Rajasthan Court January 1961 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.
Nawal Mal Vs. Nathu Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj190
Modi J.1. This reference originally came before a learned single Judge and has in turn been made by him to a larger bench.2. The questions referred to this bench for answer are as follows:(1) Whether Section 2(i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. XVII of 1950) as amended by the Amending and Extending Act, 1957 (Act No. 34 of 1957) in so far as it applies to the Cantonment Area of Nasirabad and Section 2(2) of the said Act which brings into force at once Sections 1 to 4 and 27 to 31 of that Act and authorises the State of Rajasthan to extend the remaining provisions to such areas in that State and from such date as may from time to time be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette in so far as it affects the Cantonment area of Nasirabad is beyond the legislative competence of the Rajasthan State Legislature for the reason that the subject-matter covered by the said Rajastham Act is within the exclusive competence of the Union Parl...
Mst. Samu Bai and anr. Vs. Shahji Magan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Raj207
Modi, J.1. This is a civil regular first appeal virtually by the defendant Mst. Samubai, though, curiously enough, the successful plaintiff has also joined her in this, against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Sirohi dated the 7th February, 1959-in a suit for partition.2. This appellant is the mother, while the plaintiff Sheshmal and the other defendant Magan Lal, are the sons. The plaintiff Shesh Mal filed a suit for partition of the joint family property impleading the present appellant and the other brother Magan Lal as defendants to the suit. The husband of Mst. Samubai, who was the father of the other two parties, died in 1927 A. D.The plaintiff appellant claimed a 1/3rd share o the entire family property on the footing that the present appellant Mst. Samubai was also entitled to a similar share, that is, 1/3rd apart from the remaining 1/3rd, to which, the other brother Magan Lal would be entitled. The suit was resisted by Magan Lal, his contention being that he as well...
Mangal Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC801(Raj)
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. The question raised in these writ applications is about the validity of the assessment and levy of sales tax on certain commodities in respect of transactions after the 1st of April, 1956. The commodities in question are gur, cloth, petroleum and petroleum products as mentioned in the respective applications.2. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners it may be necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, with its amendment in 1956, as also the relevant Articles of the Constitution. Article 286(3) of the Constitution prior to the sixth amendment in 1956, was as follows : -No law made by the Legislature of a State imposing, or authorising the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of any such goods as have been declared by Parliament by law to be essential for the life of the community shall have effect unless it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his as...
The State Vs. Bhoora and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Raj274
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This revision application raises some points of law.2. Bhoora and thirteen, others are standing their trial under Sections 395 and 396 I. P. C. in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore Shri G. D. Badgel. A fresh trial became necessary because of the retirement of Shri Badri Narayan Vyas Additional Sessions Judge in whose court they were originally tried. One Bhalia was granted pardon by the District Magistrate, Jalore on 6-5-1958 and was examined as a prosecution witness before the committing Magistrate.Since Bhalia did not comply with the terms of pardon, the learned Public Prosecutor on 27-11-1958 submitted an application before Shri Vyas to the effect that as Bhalia has forfeited the pardon he did not want to examine him at the trial. When the trial again began before Shri Badgel, the learned Public Prosecutor expressed his desire to examine Bhalia as a witness.This was objected to on behalf of the accused on the ground that the pardon granted t...
State Vs. Sumer Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1961
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)186
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is a reference of the D.M. Pali, recommending that the Order of the First Class Magistrate, Sojat dated 22-2-1960 releasing the accused on bail be set aside. In support of the reference learned Distt. Magistrate has referred to provisions of Section 497 Cr. PC which provides that the accused shall not be released on bail if there appears reasonable grounds for holding that he has been guilty of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The accused is being prosecuted for an offence Under Section 409 IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term of 10 years. It cannot be said that the offence was punishable with imprisonment for life only. Learned Magistrate had therefore jurisdiction to release the accused on bail. Having regard to the circumstances mentioned in the Order of the learned Magistrate it cannot be said that he has wrongly exercised his discretion. Learned Dy. Government Ad...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›