Rajasthan Court March 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.
Dr. Ram Kumar Vs. Mahadeo Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj54
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's execution second appeal against an appellate order of the District Judge- Jhunjhunu.2. The facts which have given rise to it are these. Mahadeo Lal respondent No. 1 brought a suit for mandatory injunction against Thakur Bhim Singh respondent No. 2 and Dr. Ram Kumar appellant in respect of a piece of land 156 1/2ft. X 11ft, on which the appellant had made some constructions. The trial court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff on 29-4-52. Under this decree Dr. Ram Kumar was directed to demolish his constructions standing on the land in dispute within one month failing which they were to be removed at his expense on the plaintiffs applying to the court for execution. In the alternative the defendants were given the option of paying Rs. 257/- by way of compensation to the plaintiff within one month failing which the decree for mandatory injunction was to become absolute.3. Neither of the two defendants paid nor tendered the sum of Rs. ...
State Vs. Moti Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Raj35
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, recommending that the order of commitment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nawalgarh for the trial of the accused under Sections 409, 468 and 477A I.P.C be quashed.2. The facts which led to the prosecution of the accused are that that he was Branch Post-Master in village Parasrampura from 3rd March, 1953 to 12th June, 1953, and during this period he received a number of money orders and insured letters to be delivered to their respective addressees, but instead he misappropriated the amounts to his own use, forged the receipts of the addressees and made false entries in the account books of the Branch Post Office. The number of items in respect of which misappropriation and falsification of accounts, is said to have been committed by him, is 19. In each case the addressee is different and the money orders and the insured letters were also to be delivered on different dates. The police after i...
Champalal Vs. Saligram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Raj235
Modi, J.1. This is a civil regular first appeal by the defendant Champalal from a judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Merta, dated the 30th April, 1955, in a suit for money.2. The plaintiff's case briefly put, was that. on the 25th January, 1947, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the former and had executed a receipt Ex. 1 for it on the same date and that he had also executed a pro-misssory note on that very date in favour of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the defendant had agreed to pay interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the principal sum aforesaid. It was further alleged that the defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 2750/- as interest for the period from the 25th January 1947 to the 25th August 1951, which fact had been acknowledged by him in his letter dated the 20th September, 1931, Ex. 7.The case of the plaintiff further was that in the meantime he had many a time pressed the defendant to repay the loan as a result of which the lat...
Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi Vs. Braham Dutt BhargavA.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR387(Raj)
MODI J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in pursuance of a direction made by a bench of this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The material facts are these. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family consisting of two adult members, Braham Dutt Bhargava and Mahesh Dutt Bhargava, being brothers, and of their minor sons, each brother having three sons in number. The assessment year under consideration was 1952-53, the relevant accounting year being 1951-52. The dispute is about certain shares which originally belonged to the assessee family but which were settled in trust by the manager of this Hindu undivided family, Braham Dutt Bhargava, by a trust deed (exhibit A) dated September 3, 1951, to which the other brother, Mahesh Dutt Bhargava, was a consenting party. By this trust deed, the shares in question which were of the face value of Rs. 1,00,068-8-0, and the particulars whereof were given in the schedule annexed to the deed,...
Gulab Rai Vs. Rajasthan State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ666
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner Gulab Rai Utu Mal is a Saraf of Jodhpur and carries on business of sale and purchase of bullion in the city. On 27th September, 1958, the police of Jodhpur, headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is a respondent to the application, raided the petitioner's shop situate in Sarafa Bazar. They seized three books of account of the petitioner being his Sahi Bahi, Kachchi Rokar and Pakki Rokar. This search and recovery appears to have been made in connection with the investigation of some complaint dated 26th September, 1958 purporting to refer to offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878) read with Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947). Nearly a month after the search, i.e., on 28th October, 1958, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police summoned the petitioner and asked him...
Jagdish Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1961
Reported in: 1963CriLJ233
ORDERD.S. Dave, J.1. This is an application in revision by complainant, Jagdish, against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated the 30th November, 1959.2. The facts giving rise to it are that on the 16th of July, 1957, the present petitioner, Jagdish, filed a complaint in the court of the Magistrate First Class, Neem-ka-Thana, against 11 accused for offences under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. It was stated in the complaint that in village Ajitgarh where he was residing he had a house and near that house he had his Nohra in which a bath-room was constructed. In the Nohra there was a door which led to a public well situated nearby. It was alleged that on the 20th of June, 1957, all the 11 accused mentioned in the complaint committed criminal trespass in the said Nohra having made preparations to cause hurt to him. He proceeded to say that after having entered the Nohra, the accused started demolishing the bath-room and when the compla...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›