Rajasthan Court February 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.
Hemaram, Chela of Padamdasaji Ramsanehi Sadhu Vs. Mansukhram, Chela of ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj15
ORDERSarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. The defendant petitioner has moved in this case for setting aside an order of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, Shri P. N. Shinghal, dated 10-9-1959.2. The order relates to a suit filed by three persons Mansukhram, Sita Ram and Jassu Bharti under Section 92 of the C. P. C. An application for leave to sue in forma pauperis was also presented along with the plaint on 24-9-1954, and after due enquiries it appears that By an order dated 9-4-1935, the predecessor-in-office of the learned District Judge allowed the application for leave to sue as pauper. Thereafter the suit proceeded to trial, and after the entire evidence had been closed on 23-7-1959. and a date had been fixed for arguments, two applications were presented on behalf of the petitioner.One was to the effect that there was no regular presentation of the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis as required by Order XXXIII, Rule 8, of the C. P. C., and the other was that a suit under Section ...
Firm Dhannalal Maganlal Vs. Surajmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj10
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a decree-holder's first appeal under Section 96 read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Sambhar dated the 12th of August, 1955 dismissing the decree-holder's fourth execution application as barred by limitation.2. In order to appreciate and adjudicate upon the controversy raised in this appeal, it will be necessary to state the following facts:3. The decree-holder Firm Dhaunalal Muganlal of Madanganj obtained a decree for Rs. 7321/-against Surajmal, Lalchand and Moolchand from the court of the District Judge, Kishangarh on 29th April, 1946, which was confirmed in appeal by the High Court. The decree-holder put in the first execution application on 1st March, 1948. It may be mentioned here that the judgment-debtors belonged to town Shali outside the jurisdiction of Kishangarh courts. It appears that the judgment-debtor Moolchand was reported bo have gone to Dadi within the jurisdiction of the Ki...
Babulal and anr. Vs. Ramswarup
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Raj240
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal under Order 43 Rule l(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the appellate order of the Additional District Judge of the former State of Ajmer dated 30-7-1956 reversing the decision of the original court on the point of limitation in a money suit.2. The relevant facts for the proper appreciation of controversy between the parties may be stated in a little detailed manner as follows:The plaintiff Seth Ramswarup carries on business at Naya Nagar. The defendants entered into some transactions of purchase and sale of cottonseeds, til, gur and makki and silver with the plaintiff in the year 1942. A sum of Rs. 1896/15/- was found due to the plaintiff from the defendants and was acknowledged by him on 25-4-1946. There were subsequent transactions between the parties; some resulting in losses and others in gains. The defendants made some payments. In the end the plaintiff became entitled to recover Rs. 2,430/11/3 on 24-12-48. On 24-12-1948, ...
Saraswati Printers Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ416
ORDERI.N. Modi, J.1. These are four revisions between the same parties and involve the determination of identical questions of law, I, therefore, propose to dispose of them by a single judgment.2. The material facts leading up to these revisions may be shortly stated as follows. Petitioner No. 1 Messrs. Saraswati Printers Ltd., Jaipur, was a firm which having a share capital was incorporated as a public limited company on the 21st January, 1944, under the Companies Act of the former Jaipur State. Petitioner No. 2 was the managing director of that company while petitioners Nos. 3 to 6, among others, were its directors at all relevant times.The last Annual General Meeting of the company was held on the 24th December, 1952. Thereafter no such meeting was held until the 11th January, 1957. The petitioners were, therefore prosecuted at the instance of the Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, for not having held a general meeting under Section 76 of the Indian Companies Act, No. VII of 1913 he...
Amar Singh Vs. Gulab Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Raj280
Chhangani, J. 1. This is an appeal by Amarsingh under Section 96 read with Section 47, C. P. C., against the order of the District Judge, Jaipur City, dismissing his objection in an execution case. 2. The relevant facts are briefly as follows : Seth Anantram Vijailal, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent obtained a decree for Rs. 19,080/7/3 against Thakur Kishansingh of Patoda from the Dewani Adalat of the former Jaipur State on 5th November, 1948. After the death of the original judgment-debtor Kishansingh, one Jagatsingh, Tasirdar of Patoda was substituted as the legal representative of the original judgment-debtor on 10th of August, 1927. As the judgment-debtor was a Jagirdar, proceedings for satisfaction of the decree had to foe taken in the Bachat department of the former Jaipur State. After the promulgation of the Code of Civil Procedure in the integrated State of Rajasthan, the proceedings in the Bachat department came to an end on 25th of January, 1950. Gulabch...
Ramchander Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ424
ORDERI.N. Modi, J.1. This is a revision by the accused Ramchandra who has been convicted under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance (No. 48) of 1949, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/-.2. The case for the prosecution is briefly this. It appears that P. W. Balusingh informed P. W, Mathura Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police at Alwar, that the accused Ramchandra was gambling in American futures. Consequently a trap was arranged on the 6th June, 1957, and a marked currency note of rupee one, bearing the initials of Circle Inspector Devisingh was made over to the said Balusingh with a direction that he should lay a bet on No. 6 with the accused Ramchandra and report.The Sub-Inspector accompanied by some constables and Motbirs placed themselves at some little distance from where the accused Ramchandra was sitting at the time. This place is said to be the Chabutra in front of 'Khadi Bhandar' in the City of Alwar. As soon as Balusingh informed the Sub-Inspector that he had laid ...
Mangla Panchuram and anr. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ414
J.S. Ranawat, J. 1. This is a, revision petition by the accused Mangla and Uda against the judgment of the-Sessions Judge of Jaipur District dated the 5tb of December 1958 confirming on appeal the judgment of the Special Excise Magistrate, First Class, Jaipur, dated the 25th of July, 1958 by which both the accused Mangla and Uda were convicted under Section 54(a) and 54(d) and sentenced each to six month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for a month and a half and to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25/- or in default, one week's further rigorous imprisonment respectively.2. The case of the prosecution was that both the accused were caught while distilling illicit wine in the vicinity of Jaipur City near-about Charan Mandir at Nahargarh. Pushkar Narayan, Excise Inspector, caught them on the 7th of September, 1957 and he seized a still in which wine was at that time being distilled and some quantity of fermente...
Ramautar Sitaram Vs. Dy. Custodian, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Raj290
Chhangani, J.1. These two appeals by the decree-holder Ramautar raise identical questions and shall be disposed of by one judgment.2. The facts Riving rise to them are briefly as follows: Ramautar, the decree-holder had two money decrees; one for Rs. 6,350/- and costs passed on 26-7-48 and the other for Rs. 6,200/- and costs passed on 17-5-48, in his favour by the District Judge, Sambhar Shamlat. He took out execution proceedings in respect of both these decrees on 19-1-49 for which execution cases Nos. 8 and 9 of 1950 were registered. The decree-holder got some immovable property attached. However, the same property had been attached earlier in the execution of a decree in favour of firm Kapoor Chand against the same, judgment-debtors in execution case No. 3 of 1950. Proceedings for sale naturally continued in the execution case of Kapoor Chand and the sale of the property was knocked down on 29th of May, 1949, and the final bid was accepted by the court on 31st of May, 1949.The sale ...
Dalpat Singh Narayan Singh Vs. Jiwanmal Jasraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj43
ORDERSarjoo Prasad, C.J.1. This application is for revision of an order dated 5th February, 1959, passed by Shri Pearey Mohan, Civil Judge, Sojat, in civil ease No. 52 of 1957 pending before him. The said suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of a promissory note dated 11th July, 1956. The plea taken by the defendant-petitioner was that the promissory note is inadmissible under Section 35 of the Stamp Act as not being duly stamped. The learned Civil Judge has overruled the plea, and hence the application to this Court on the ground that the Court below has acted illegally and with material irregularity in admitting the document in evidence.2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that : (1) the promissory note was insufficiently stamped at the time of its execution inasmuch as there appear to have been only two one anna stamps affixed on the document at the time, the other two stamps having been subsequently affixed there...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Rikhabchand Dhariwal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj64
Ranawat, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan from the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Kotah, dated the 15th of December, 1952 for an amount of Rs. 3,400/- against the State of Rajasthan in a suit filed by Mr. Rikhabchand Dhariwal for compensation for false imprisonment. The respondent, Rikhabchand Dhariwal filed cross-objections and claimed an amount of Rs. 1,600/- which was disallowed by the lower court. 2. The appeal came up for hearing before a Single Judge of this Court who has referred it to a Division Bench, as important questions of law were involved in it. 3. The plaintiff is Shri Rikhabchand Dhariwal, who was a practising Advocate at Kotah. On the 17th of July 1948, under the orders of the then Chief Minister of former Rajasthan, the plaintiff was arrested and detained in the Bundi Central Jail under Section 3(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Public Safety Ordinance (No. IX of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance -- A habeas corpus application was filed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »