Rajasthan Court May 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.
Malik Ram and ors. Vs. Regional Transport Authority Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj130
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J.1. Writ petitions Nos. 83, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128, 134 and 143 of 1960 were argued and heard together. The facts and circumstances out of which the writ applications excepting 83 of 1960 arise are more or less similar though not identical, and they all raise common questions of law. Writ No. 83 of 1960 is based upon different facts and grounds but it was represented that the decision of other writ applications will have a substantial bearing upon the decision of this writ case and therefore it was also heard along with these writ applications,2. It will be sufficient to state the facts generally for the purpose of determining the common questions of law raised during the course of hearing. The various writ petitioners are carrying on transport business and are bus operators on routes Jaipur-Bharatpur, Jaipur-Kotputli, Jaipur-Alwar and Jaipur-Kishangiarh Alwar Delhi. They had been granted non-temporary permits for plying their buses on the various routes and thes...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Bikaner Textiles and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj211
Bhargava, J.1. This first appeal is filed on behalf of the defendants in a suit for recovery of Rs. 12,913/3/- and is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bikaner dated 7th December, 1954.2. The Bikaner Textile Merchants Syndicate Ltd., through its liquidators instituted a suit on 27-5-53 against the Union of India and the Northern, Western and Central Railways for recovery of Rs. 12,913/3/- as compensation for non-delivery, shortage and damage to their goods which were booked from Bori Bundar Railway Station to Bika-ner. It is alleged that out of a consignment of 265 bales of cloth which were booked on 19-1-48 251 bales were delivered to the plaintiff on 15-3-48. Out of the remaining 14 bales, 4 were delivered to the plaintiff on 18-10-49. The remaining 10 bales were not delivered at all.It is alleged that the cloth in 14 bales out of the lot delivered on 15-3-1948 had become wet and damaged and the loss is assessed at Rs. 2,911/10/-. In seven bales out of t...
Khemchandra Vs. Budhsingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj243
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. This appeal has been presented by the decree-holder and is directed against the order dated 1st December, 1959, passed by Shri Sohan Nath Modi, District Judge, Kotah. It arises out of an execution case in which the decree-holder prayed for execution of the decree by arrest and detention in prison of the judgment-debtor Budhsingh.2. In September, 1958, the Umed Smarak Samiti, Kotah obtained a decree for Rs. 30,000/-against Budhsingh Bapna, the respondent judgment-debtor, and others. The appellant Khemchan-dra, who was Secretary of the Umed Smarak Samiti, Kotah, presented the execution petition in question. The ground on which he prayed for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor Budhsingh was mainly that the decree was in respect of a sum of money for which the judgment-debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to account.It is not necessary to mention the other grounds on which the prayer was founded- A preliminary decree in this case appears to have been pass...
The Automobile Transport Rajasthan (Pr.), Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Raj24
Modi, J. 1. These are five writ applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution by which the validity of the Rules called the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1959) has been challenged. As the questions of law raised by these petitions are common, we propose to dispose of them by a single judgment.2. It is necessary to state a few salient facts in order to understand the contentions raised in these writ petitions. The petitioners are the several holders of certain stage carriage permits on certain routes, and it is sufficient to state for our present purposes that these permits have not yet expired and would be current for some time to come. In exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 68-I of the Motor Vehicles Act (No. IV) of 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) under Chapter IVA thereof, which was introduced into the Act for the first time by Act No. 100 of 1956, the State Government published a draft of ...
Hagami Lal Ram Prasad, a Firm and ors. Vs. Bhuralal Ram NaraIn and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj52
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of Dave, J. passed on the 19th of September, 1958, reversing on appeal the decision of the Civil Judge, Bhilwara, dated 21st December, 1953, in Suit No. 10 of 1953. It arisesout of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,237/-claimed to be due by the plaintiffs from the defendants on account of various transactions of sale and purchase which they carried on for the defendants as commission agents.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendant No. 1 and his sons, who are members of a joint Hindu family, carry on business at Gangapur in Madhya Bharat in the name and style of Bhuralah Mangilal. The plaintiffs are partners of a firm known as Hagamilal Ramprasad, and carry on business as commission agents at Gulabpura in the District of Bhilwara. The defendants' business consists of purchase and sale of cotton through the plaintiffs.During the period from Aswin Sudi 4, Samwat 2004, to Chaitra Sudi 1...
Uttam Chand and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj1; 1961CriLJ154
ORDERD.S. Dave, J.1. This is an application in revision filed by accused Uttam Chand and Trilok Chand who were convictcd by the Special Excise Magistrate (I Class) Jaipur by his order dated 19-5-1959 under section 54 (a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. They filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur city and since it was dismissed on 6-7-1959, they have approached this Court.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgment pronounced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City is nota valid judgment in law and, therefore, it is prayed that it should be set aside and that the learned Judge should bo directed to re-hear the parties and give a fresh judgment. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that arguments in the appeal were heard by Shri P. L. Agarwala who was Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City on 8-6-1959. He was transferred to Jodhpur and, therefore, he handed over charge of his office to Shri...
Jethmal and ors. Vs. Mst. Sakina
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj59
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants Jethmal and others against an order of remand passed under Order 41, Rule 23 C. P. C.2. The material facts leading up to this appeal may be stated as follows. The defendants obtained a money decree against Sahabuddin, husband of the respondent Mst. Sakina. Sahabuddin died before execution was taken out. The deiendanls decree-holders then proceeded in execution against Mst. Sakina as the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor, and on the 22nd March, 1955, attached a 'bara' (an open piece of land enclosed by fencing) as belonging to Sahabuddin.Mst. Sakina filed an objection against the aforesaid attachment on the ground that the bara in question had been given to her as dower by her husband, and, in support of this assertion, she produced a copy of a registered deed of dower dated the 24th July 1931. Her case was that ever since this property was given to her, she had been in possession of it in her own right and that her ...
Manka Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ406
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by one Manka son of Kewal Ram resident of village Lilma District Barmer who has been convicted under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act in respect of 69 Tolas 9 Mashas gold which was seized from: his possession and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months.2. It is not disputed that on 6-12-56 the applicant boarded a train bound for Barmer at Lilma Railway Station in the Indian territory near the Indo-Pakistan border. He was arrested at Banner by Bhanwar Lal (P. W. 1) Inspector Land Customs who was heading a Customs Escort Party on this (train and was taken before the Deputy Superintendent of Land Customs Barmer Shri R. C. Jindal (P. W. 3). Upon a search 7 bars of gold were recovered from his person-5 from the pockets on his waist-coat and 2 from the anti of his Dhoti.All the seven bars were marked No. 999 and they weighed 69 tolas 9 Mashas. This gold was seized under Section 178 of the Sea Customs Act. The a...
Mst. Ayesha Bai and ors. Vs. Daleep Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj186
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. The petitioners have applied for review of our decision dated 4-1-1960 given in First Appeal No. 68 of 1954.2. The appeal arose out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- from the defendant. In the written statement, the defendants admitted the claim to that extent, but at the same time pleaded that there were further transactions between the parties on mutual and current account, as a result of which the entire amount due to the plaintiff had been paid off and that in fact, on adjustment, the defendants were entitled to recover a further sum of Rs. 6,319/12/9 from the plaintiff for which the defendants preferred a counter-claim in the suit and paid court-fee thereon. The suit was instituted on the 1st February, 1951.The trial court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff, but decreed the counter-claim of the defendants for a modified sum of Rs. 4,240/2/9 on 31-7-1954. Against that decree, an appeal was filed to this Court on 18-10-1954 and eventually decided by us u...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›