Rajasthan Court December 1962 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.
Divisional Personnel Officer, Western Railway, Ajmer Vs. Brijkishore K ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Raj66
Ranawat, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Western Railway, Ajmer challenging the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (No. IV of 1936) at Ajmer dated the 30th of June, 1959 by which a direction was issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act to the Western Railway and its officers to refund to the opposite party Brijkishore Khanna, son of Ramkishore Khanna an amount of Rs. 246/7/- held to have been illegally deducted and a further injunction was issued to refrain from making deductions from his salary in future on that account after the 1st of December 1955. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. They may briefly be put as under. Brijkishore who is the opposite party in this case joined the service of the B. B. and C. I. Railway on the 29th of March, 1945 and he was put in the grade of Rs. 30 to 80/-. The B. B. and C. I. Railway was later on styled as West...
Radha Kishna and anr. Vs. Natmal Bubna
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj193
Modi, J.1. This is a reference by a learned Single Judge and arises out of a revision which was pending before him in an application under the Arbitration Act, which has admittedly not been finally decided by the trial Court.2. In view of the conclusion at which we have arrived as regards the competence of this reference, it is necessary to set forth a few facts :--3. On the 22nd of February, 1957, an application was made by Nathmal Bubna, respondent here, with a prayer that the award made by one Fateh Chand Paliram Jhunjhunu-wala in a dispute between him and the petitioners here, who were opposite parties in the trial Court, be declared to be invalid, illegal and inoperative and should, therefore, be set aside. This application was made under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act. Along with this application a further application was also made on the same day under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act praying that the arbitration agreement and the award be sent for from the said arbitrato...
J. George Vs. Premi Solomen and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ719
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate, First Class, Ajmer on 17th March, 1962 in, the case instituted on a private complaint.2. It appears that Shri J. George filed complaint under S. 323 of the Indian Penal Code: against Mrs. Premi Solomen and Miss Asha Soloman for causing hurt to his wife. Statement of.' the complainant was recorded on 17th January,. 1962 but the statement of his wife remained incomplete on that day on account of some objections being raised on behalf of the accused regarding the admissibility of a document. The objection was decided on 30th January, 1962, when the>; case was adjourned to 11-3-62. When the case-was called the complainant was absent and the learned Magistrate, acquitted the accused on account of the non-appearance of the complainant, acting under Section 247 of the Code. It appears, that on the same day an application was submitted; by the co...
Balmukand and anr. Vs. Jagan Nath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj212
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ganganagar dated the nth July, 1957, affirming the judgment and decree of theCivil Judge Suratgarh dated the 19th March, 1956, dismissing the plaintiffs suit for recovery of damages in circumstances presently to be mentioned. 2. The plaintiffs father and son carried on business as commission agents in the name and style of Balmukund Dharamchand at Raisinghnagar. It is alleged that this was a joint Hindu family firm. The defendant who was a Patwari at Raisinghnagar some time before the present suit was brought had an account with the plaintiffs in whirh he used to deposit monies from time to time. The plaintiffs' case was that between the 25th April, 1951, and the 25th June, 1951, the defendant placed an oral order for the purchase of 200 bags of Sarson under their commission agency. These were accordingly purchased at a price of Rs. 12,343/-/6, and this sum was debited against th...
Laduram and anr. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1962
Reported in: 1964CriLJ126
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by Laduram and Ridhkaran against whom charges Under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code have been trained by the learned First Class Magistrate, Churu.2. The facts of the case are that a contract for holding cattle fair was auctioned by the Muncipal Board, Rajaldesar in 1957 and the bid of onei Bhagwat Dayal for Rs. 1051/- being the highest, it was sanctioned in his favour. On 12th October, 1959 Bhgwat Dayal sent an application through one Shubhram to the petitioner No. 1 who was the Chairman of the Municipal Board. Rajaldesar, saying that Shubhram was his partner and he should be allowed to hold the cattle fair. Whatever amount of the instalment is paid by him should be deposited and he would himself meet the chairmar on 15th or 16th October. The amount remaining due for the instalment would be paid and the Municipal Board should not worry about it.It is said that Shubhram paid Rs. 175/-, to the petitioner No. 1 on that date...
Dhanna Vs. Arjun Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj240
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a revision application by the defendant against an ex parte decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Udaipur. 2. The sole question which arises for determination is whether the proviso to Clause 15(1) of the Rajasthan Small Cause Courts Ordinance is mandatory or not. Clause 15 of the Ordinance corresponds to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This proviso runs as follows: 'Provided that an applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte or for a review of judgment shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit in the Court the amount due from him under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment, or give such security for the performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the Court may on a previous application made by him in this behalf, have directed.' 3. The underlined portion of the above proviso was added by Act IX of 1935. Before the amendment the words were-'security to the satisfact...
Dhulilal Vs. Pannalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj110
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for redemption of mortgage and arises in circumstances presently to be mentioned.2. The plaintiff's case was that he had made a usufructuary mortgage ;of the suit shop, the boundaries whereof have been fully described in paragraph one of the plaint, as a security for a loan of Rs. 1500/- taken by him from the defendant on the 3rd August, 1945, vide Ex. 1. I shall refer to the conditions of this mortgage at the proper place. Suffice it to state at this place that the plaintiff asked the defendant to give redemption of the suit property but without any avail, and, consequently, he instituted the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, on the 30th July, 1959, in the Court of the Musiff Kotah. The defendant admitted the mortgage but he denied that the plaintiff had ever offered the redemption money to him. His principal contention, however, was that the plaintiff was in no case entitled to get possession, of the shop becau...
Mst. Bhoridevi and anr. Vs. Mst. Sua and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj141
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for the declaration and possession which has been dismissed by both Courts below.2. The material facts leading up to this appeal are these. The suit house originally belonged to one Mangilal who on his death was survived by his widow Mst. Goran alias Mst. Bhuri and his three sons Ganpat, Nandkishore and Chandnarain. A partition of the house in question had taken place, between the sons and the widow of the said Mangilal, on the 23rd September, 1946. At this partition a portion of the house, of which particulars are given in paragraph two of the plaint, fell to the share of Ganpat.Thereafter on the 9th December, 1947, Ganpat, it is alleged, sold his share of the suit house to the plaintiff Roopnarain, for a sum of Rs. 999/- by a registered sale-deed Ex. 1.The case of the plaintiff further was that Ganpat thereafter took the same on rent from the plaintiff on the 11th January, 1949, by a rent-note Ex. 3. Thereafter Ganpat and ...
Rafiq Vs. Smt. Bashiran and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj239
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is an appeal by one Rafiq, a Muslim father, against an order of the Civil Judge Bundi passed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, directing him to deliver the custody of his 31/2 year old daughter to his wife's mother's father's sister Smt. Bashiran.2. Rafiq divorced the minor's mother Smt. Gulshan on 12-1-59. After the divorce the minor remained in the custody of her mother who was living with her father Bahairddin. Smt. Gulshan however remarried on 29-7-60 and went to live with her husband leaving her minor daughter with her father Bahauddin. According to the finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge Rafiq took away his minor daughter from the house of Bahauddin without his consent. The present application under Section 25 of the Guardianship Act was then filed on 1-8-60 by Bahauddin's sister Smt, Bashiran. This application was granted by the learned Senior Civil Judge on the ground that under the Mahomedan Law Smt. Bashiran had a preferential rig...
Dhanna and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj104; 1963CriLJ615
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application on behalf of Dhanna, Jagannath and Kana under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for allowing them rehearing in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1962 which was rejected by the Court on 26th November, 1962.2. At the time of hearing of the appeal, appellants and their counsel were absent and the appeal was decided after a perusal of the record of the case. The judgment was delivered orally in open Court. Before the transcript of the judgment was prepared by the judgment-writer, an application was moved that the transcript of the judgment should not be signed. Accordingly I did not sign the transcript pending hearing of this application.3. The contention of the learned counsel is that I can rehear the appeal because the judgment passed on 26th November, 1962 has not been signed. He says that Section 369 of the Code applies only when a judgment has been signed and till then the Court can alter or review its judgment. It is also sta...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »