Rajasthan Court February 1961 Judgments
Durga Prasad and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj92
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, recommending that the conviction of the accused namely Durgaprasad, Tilakraj, Dharamvir and Mahavir who are railway employees be set aside. Each of them has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25/- under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act by the First Class Railway Magistrate, Jodhpur.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has made the recommendation on the ground that the prosecution evidence is discrepant and does not establish the guilt of the accused. The learned Judge after discussing the prosecution evidence says that it has been not proved beyond all manner of doubt that the accused applicants gave beating to Jhumarmal or abused him. The learned Railway Magistrate on the other hand has believed the statements of Jhumarmal and Ranjitsingh and held that it is proved from their evidence that all the accused persons abused and beat Jhumarmal. In his opinion the evidence of these two witn...
Tag this Judgment!Gappulal Gordhandas and ors. Vs. Chunilal Shyam Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Raj286
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. These are connected revision applications arising out of a suit for fixation of standard rent filed by the respondent under Section 6 of theRajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950.2. The plaintiff is an unregistered firm. The suit was resisted by the landlords inter alia on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act the present suit is not maintainable. The trial court upheld this objection and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge relying on Sreemannarayanamurthy v. Arjanadu, AIR 1939 Mad 145 held that Section 69 of the Partnership Act was not applicable as the suit was not to enforce a right arising out of any contract but was a suit for enforcing a right conferred by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950.In the Madras case a petition for adjudication of a debtor as an insolvent was moved by a creditor. It was resisted on the ground that the creditor being an u...
Tag this Judgment!Pali Electricity Company Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1961
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ240Raj
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 15 July 1958.2. The facts giving rise to the application are that a reference was made to the said tribunal by the Government of Rajasthan under Notification No. D. 4136/F.-14 (18) Labour/55 dated 24 January 1956, for adjudication of an industrial dispute between the petitioner, the Pali Electricity Company, Ltd., Pali, and its workmen represented by the Power House Labour Union, Pali. The dispute referred to was whether the workmen of the Pali Electricity Company were entitled to get bonus for the years 1953-54 and 1954-55 and if so, what should be the quantity of such bonus.3. The case of the union was that if the balance sheet is properly examined, the petitioner-company made a net profit of Rs. 13,301-3-0 in the year 1953-54 and Rs. 28,214-1-3 in the year 1954-55; the company was, therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Narsingh Das Ladu Mal Vs. Trilokchand Paddiwal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Raj247
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a decree-holder's appeal against an order of the Senior Civil Judge Ajmer passed in execution proceedings.2. A decree for Rs. 10,600/- was passed in favour of the decree-holder against the Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd. on 13-7-56 by the Senior Civil Judge Kishangarh. The decree-holder filed his first execution application on 10-8-56 in which the decretal amount was shown as Rs. 10,000/-. It was pointed out by the office that the amount was not correctly shown. He was directed to amend the application. He presented an amended application on 4-9-56 on which execution case No. 239/56 was registered. In column No. 10 of the application it was prayed that moveable and immoveable properties of the judgment-debtor may be proceeded against.3. On 31-10-56 on the application of the judgment-debtor three months time was granted to it to bring a stay order from the Supreme Court on furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the executing court. Trilok Chand r...
Tag this Judgment!Magna and anr. Vs. Rustam and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Raj3
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by two of the defendants against an appellate order of the District Judge Bhilwara ordering demolition of constructions made in defiance of an order of temporary injunction passed under Order 39 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure.2. The facts which have given rise to this application are these. Between the houses of the plaintiffs and Magni Ram and Baloo Ram defendants there is a piece of enclosed open land marked ABCD in plan Ex. 17. This land is situated to the south of the house of the plaintiffs. Eight Baris marked H. to Order 8 Roshandans marked Y1 to Y8 and one window marked G of the house of the plaintiffs open towards this land. Further 9 open projecting spouts of the house of the plaintiffs discharge on this land. Three of these spouts are on the first floor and marked P, Q and R. Six of them are on the second floor and are marked S to X. There is an opening EF in the northern wall of the house of the contesting defendants th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Raj287
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money. The suitwas dismissed by the Munsif, Sironj on 23-12-1955. An appeal was preferred in the court of District Judge, Kota on 23-1-1956. It was pending in thatcourt on 1-11-1956 when Sironj was transferred from Rajasthan to Madhya Pradesh. On 22-5-1956 the District Judge transferred the appeal for disposal to the Civil Judge Bundi who dismissed iton 16-1-1957.2. One of the grounds taken in the revision application is that the court of Civil Judge, Bundi, had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal as under Section 125 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956 it stood transferred to the court of District Judge Bhilsa in Madhya Pradesh. The relevant portion of Section 125 runs as follows :'Every proceeding pending immediately before the appointed day before a court (other than a High Court), tribunal, authority or officer in anyarea which on that day falls within a State shall, if it is a pr...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Vs. Income-tax Officer. Mali Ram V. Collector, BhilwarA.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR317(Raj)
SARJOO PROSAD C.J. - The petitioners before us pray for an appropriate writ or direction quashing the proceedings for recovery of arrears of tax and penalty pending before the Collector and the Tehsildar of Bhilwara and preventing the respondents from collecting the tax in question.The relevant facts on which the application is founded are these. The petitioners are members of a joint Hindu family firm carrying on business at Bhilwara. On 28th January, 1958, the Income-tax Officer concerned made an ex parte best judgment assessment against the petitioners under section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) for the assessment year 1956-57. The tax assessed was to the tune of Rs. 1,96,015.03 nP., in addition to a penalty of Rs. 9,800 imposed under section 46(1) of the Act. Notices of demand under section 29 of the Act were issued in respect of the above amounts. Since the petitioners firm was unable to pay the amount, the Income-tax Officer concerned forwarded to the C...
Tag this Judgment!Hazarimal Kochnaji Vs. Khemchand Maggaji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj86
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Modi J. dated 1st December, 1958.2. It arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of money instituted by the plaintiff-respondent in this appeal. The parties belong to the Porwal caste and they happen to be relations inasmuch as the plaintiff's daughter is married to the brother of the defendant Hazarimal. It is the common case of both the parties that Hazarimal had been out-casted by his caste-men, which is known as the Porwal Sangh, some six years ago. Hazarimal was, therefore, anxious to be restored to his caste and to have the ban removed. He accordingly collected the Panchas who came from 48 different villages and consisted of nearly 150 persons at Umaidpur for the purpose of having a meeting of the Panchayat in order to remove the ban which had been imposed upon him. This was in the month of Migsar Vadi 15, Samwat 2008, which corresponds to 17th November, 1952 (and not 11th November, 1952, as noted in the judg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›