Rajasthan Court August 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.
Thakarlal Vs. Smt. Rama and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj193
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This purports to be a second appeal by one Thakarlal, an auction purchaser who purchased some immoveable property at an auction sale held on 30-4-48 for Rs. 8300/-. The sale took place in execution of the decree of Smt. Rama respondent No. 1 against Smt. Gulab respondent No. 4. Ram Chandra respondent No. 2 and Gulab Chand respondent No. 3 also held decrees against Smt. Gulab and the assets received as a result of the sale of the above property were rate-ably distributed amongst Smt. Rama, Ram Chander and Gulab Chand. Thakarlal auction purchaser was put in possession of the immoveable property shortly after the confirmation of the sale which took place on 10-7-48.2. During the pendency of the proceedings in execution of the decrees of Smt. Rama, Ram Chander and Gulab Chand Ladulal instituted a suit for possession over the immoveable property which was attached in execution of Smt. Rama's decree in 1945. In this suit he claimed that he was the adopted son of Smt. Gula...
Ajit Singh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj139; 1961CriLJ853
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a revision by the petitioner Ajit Singh requesting that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhinmal dated 24-10-1959 committing the petitioner to the Court of Sessions for trial under Sections 326 and 307, Indian Penal Code be quashed.2. The relevant facts are these:Ajit Singh was challaned in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Bhinmal on 9-12-59 for offences under Sections 307, 324 and 326 I. P. C. In the calendar of witnesses Mohansingh, Narpatsingh, Ayub Singh and Kundansingh were cited as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. The case originally was fixed for 23.12.59. On that day one witness Mohansingh was present but as the Sub Divisional Magistrate was out on duty the case was adjourned to 24-12-59. On that date one eye-witness was examined. The remaining three eye witnesses were not present.The Advocate for the accused conceded that the accused should be committed for trial under Section 307 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate consequently...
Pukhraj Vs. Sheshmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj231; 1961CriLJ691
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J. 1. The Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur has made this reference with a recommendation that the offence under Section 211 I. P. C. for which Parasmal is being prosecuted having been committed in relation to proceedings before a Court, the prosecution of Parasmal on the private complaint of Sesmal is not competent and desires this Court to issue necessary orders, which obviously implies the quashing of the proceedings for prosecution. 2. The facts briefly stated are that Parasmal lodged information with the police accusing the present complainant Sesmal of art offence of theft i. e. under Section 379 I. P. C. in respect of a truck. The complainant was arrested and the truck was recovered from him. The accused applied to a Magistrate for enlarging him on bail and handing over the truck to him. The accused was released on bail and the truck was handed over to one Badri-narain with the direction to maintain it in a proper condition. After investigation the Pol...
Ramchandra and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the General Mana ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj162
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Alwar dated 4th April 1955 dismissing their suit for recovery of Rs. 5461/-.2. The suit was filed initially on 28th January, 1953 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur against the respondent. The learned Civil Judge, Jaipur returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court on 4-10-1954. It was again filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Alwar on 11-11-1954.3. The plaintiffs' case was that they were members of a joint Hindu family and were carrying on their business at Talora, District Bogra now in East Pakistan. On 3-8-1942 they had booked a consignment of betel-nuts weighing 43 maunds 16 seers from Talora to Jaipur. The consignment never reached its destination and therefore, the plaintiffs suffered a loss of Rs. 3038/- on account of the nondelivery of the goods. The suit for the recovery of this amount was filed in the court of the Sub-Judge, Bogra who dismissed the suit,On ...
Ramkumar Chunilal Agarwala and ors. Vs. Hazarimal Bansilal Kumbhar and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj157
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. These are connected cases and arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances. They can be, therefore, conveniently disposed of by this judgment.2. On the 8th of September, 1952, Ram Kumar, who is the decree-holder appellant in the Miscellaneous Appeal, obtained decree in nine different suits filed by him against defendants Kanhaiyalal and Hazari Mal on the basis of Hundis. These suits were originally instituted in the Court of the Munsif at Sujangarh. On the abolition of that Court the suits were transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Ratangarh, and later they actually came to be heard by the Court of the Civil Judge, Churu, to which the suits in question were transferred along with a number of other suits.It was the last Court which disposed of those suits and passed the decrees in question. Appeals preferred against the decrees were also dismissed with some modification. Kanhaiyalal, one of the judgment-debtors, preferred a second appeal to this Court. T...
Nardeo Singh Kurabad and Others Vs. Additional Commissioner of Agricul ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1960
Reported in: [1962]46ITR125(Raj)
SARJOO PROSAD C.J. - This reference has been made by the Appellate Agricultural Income-tax Tribunal under section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953 (XXIII of 1953) (herein after called the Act) at the instance of the petitioners.The petitioners, assessees, are jagirdars of the erstwhile Mewar State. Within the ambit of their jagirs, large forest areas are included. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer in his assessment order assessed the petitioners on income from the forest areas in each case. The petitioners appealed against the order of assessment and the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed that in the 'absence of tillage or cultivation of the soil', that is to say, 'absence of the process of ploughing, hoeing and opening up of the soil or planting or sowing of seeds' it could not be said that there was any agricultural process involved in the management and development of the forests in question and the trees in the forest were all of natural gro...
Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (Pr.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Regio ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj189; 1961CriLJ286
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J. 1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City recommending that the proceedings in prosecution for an offence under Section 73 of the Indian Mines Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as the new Act) against the accused M/s. JaipurMineral Development Syndicate (Private) Limited and. others, being in violation of Article 20 of the Indian Constitution should be quashed.2. The material facts are these:The Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (Private) Limited owns Degotha Jharna soap-stone Mines at Dausa. It is situate in the territories comprised by the former Jaipur State. I am told there were no rules similar to 'the Mines Creche Rules, 1946' in force in the former Jaipur State. Alter the integration of the Jaipur State in the United State of Rajasthan, the Indian Mines Act, 1923 with the various rules and regulations framed under it was extended to Rajasthan by P.art B States (Laws) Act No. 3 of 1951 which came into force on 1st April, 1951.Under t...
Ramdeo Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Raj149
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J.1. This reference by the Sessions Judge, Merta raises for determination the following question : Whether it is open to a police officer with whom an information of the commission of an offence was lodged, to prosecute the informant under Section 182, I. P. C. (giving false information) even after the informant had filed a complaint before a Magistrate on the same facts and allegations, a complaint of Court under Section 195(1)(b) being unnecessary. The facts and the circumstances leading to the reference are these :2. At about 8 or 9 P.M. on 1-6-1957 Ram Deo, the accused petitioner gave information to the S. H. D. Deedwana to the effect that Shri Kedarmal and Radha Kishan committed a trespass into his house at Deedwana with preparation to cause hurt on 1-6-1957 at about 4 P.M. The case was. investigated by the Circle Inspector, Deed-wana who submitted a final report to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the effect that the report Was false and that Ram Deo ...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Rao Manohar Singh of Bedla
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj143
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a regular second appeal by the defendant State against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Udaipury dated the 5th November, 1957, in a suit for accounts.2. The facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows. The plaintiff Rao Manohar Singh of Bedla was a jagirdar in the former State of Mewar at all relevant times. That State was integrated in what may be called, for facility of reference, the first United State of Rajasthan in April, 1948. The last mentioned State was amalgamated with the former States of Jodhpur, Jaipur, Bikaner and Jaisalmer and the Matsya Union, as it then was, and the seconds United State of Rajasthan was formed in the middle of 1949.This last-mentioned State Was then formed-into the Part B State of Rajasthan with, the coming into effect of the Constitution on the 26th January, 1950, and is now represented by the present State of Rajasthan as it was formed under the States Reorganization Act, 1956 (No. X...
Jaiwant Rao and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Raj250
Ranawat, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Jaiwant Rao and 13 others against the State of Rajasthan, the Collector of Kotah, the City Magistrate of Kotah and 34 others for an appropriate writ, order or direction (1) declaring that the Kotah Municipality was not properly constituted inasmuch as the wards constituted by the Collector for the purpose of election were not proper and the elections held on the 26th of July, 1959 on the basis of those wards were illegal and void ab initio; and (2) directing non-petitioners Nos. 4 to 36 to quit the office of the members of the Municipal Council of Kotah Municipality; and (3) further directing the State of Rajasthan by a writ of Mandamus to constitute the Kotah Municipality in accordance with law.2. The application came up for hearing before one of us sitting singly and as some important points of law were raised in course of the arguments, the case was referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consti...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »