Rajasthan Court December 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.
Mewar Textile Mills and anr. Vs. Kushali Bai and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1959
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ369Raj
D.S. Dave, J.1. This is an appeal by Mewar Textile Mills, Bhilwara, and General Assurance Company, Ltd., Ajmer, against an order of the Workmen's Compensation, Commissioner, Udaipnr Division, Bhilwara, dated 3 December 1955, allowing Rs. 2,150 as compensation to the respondents under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. It is common ground between the parties that one Panjumal, who was murdered on 16 February 1954 within the premises of the Mewar Textile Mills, Bhilwara, was an employee of the appellant mills and used to work in what was called the ' frame department.' On 16 February 1954, he was killed by somebody with a knife during the recess period in the second shift sometime between 7-30 and 8 p.m. His dead body was found in a cabin which was used for storing the junk. On report to the police, three persons, namely, Gopi, Nenu and Nola, were arrested and tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilwara. It was alleged by the prosecution against them that Gopi owed a debt to...
Gurdeosingh Vs. Mst. Daulat Kaur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Raj30
L.N. Chhangani, J. 1. This is an appeal by Gurdeosingh against the order of the Civil Judge, Ganganagar, who accepting the application of the respondent Daulat Kaur under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act directed him to deliver his minor son Darshansingh into the custody of the respondent. The relevant facts are these:2. The appellant Gurdeosingh married the respondent Daulat Kaur some time in the year 1947. Out of this union the minor Darshansingh was born in the year 1950. In the year 1952 or 1953 Gurdeosingh married another wife Mst. Mukhtiar. Some time after the second marriage relations between the husband and his first wife got strained and the petitioner's case is that Gurdeosingh began to ill-treat her and her son Darshansingh. . It is further alleged that some time in July, 1955, Gurdeosingh turned her out of his house and the minor son was kept By Gurdeosingh in his custody.In August, 1955. Daulat Kaur put an application in the Court of Senior Civil Judge under Secti...
Padmaram and ors. Vs. Surja and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Raj72
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a regular first appeal by the defendants Padmaram and six others in a suit for partition and has come up for arguments before me on a question relating to the abatement of theappeal in circumstances presently to be mentioned.2. The parties are Jats and are descendantsof a common ancestor. Nanak and Shriram weretwo brother. Nanak brought the suit out of whichthis appeal arises for possession by partition of certain land situate in village Chhapawali, TehsilHanumangarh, in which he claimed a half share. Nanak having died is now represented by hisfive sons Surja and others in this appeal. The defendants in the suit were Padmaram and fiveothers, sons of Shriram, and Gopi, a grandson of Shriram.The suit was filed in a revenue court, namely, that of the Deputy Commissioner, Hanumangarh, and was later transferred to the court of the Collector, Ganganagar, who having been of the opinion that a question of proprietary title was raised in the case referred it to the Dist...
Madanlal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Raj3
Ranawat, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 were elected members of the Makrana Municipal Board before the Rajasthan Municipalities Act (Act No. 38 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force. The municipal board that functioned at the time the new elections were held, became 'func-tus officio on account of the term of that board having run out. The new board could not be constituted before the Rajasthan Municipalities Act came into force for the reason that two members who had to be nominated before it could function were not so nominated by the Government.After the coming into force of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act of 1959, the Government issued the Rajasthan Municipalities (Transitory Provisions) Second Order, 1959 (Order No. II of 1959), and Section 3 thereof provided as follows:'In cases in which elections to a Municipal authority established under and governed by any repealed law have been hel...
Municipal Committee, Kishangarh Vs. Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Raj6
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. This is a special appeal against the judgment and decree of Bhandari J, sitting single, confirming in second appeal the decision of the District Judge, Jaipur. Leave to appeal has been granted by the learned Judge.2. The appeal relates to a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, The Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd., for recovery of Rs. 3539/7/- from the defendant Municipal Committee, which is the appellant here. The plaintiff alleged that the Municipal Committee Madanganj had borrowed on 9-7-1947 a sum of Rs, 3,000/- and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, after the loan had been duly sanctioned by the Mahkama Khas of the then Kishangarh State. Later the Municipal Committee Madanganj merged in the Municipal Committee Kishangarh and plaintiff averred that, by virtue of the merger, the defendant became liable to pay the aforesaid amount with interest.The defendant resisted the claim and its liability to pay the amount; but admitted that in any...
Anandram and anr. Vs. Madholal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj189
ORDERD.S. Dave, J. 1. This is an application in revision by two minor judgment-debtors through their next friend and mother Mst. Tikudi, against an order of the learned Judge Small Cause Court, Jodhpur, D/-30-7-1957. 2. The facts giving rise to it are that non-petitioner No. 1 Madhotal and his two sons filed a money suit against the petitioners and their rather Amarlal, who is non-petitioner No. 4 in this Court. The said suit was decreed against all the defendants on 6-10-1952. On 26-3-57, the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 C. P. C. in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Jodhpur. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the trial Court had not appointed any guardian ad litem for them, that the decree against them was, therefore, void and their names should be struck off from the decree-sheet. This application was dismissed by the learned Judge and hence the present revision application. 3. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Judge...
Nathuram and ors. Vs. Patram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj125
Bhandari, J.1. All these three appeals arise in pre-emption suits. The principal point for determination in the first two appeals is as to the extent to which the provisions of the Alwar State Pre-emption Act (Act No. VII of 1946) hereinafter called the Alwar Act, are void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution on the ground that they infringe the rights of a citizen to acquire, hold and dispose of property as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. In the third appeal, the question relates to the extent to which the custom of pre-emption was void under Article 131. The determination of these points will require the examination of the correctness of the authorities of this Court in Panch Gujar Gaur Brahmans v. Amarsingh, ILR (1954) 4 Raj 84: (AIR 1954 Raj 100) (FB) and Shanker Lal v. Poonam Chand, ILR (1954) 4 Raj 310: (AIR 1954 Raj 231), and the other cases following these two authorities. These appeals came up for decision before Single Judges of this Court and in vie...
Premier Automobiles Ltd., Bombay Vs. Laxmi Motors Co., Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj208
ORDERK.L. Bapna, J. 1. This is a revision against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated 11-2-1955. 2. Messrs. Laxmi Motors Company of Jodhpur instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,997/- in the Court of Civil Judge, Jodhpur on 16-9-1953 against the defendant Premier Automobiles Ltd., Bombay, on the allegation that the plaintiffs were the agents of the defendant for the sale of automobile cars and after the agreement of agency had come to an end, an account was taken up by which the defendant agreed to be indebted to the tune of Rs. 14,411-6-3 and that while the defendant had remitted Rs. 10,411-6-3 a sum of Rs. 4,000/- remained outstanding. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 997/- on account of interest on the aforesaid sum. When the suit came for hearing on 31-1-1954 a lawyer for the defendant entered appearance. The order recorded is 'Counsel for the defendant wants time to file written statement. Plaintiff's lawyer has no objection. The case he-posted for 10-2-1954'On 10-2-1954...
Ganesh Vs. Hukmichand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj242
D.S. Dave, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 75(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1920 by a debtor whose application for adjudication as insolvent under Section 10 of the said Act has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur.2. The appellant's case was that his total debts amounted to Rs. 7619/-, that he was unable to pay the same and, therefore, he should be declared insolvent. In the schedule of the list of creditors which was filed by him along with the application it was shown that his debt of Rs. 5000/- was payable to one Hukmichand, that the second debt of Rs. 2044/- was also payable to the same person, and the third debt of Rs. 575/- was payable to one Godu. Thus, in fact, there were two creditors only. One of the creditors, namely, Hukmichand contested the application and urged that the appellant was a wealthy man and he was in a capacity to pay olf the entire debt.The learned District Judge observed that the first debt was incurred not only by the appellan...
Firm Murlidhar Banwarilal Vs. Firm Kishorelal Jagannath Prasad and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj296
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a regular first appeal by the plaintiffs Murlidhar and Banwarilal as owners of the firm Murlidhar Banwarilal against the judgment and decree of the Civi1 Judge. Alwar, dated the 22nd March, 1954, dismissing their suit for money.2. The plaintiffs were a firm who at all material times carried on business of the sale and purchase of cotton seeds in the name of Murlidhar Banwarilal at Khairthal in Mandi Teiganj, District Alwar. The defendants are alleged to be owners of two firms Raghunath Sahai Kishorelal and Ramjilal Jainarain which also carried on business at Khairthal but which combined together and established a firm named Rughnath Sahai Kishorelal at Mirpurkhas, and this latter firm carried on business as commission agents.The case of the plaintiffs, put briefly, was that they entered into certain forward transactions for the sale and purchase of cotton seeds under the commission agency of the defendants firm at Mirpur khas for the deliveries of May and Octobe...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›