Rajasthan Court August 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.
Putto Lal Vs. His Highness Maharaja Dhiraj Sumersinghji of Kishengarh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj63
Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff Putto Lal Sharma against a judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, dated the 21st January, 1960, by which he recorded a compromise alleged to have been arrived at between the parties and dismissed the plaintiffs suit in accordance with it, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.2. The material facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows. The plaintiff was a building contractor at Ajmer. The defendant is Maharaja Sumer Singh, Ruler of Kishengarh which was a neighbouring independent State in 1947 and 1948. The plaintiffs case was that as a result of an agreement between the parties, he had built two palaces for the said Ruler of Kishengarh, one at Ajmer and the other at Kishengarh and had also undertaken certain other works of a subsidiary nature for the defendant, the details of which were mentioned in the plaint and that he had repeatedly asked him and a Colonel A Sharman, who was his controller of pe...
Seth Ramrichhpal Sirya Vs. Ajmer Traders
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj87
Chhangani, J. 1. The appellant Seth Ramrichhpal Sirya, on behalf of himself and as manager and karta of the joint Hindu family known as Tilokchand Dilsukhrai, resident of AJmer, has filed this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, dated 16-2-1960, overruling the appellant's objections to the validity of the award and making award a rule of the Court and directing a decree In terms oj the award. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are briefly theseThe respondent M/s. Ajmer Traders, a registered partnership firm, Naya Bazar, Ajmer, through its partner Birdhichand of Ajmer put in an application in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, on 18th March, 1958, against Seth Ramrichpal Sirya of Ajmer, praying for a judgment and decree on the basis of an award. The respondent-applicant's case was that the respondent and the appellant having had some dispute in regard to certain shon situated...
Nathmal Tarachand Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC1000(Raj)
J.S. Ranawat, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 15(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter in this judgment referred to as the Act). Messrs Nathmal Tarachand of Bikaner is a firm of registered dealers carrying on business in gold and silver bullion and ornaments. The annual turnover of the firm for the year 1955-56 was assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, Bikaner, on the 14th of June, 1956, and exemption from sales tax was allowed only for the period commencing from the 22nd of September, 1955, to the end of the year, and no exemption was allowed for the period before the 22nd of September, 1955. The accounts of the firm were maintained from Diwali to Diwali. It is not in dispute that the firm deposited a fee of Rs. 10 on the 1st of July, 1955, for grant of an exemption certificate under the notification issued by the State Government on the 14th of April, 1955. It is contended by the firm that an application for grant of exemption was made by it on the day on which t...
State Vs. Tonk Calico Printers (Private) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj134
Ranawat, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the State from the judgment of the City Magistrate, Jaipur, dated the 10th of December, 1959, acquitting the accused persons of an offence under Section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Messrs. Tonk Calico Printers (Private) Limited was registered as a private company on the 29th of September, 1956 and the other two accused Mehtabchand Golchha and Harinarain Rathi were its Directors. The Company failed to file copies of its balance-sheet and profit and loss account with the Registrar of Companies. The plea of the accused was that as the business of the Company was not commenced and its capital was not raised, there was no necessity of submitting the documents. It was argued in the trial Court that as no annual general meeting was held, the question of filing the documents did not arise and the same argument has been advanced before us.3. The trial Magistrate held that the provisions of Section 220 were controll...
State Vs. Tonk Calico Printers (Private) Ltd., Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj138
Ranawat, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the State from the judgment of the City Magistrate, Jaipur, dated the 10th of December, 1959, acquitting the three accused, namely, the Tonk Calico Printers (Private) Ltd., Jaipur, and its two Directors Seth Mehtabchand Golchha and Harinarain Rathi of an offence under Section 159 read with Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter in this judgment referred to as the Act), for not submitting, in spite of the Registrar's notice, a return containing the particulars specified in Part I of Schedule V of the Act, with reference to the day on which the annual general meeting was held.2. The explanation of the accused persons was that the company was running in loss and that as no general meeting was held for that reason, the return containing the particulars required by Section 159(1) was not submitted to the Registrar.3. The learned Magistrate held that Section 159 was controlled by Section 166(1) and that as no annual general meeting was held...
Heera Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ239
ORDERB.P. Beri, J.1. This is a report under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the District Magistrate, Alwar, recommending that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 28th July, 1960, whereby the Magistrate ordered under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the restoration of possession of certain lands to Gokulchand, be quashed.2. The circumstances out of which the present controversy arises are that on 24th July, 1959, an application was made by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kathumar under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against 8 persons, namely, Heera Singh, Ganpat, Ganeshee, Kulfa, Kallu Dashrath, Shivlal and Hurmath. It was alleged in this application that in Tehsil Laxmangarh Khasra Nos. 1711, 343, 395, 478 and 479 measuring 16 Bighas which was evacuee property was allotted to Gokalchand by the Managing Officer, Alwar, by his order dated 25th June, 1959, Possession of this 16 Bighas of land was given to Gokul hand...
Thakur Umed Singh Vs. Amolakchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj93
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit tor recovery of price of goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. This suit was partly decreed by both courts below to the extent of Rs. 911/12/3 as principal and Rs. 201/11/9 as interest.2. The main question in this appeal is whether the courts below have exercised their discretion properly in disallowing pendente lite and future interest to the plaintiff. In order to appreciate the point in controversy, a few facts require to be stated. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit as stated above but disallowed pendente lite and future interest by a cryptic observation in its judgment that it did not consider it proper to allow any such interest to the plaintiff. Both parties felt aggrieved by this judgment and challenged it, the defendant by way of an appeal and the plaintiff by a cross-objection. It seems that the appeal and the cross-objection were both heard by the learned Civil Judge on the 21st September, 1956,...
Kishenlal Vs. Mst. Prabhu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj95
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a civil regular second appeal by the plaintiff Kishenlal in a suit for 'declaration which was decreed by the trial Court but on appeal dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City, by his judgment dated 24-4-1961.2. The material facts leading upto this appeal are these. It is common ground between the parties that the plaintiff (husband) and the defendant (wife) were married to each other when they were both minors of about six or seven years of age. According to the plaintiff, this marriage took place on 20-4-1940. The plaintiff's case then is that his parents sent for the defendant to live in their house when she had reached the age of 13 years and she came but she did not allow him to consummate the marriage and soon left for her parents' house. Thereafter the defendant's mother died near about 1948 and the defendant started living with her maternal grand-mother. The case of the plaintiff further is that the defendant developed an illicit intimacy...
State Vs. Raghunath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Raj85; 1963CriLJ484
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur recommending that the order of City Magistrate, Jodhpur dated 23rd October, 1961, passed in Criminal Case No. 317 of 1961, under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code be set aside.2. Against Raghunath and one other person the Police submitted a report under Sections 420 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the City Magistrate, Jodhpur. The learned Magistrate after complying with the provisions of Sub-sections (i) and (2) of Section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure framed charges against the accused under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on 6th June, 1961. The accused did not plead guilty. The learned Magistrate fixed a date forthe examination of the prosecution witnesses. On 23rd October, 1961, when Munirkhan P. W. 3 was being examined, prosecution wanted the witness to prove certain entries from a log book pertaining to Jeep No. 723 of the Excise and Taxation Depa...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›