Rajasthan Court October 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.
Nathmal Nenmal, a Firm Bombay Vs. Mangilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj144
Bhandari, J.1. This is a Civil First Appeal on behalf of a firm Nathmal Nenmal carrying on business at 45-47, Champagali, Bombay against the judgment and .decree of the District Judge, Pali dismissing the suit filed by it against Mangilal and Milapchand minor sons of Meghraj, and Chhogalal for the recovery of Rs. 16,515-15-0. 2. The case set out by the plaintiff is that it was a registered partnership firm carrying on business at Bombay and the names of the partners of the plaintiff firm were mentioned in the Register of Firms, Bombay. Chhogalal defendant and Meghraj father of the minor defendants Mangilal and Milap Chand also carried on business at Bombay under the name and style of H. Chhogalal and Brothers. There were dealings between these two firms and the defendant Chhogalal had executed a khata on behalf of the firm in favour of the plaintiff firm for Rs. 15,000/-/- on Poh Sudi Poonam Sambat 2006, corresponding to the 4th of January 1950. After that date Rs. 1,000/-/' were paid ...
Firm Shah Chandanmal Fatehraj and ors. Vs. Hazarilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj122
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by the defendants against an appellate order of the Senior Civil Judge, Baran, holding that the Court of Munsif Baran has jurisdiction to try the suit.2. Hazari Lal plaintiff is a resident of Baran. Bhanwarlal and Mishrimal defendants carry on business at Merta under the name aad style Shah Chandanmal Fatehraj. The plaintiff placed a 'bilticut' order with the defendants for the purchase of a wagon load of wheat to be booked for Bangalore. The defendants asked the plaintiff to send an advance and drew a Hundi Ex. 12 on him for a sum of Rs. 1500/-. This Hundi was presented for payment to the plaintiff through a bank at Baran on 4-8-54 and was duly honoured. The defendants consigned a wagon lead of wheat for Bangalore and sent the railway receipt with Beejak Ex. 9 and Hundi Ex. 13 for Rs. 7,750/- the full price of the wheat at 'bilticut'' rate, drawn on the plaintiff to the latter through the bank at Baran. By then the defendants had...
Loona Ram and ors. Vs. Authority Appointed Under S. 15(1) Payment of W ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj173; (1963)IILLJ56Raj
Modi, J.1. This is a writ application by the petitioners Loonaram and four others jn a matter under the Payment of Wages Act.2. The petitioners' case was that one Gopal Singh had taken a .contract from the Government of Rajasthan for constructing a wing of the building of the Maharaja College, Jaipur and had in that connection, employed about a hundred persons for the said construction work. Their case further was that, among the persons so employed, more than 20 'Sangatrash' (masons) had beea employed by him and the petitioners belonged to this class of workers. As for the work which these persons were called upon to do it was mentioned that they had to cut stone-slabs and dress them, and do carving work thereon, if and as, it was necessary. The grievance of the petitioners was that Gopal Singh had paid them their Wages upto July, 1958, but failed to pay the same for the month of August, 1958, with the result that a sum of Rs. 391/12/- was payable to them as per details given below: 1...
Kapoorchand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj258
Modi, J. 1. This writ application is directed against an order of the Collector, Alwar, dated 29-7-1958, by which the petitioner Kapoorchand was compulsorily retired under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter called the Rules) which order was confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner Ajmer and finally by the State Government2. The material facts may shortly be stated as follows. The petitioner was an employee of the Covenanting State of Alwar as it then was and on the integration of that State into Rajasthan, he worked as a cashier (clerk) in Tehsil Alwar in 1951. It was found that there was some shortage of cash under his charge and further some other accusations were also raised against him which related to his service earlier in the Jagir Department where he continued to work up till the 14th July, 1950. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet. He denied the allegations made against him. The Collector, Alwar, found that the petitioner was guilty of negli...
State Vs. Mangtu Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj155
Bhandaki, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the State against the order of acqulital of the respondents Ranjit Singh and Mangtu Ram under Sections 279, 337 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code, Passed by theMagistrate Second Class, Alwar. On the 10th July, 1959.2. Two vehicles No. RJL 500.1 and Car No. RJL 5026 collided at a place known as Kati Ghati Chauraha on the Alwar-Jaipur road on the 19th of October, 1957, at about 7 P. M. Mangtu Ram respondent was driving the bus and was proceeding from Alwar to Jaipur while Ranjit Singh respondent was driving the car and was proceeding from Jaipur to Alwar.3. In that collision Ranjit Singh respondent was hurt and both the bus and the car were damaged. The prosecution case is that both the bus and the car were being driven on the wrong side of the road and did not dip their lights when they were facing one another. It is further alleged that the brakes of the bus were not in order. The report of this collision was made by Mangtu Ram' at the Eolic...
Haridas and anr. Vs. Banshidhar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj57
Dave, J. 1. This case comes on reference made by learned Judges of this Court constituting a division bench. 2. The facts giving rise to it are that Shri Banshidhar and Mannalal plaintiffs filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Udaipur, on 9th September, 1948, for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against two defendants, namely, Haridas and Bhanwarlal. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendants were owners of a firm called 'Bhatia-Saree-Stores' and that both of them, together with one Kishanlal Paliwal of Nathdwara, were also trading in tobacco under the name and style of Rajasthan Tambakhu (Tobacco) Manufacturing Company. On 5th January, 1948, both the plaintiffs and the two defendants entered into a partnership business and the name of this firm was kept as Rajasthan Tambakhu Company. The share of each one of the plaintiffs was five annas in a rupee while the share of the defendants was jointly five annas in a rupee. A branch of this firm was also started ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ranjita Ladhuram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj78
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. A Division Bench of this Court has referred the following points for decision by the Full Bench : 'Whether the authorities of this Court in (i) Dhokalsingh v. State, ILR (1953) 3 Raj 762 and (ii) Ranjita v. State, in Appeal No. 152 of 1957, D/- 14-2-1958 (Raj), lay down the correct law on the following matters : (1) Whether it is necessary that entries shouldbe made in the various police records of the precautions that were to be taken for keeping the accused person ba-parda while under Police custody; (2) Whether it should be specified in the warrant of commitment of the accused, when he is sent to the judicial custody that he is to be kept ba-parda till the identification parade takes place, and what precautions should the jail authorities take for keeping the accused ba-parda. (3) Whether necessarily-entries should be made in the jail records for keeping the accused ba-parda while he is in the judicial lock up.' In making the reference, the Bench was of the ...
Partumal and anr. Vs. Managing Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj112
Ranawat, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Partumal and his son Lakhmichand against the Managing Officer, the Regional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Settlement Commissioner Respondent No. 2 dated the 10th January 1961 by which the transfer of the portions of property No. A. M. C. XIX/1186 (Old). A. M. C. No. XIX/ 501 (New) situated at Ajmer in favour of the petitioners and some others was cancelled and also for a writ of prohibition restraining the opposite parties from resuming the said property and reauctioning the same.2. This petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, one member of which felt that the two Bench decisions of this Court in Dungar Das v. Custodian Rajasthan, ILR 1956-6 Raj 939: (AIR 1956 Raj 163) and Govind Ram v. Regional Settlement Commr. Rajasthan, Jaipur, ILR 1960-10 Raj 594: (AIR 1960 Raj 177), require to be reconsidere...
Banshidhar Vs. University of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Raj172
Shinghal, J.1. This is a petition of Banshidhar Vyas under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of Mandamus or other direction to the Principal, Jaswant College, Jodhpur (respondent No. 2) to admit him to the LL. B. (Previous) Class.2. The petitioner graduated B.A. (External), having taken the degree from the Gujrat university as a private candidate. He applied to the Principal, Jaswant College, Jodhpur (respondent No. 2), on August 2, 1961, for admission to the LL.B. (Previous) Class. He was informed that he could not be admitted as instructions had been received from the University of Rajasthan (respondent No. 1) in their letter Ex. P.2, dated February 13, 1960, that students passing the B. A. Examination as private candidates from other Universities should not be admitted to the LL.B. classes. The petitioner thereupon formally wrote to the Principal enquiring why he was not being admitted when he was eligible and there were vacancies. The Principal informed him in his lette...
Onkarmal and anr. Vs. Banwarilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj127
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants Onkarmal and Nagarmal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jhunjhunu dated the 20th February, 1956, reversing the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu dated the 8th December, 1954 by which he had dismissed the suit, and partially decreed it. The plaintiffs have also filed a cross-objection. I propose to dispose of both these matters by a single judgment.2. Plaintiffs Banarsilal and Banwarilal are brothers, and the former having died during the pendency of this appeal has been substituted by his widow and his other heirs who being minors are represented by the said widow.3. The parties, apart from defendant No. 1 Jagannath Singh, were residents in the town of jasrapur. The plaintiffs have described themselves in the plaint as respectable businessmen belonging to a well-to-do family. Defendant No. 1 Jagannath Singh was at the time of the happening of the events, out of which this litigation arises, a sub-i...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›