Rajasthan Court November 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.
HarnaraIn Vs. Gordhandas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj271
ORDERDated Jodhpur the 23rd August 1939,Special Famine measures in the Judicial Department.No. 12378 : In view of the prevailing famine the following directions are issued for the guidance of all the courts in Marwar which will remain in force from the 23rd August, 1939, until further orders :1. All the civil litigation in which one or both of the parties depend for their livelihood on cattle breeding or agriculture will be altogether suspended.2. Execution work of all kinds (except of decrees for maintenance, other similar allowances and injunctions) will be suspended.3. No sales will be made in the Insolvency Court.4. Adjournments should be freely granted in civil cases by all the courts wherever it appears that by reason of the famine, it is difficult for either party to procure evidence or a non-adjournment would in any other way involve hardship on either party.5. The period of the famine (termination of which will be notified later) will not be reckoned towards the limitation of ...
inder Singh Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC557(Raj)
B.P. Beri, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act No. XXIX of 1954 hereinafter called the Act) by the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Rajasthan, Udaipur, made at the instance of the firm of Messrs Motilal & Co., Jodhpur, through its partner Inder Singh, the assessee.2. For the assessment year 1957-58 the assessee, who carries on business in Jodhpur City, claimed exemption of sales tax on Durries. The Sales Tax Officer disallowed this claim holding that Durries were not included in handloom cloth. The assessee preferred a revision application before the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Rajasthan. That officer also rejected the assessee's claim on the ground that the term 'cloth' is not a word of art and Durries are not included in the Notification No. F. 21(7)/SR/55 dated 14th April, 1955. On an application by the assessee that the Durries woven on handloom stood covered by the exemption certificate granted under the Notification rel...
Bhanwarlal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ561
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. These two revisions by Bhanwarlal and Laxmansingh are directed against the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated 30th September, 1958 convicting both of them under Section 304A I.P.C. and sentencing them to 1 3/4 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 501/-each in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months and under Section 337 I.P.C. to three months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.2. The case relates to a highway collision which took place on 18th November, 1956 at about 9 A, M. on the Gajner road at a distance of 8 miles from Kolayat and 24 miles from Bikaner between Bus No. RJZ 59 driven by Bhanwarlal and RJF 16a driven by Laxmansingh, It appears that Bus No. RJZ 59 was going from Bikaner to Kolayat and the other Bus No. RJF 163 was going from Kolayat to Bikaner and while they were passing each other their bodies collided and the impact was so strong that a number of persons...
Prem Ballabh Shebait Vs. the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj85
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This petition was referred for decision to a Full Bench along with D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 187/56 (Jai Singh v. Sobhag Singh and others) as some common important questions of law arose in them. As however the facts in the two cases were different the two cases were dealt with separately. The connected writ petition was disposed of on 8-11-1960.2. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Board of Revenue dated 19-12-56 refusing to sanction Matmi in favour of Prem Ballabh petitioner on the basis of his adoption by Radha Ballabh who died on 20-10-50.3. Radha Ballabh was the Shebait of the Temple of Thakurji Shri Vijay Gopalji situated in Johari Bazar Jaipur for the Sewa Puja of which Muati land had been granted by the Rulers of Alwar and Jaipur respectively. Radha Ballabh adopted Prem Ballabh on 10-12-41. After the death of Radha Ballabh he applied for Matmi over the Muafi land situated in the two districts. His application was opposed by the other ...
Mst. Suraj Kunwar Vs. Champalal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj281
Jagat Narayan, J.1. These are connected revision applications filed by the plaintiff against two orders purporting to have been passed under Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C. by the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur setting aside an ex parte decree not only against those defendants who had applied for setting aside the ex parte decree against them but also against the other defendants who had not so applied.2. The plaintiff instituted the present suit on 5-4-1956 against six defendants--Labhchand, Ratanchand, Vardhmanchand, Champalal, Gulraj and Pukhraj, on the allegation that they were partners of the firm 'Vijailal Champalal', that Labhchand and Champalal were the managers of the firm, that the plaintiff had money lending dealings with this firm, that the firm borrowed Rs. 3,000/- from the plaintiff on Poh Sudi 6 Sambat 2009 agreeing to pay interest at annas -/10/- per cent per month, that on Kartik Sudi 1, Labhchand executed a 'writing' on behalf of the firm about this loan and that as repaym...
Chandra Bhan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj168
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners pray for a writ against the respondents restraining them from adopting and approving a scheme, which has been formulated and published for nationalisation of road transport. The main ground on which the petition is founded is the assertion that the provisions of Section 68 D of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act No. IV of 1939 -- hereinafter called 'the Act') are ultra vires the Constitution of India and that some of the relevant Rules of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), framed under the Act are equally ultra vires the provisions of the Act and the Constitution.2. The petitioners are transport operators having their buses plying on different routes, locally known as Jaipur-Alwar-Med route, Jaipur-Neem-ka-Thana route, and Jaipur-Kotputli route. These routes are overlapped also by the Jaipur-Delhi route and the Jaipur-Pratapgarh r...
State Vs. Heer Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ151
J.S. Ranawat, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the judgment of the Magistrate First Class Sanchore, dated 13-2-58, acquitting the accused Heer Singh, of the offence under Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code.2. Pukhraj and Chunnilal obtained a decree for money against Heer Singh from the court of the Munsif, Sanchore. In execution of the said decree, a warrant was issued by the Munsif for the arrest of the judgment-debtor on his failure to satisfy the decree. Magraj Amin of the court was ordered to execute the said warrant. He went to village Isrol, P. S. Bhawatra, along with the decree-holder Chunnilal. It is alleged that he demanded the decretal amount of Rs. 543/- together with the expenses of the execution amounting to Rs. 6/4/-and the judgment-debtor expressed his inability to pay the said amounts. Magraj thereupon, it is stated, asked Heer Singh to accompany him to the court of the Munsif and Heer Singh and Magraf left...
Thakur Jai Singh Vs. Thakur Sobhag Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj146
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This writ petition has been referred for decision to a Full Bench along with D. B. Civil Writ Petition No, 4/57 as some common important questions of law arise in them. As however the facts in the two cases are different, it will be more convenient to deal with the two cases separately,2. D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 187/56 is directed against an order of the Board of Revenue dated 12-9-56 refusing to sanction Matmi in favour of Jai Singh petitioner and sanctioning it in favour of Sobhag Singh Respondent No. 1 in respect of the Jagir held by one Sabal Singh who died in 1948.3. Sabal Singh was a Panchpana Sardar of Sheikbawati which formed part of the domains oi the erstwhile State of Jaipur. One Nahar Singh was the common ancestor of the parties. Nahar Singh had four sons--Lachaman Singh, Pern Singh, Bhairon Singh and Bhawani Singh. Lachman Singh was the eldest out of them. On the death of Nahar Singh his estate was divided amongst these four sons. The estate of B...
Moolchand and ors. Vs. Chhoga and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1963Raj25
I.N. Modi, J. 1. These are two appeals by different sets of plaintiffs in two different suits, one of the plaintiffs being common to both of them, and arise out of a dispute relating to an identical piece of land, and, therefore, I propose to dispose of them by a single judgment.2. The dispute pertains to a piece of land which has been marked as ABCD in plan Ex. 1 and is situate in village Beda which was at the relevant time in the Jagir of the Jagirdar of rhikana Beda. The plaintiffs in suit No. 532 of 1952 which has given rise to appeal No. 45 of 1955 are Moolchand and his son Jawarmal, and one other person Dharamchand. The houses of Moolchand and Dharamchand are admittedly situate to the south and north respectively of the disputed land. The house of Moolchand and Jawarmal is marked A in the plan and that of Dharamchand as K therein. The defendants in this suit were in the first instance Chhoga and his 5ons Kapura and Jawana, and the Kamdar of rhikana Beda.The case of the plaintiffs...
Janta Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Regional Tr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj98
Dave, J.1. These are 3 writ applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of temporary permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority Jaipur by its resolutions Nos. 222 and 223 dated the 25th June, 1960. Although the temporary permits have been granted on different routes to different persons, common questions of law are involved! in these applications and therefore they are disposed of together.2. In order to appreciate the points canvassed before us, it would be proper to state briefly the foots which have given rise to these applications:3. Writ Applications Nos. 216 and 217 are in respect of the permits granted for Jaipur Kishangarh route. The petitioners in writ application No. 216 are bus operators holding non-temporary permits and they are plying their buses on Jaipur Kishangarh Ajmer route. The Jaipur Kishangarh route overlaps Jaipur Ajmer route upto Kishangarh. These petitioners were granted permits by the Regional Transport Authorit...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›