive Engineer asked Girdhari Lal to take the work in hand at an early date. It was alleged that Girdhari Lal collected materials and labour for starting the work, but whenever he started the work, he was told by the officers of the P. W. D. of the former Jaipur State not to start construction, and a letter in writing was give...
Gordhansingh and ors. Vs. Suwalal and Kalyanbux and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj156
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. These three revision applications have been filed by the defendants in three suits for the recovery of money. They have been referred to a Division Bench on account of the importance of the question involved in them, namely whether a particular document is a promissory note within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act which runs-'Promissory Note' means a promissory note as defined by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; it also includes a note promising the payment of any sum of money out of any particular fund which may or may not be available, or upon any condition or contingency which may or may not be performed or happen:In Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 'promissory note' is defined as follows-A 'promissory note' is an instrument in writing (not being a bank note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›