Rajasthan Court January 1960 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.
Hari Pratap and anr. Vs. Ramgopal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj18
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs Hari Pratap and Shyamkumar in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment.2. The material facts leading to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. There is a shop situate in the town of Didwana, which, according to the plaintiffs, belonged to them and one Harnath pro indiviso and that the defendant Ramgopal was let in as a tenant under a rent-note dated Baisaka Vadi 3 Smt. 1995 (corresponding to 1938 A. D.), alleged to have been executed by him in favour of all the landlords.It was agreed between the parties that the defendant would pay Rs. 2/- per mensem as rent for the shop. The plaintiffs' case further was that the defendant had paid rent up to Baisakh Vadi 3 Smt. 2001 but thereafter he defaulted. Consequently the landlords gave a notice to the defendant to terminate the tenancy and eventually filed the present suit on the 13th March, 1951, against him for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent.The rent appears to ...
Chaitanya Prakash Vs. Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Raj185
Bhandari, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The case set out by the petitioner in his petition is that he carried on business in the name of Messrs. Jai Ambey Pustak Bhandar at Jaipur of publishing educational books for schools and colleges in Rajasthan. It is alleged that the petitioner being desirous of submitting the books for courses of study prescribed by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan (hereinafter called 'the Board') got himself registered under Regulation 16(1) of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Regulations, 1957, (hereinafter called 'the Regulations') framed under the Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, 1957, (hereinafter called 'the Act') Under Registration Certificate dated the 14th of October, 1958.This registration was valid for a period of five years from June, 1958 to June, 1963. On the 30th of July, 1959, the petitioner presented 21 books to the Board for approval for study in various subjects in the Higher Sec...
Ganga Das Vs. Mst. Gopli
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Raj245
Dave, J. 1. This is an application in revision by the defendant against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Bikaner, dated 17-4-1957, It came for hearing before one of us on 30-11-1959, and since it was referred to a division bench, it has come before this Court today.2. The facts giving rise to it are that the opposite party filed a money suit against the petitioner. The petitioner contested that suit and hence issues were framed on 17-8-1956 and 8-10-1956 was fixed for the production of the plaintiff's evidence. On the last mentioned date it was found that the summonses which were issued for the plaintiff's witnesses were not received after service and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 26-11-1956. On 26-11-1956, when the case was called out, neither the plaintiff nor her counsel was present in the court. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, wrote out on the order-sheet that the case would be disposed of proceeding under Order 17, Rule 2 read with Order 9 C. P. C. At the same time...
Abdul Sattar and anr. Vs. Jankivallabh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj245; 1961CriLJ693
ORDERI.N. Modi, J.1. This is a revision by the petitioners Abdul Sattar and Abdul Rehman against an order of the Munsiff City Jodhpur dated the 15th September, 19,58, in a proceeding under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of the words 'a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction' occurring in that section:2. Only a few facts need be mentioned to bring out the controversy which has arisen in this case. The petitioners here instituted an application under Section 145, Cri. P. C. against the opposite parties with respect to a certain plot of open land lying outside the Siwanchi gate in the city of Jodhpur. This application was filed in the court of the City Magistrate Jodhpur (No. 1). As the learned Magistrate did not find himself in a Position to decade as to which of the contending parties was in possession of the land in dispute at the date of the preliminary order, he referred the question of possession for determ...
The Kotah Transport Ltd., Kotah and ors. Vs. the Jhalawar Transport Se ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Raj224
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. These three appeals arise out of as many suits for recovery of damages instituted against the common defendant, the Kotah Transport Ltd., the appellant in all these appeals, by different plaintiffs, who are respondents to these appeals. First Appeal No. 21 of 1952 arises out of Suit No. 14 of 1949 instituted by the Jhalawar Transport Service Lid., the plaintiff in that suit, in the Court of the Civil Judge at Jhalawar. First Appeal No. 4 of 1955 arises out of Suit No. 36 of 1949 instituted by the plaintiff Amar Nath Bhatia in the Court of the District Judge at Kotah, while First Appeal No. 5 of 1955 arises out of Suit No. 37 of 1949 instituted in the same Court by the plaintiffs Suit. Gayatri Devi and her minor son Dhirendra. All these suits were field on the same day, that is, 29-7-1949. Most of the witnesses are also common, but Suit No. 14 of 1949. which has given rise to First Appeal No. 21 of 1952, was disposed of earlier on 29-3-1952, by the Civil Judge of J...
Kapoor Chand and anr. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Raj171
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. The question which we have to consider is whether the court-fee payable in this appeal is governed by Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court-fees Act or by Article 17(i) of Schedule II of the Act.2. The brief facts which are essential for a proper determination of the matter are that the former State of Bharatpur had granted a lease in favour of the plaintiffs for quarrying Ballast from the hills in Roopwas Tehsil for a period of five years commencing from 1-6-1945 on a royalty of Rs. 32,000/- payable in quarterly instalments of Rs. 1,600/- each, subject to certain conditions. The lessees appeared to have failed to pay the stipulated amount and the quarterly instalments fell in arrears. On 24-9-1946, the then Government of Bharatpur terminated the lease and directed the lease to be re-auctioned, and the deficiency, if any, to be realised from the plaintiffs according to the terms of the agreement.The plaintiffs then offered to pay ail the arrears due with interest a...
Govind Ram Vs. Regional Settlement Commissioner Rajasthan, Jaipur and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Raj177
ORDER1. This petition by Govind Ram son of Uttamchand Shivanani, a displaced person residing at Ajmer, was originally filed impleading the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as respondent No. 1) as the sole respondent and invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution and praying for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ in the nature thereof restraining the said respondent from acting on the order of the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, (who is now respondent No. 2 in the amended writ petition) cancelling the transfer of property No. A. M. C. XIX/165 (now AMC. XXI/213) made in his favour and further prohibiting him from resuming the said property or selling it by public auction or otherwise.On the 10th of October. 1957 when the case came up before a Bench of this Court, it was ordered that as the validity of the order of res-pondent No. 2 dated 7-9-1957, is being challen...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›