Rajasthan Court November 1964 Judgments
Faujmal Vs. Nathulal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj115
P.N. Shinghal, J. 1. This is an appeal by defendant Faujmal from the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge of Uduipur dated April 6, 1959, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff of Rajsamand dated April 28, 1958, in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immoveable property.2. Nathulal (defendant No. 1) mortgaged his two shops situated in village Jilola to the plaintiff and one other person on Baisakh bad 7, Sm. 2001 for Rs. 1100/- and this fact is not disputed. The plaintiff claimed that Nathulal entered into a contract to sell one of the shops to him for Rs. 300/-and executed agreement Ex. 1 to that effect on February 6, 1955. It was also the plaintiffs case that he was all along prepared to pay Rs. 300/- and have the sale deed executed in his favour but Nathulal avoided doing so and ultimately executed a sale deed of the suit shop in favour of Ranglal (defendant No. 2) on July 11, 1957. This is why the plaintiff instituted his...
Tag this Judgment!Bahadurmal Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj224; 1965CriLJ801
1. The revision applications before me are of identical nature and by them the petitioner Bahadurmal seeks to challenge the judgment of the learned District Judge, Balotra, dated 19-12-63, by which the learned Judge declined to interfere with an order of the learned Civil Judge Balotra, whereby the learned Civil Judge ordered the filing of a complaint against the petitioner for offences under Sections 467, 463 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the revision applications can conveniently be disposed of together.2. As the facts too are identical it will be sufficient to re-count them with reference to suit No. 447 of 1959 in the court of the Civil Judge, Balotra.3. The petitioner Bahadurmal filed a suit on behalf of his minor sons Manilal and Parasmal as their next friend for recovering an amount of Rs. 1000 on the foot of a bond from the defendants Mst. Chuni and Ghewarchand. In that suit the important issue amongst others was about the execution of the bond by the defendants. Bahad...
Tag this Judgment!Sudama Prashad Vs. Divisional Supdt. W. Rly. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj109
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by one Sudama Prashad, who was officiating as Chief Clerk in the scale at Rs. 335-425 in the Western Railway at the relevant time, against an order of his reversion to the lower rank passed by the General Manager, Western Railway on 6-4-64 (Ex. 5 on the record), and the consequent order passed by the Divisional Superintendent, Kota, (Ex-9 on the record).2. There is no dispute on facts and they are briefly set out as follows:3. The petitioner entered the Railway service in the Traffic Department as a clerk sometime in the year 1937, and after various promotions, with which we are not concerned, he came to be appointed as a Head Clerk, Commercial Branch, in the grade of Rs. 210-380 with effect from 1-8-56. and was posted In the office of the Divisional Superintendent, Western Railway, Kota. The Railway authorities had drawn up a panel of suitable persons in the cadre to which the petitioner belonged for ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagatpura Motor Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. K.S. Jhala an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj149
Kan Singh, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a Cooperative Society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act and plies a stage carriage bus-No. R J R 2814, on Hanumangarh Dabwali via Sangana route in Ganganagar district, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 27-8-64 (Ex-4 on the record) passed by respondent No. 1, under Section 33(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act', whereby the registration certificate of the vehicle R J R 2814 was suspended for a period of four months.2. The petitioner Messrs. Bhagatpura Motor Transport Co-operative Society Limited, Bhagatpura, was granted a non-temporary permit valid for a period of three years on 18-4-63, and normally the permit would be valid upto 17-4-1966. On 27-7-64, respondent No. 1, (Regional Transport Officer) served a notice on the petitioner calling upon him to show cause within a week why its registration certificate be not suspended as th...
Tag this Judgment!Anoop Chand Vs. Nathmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj114
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by the defendant against an order of the Civil Judge, Bikaner, returning a promissory note to the plaintiff for getting it certified by the Collector to be duly stamped under Section 37 of the Stamp Act read with Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules 1955. 2. The document in question is a promissory note for Rs. 5000/- executed on 12-8-81. Under Article 49 of the Stamp Act the stamp duty payable on it is 25 Naye Paise. The promissory note is however stamped with four adhesive stamps of 10 Naye Paise inscribed for use for revenue. 2a. The defendant took an objection that the promissory note should have been stamped with one revenue stamp of 25 Naye Paise and as this was not done it is not duly stamped and is inadmissible in evidence. The trial court agreed with the defendant that the promissory note was not duly stamped on this account but was of the opinion that the defect could be cured by obtaining a certificate of the Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Ram and Another Vs. Additional Collector, Jaipur, and Others.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1964
Reported in: [1966]62ITR411(Raj)
KAN SINGH, J. - This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution filed by Daya Ram and Jeth Mal, who were at one time partners of a firm, Messrs. K. Gunamal and Company, at Jaipur, challenging the recovery proceedings taken up by the Additional Collector of Jaipur on a demand of income-tax to the tune of Rs. 1,42,150.57 nP. issued by the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Jaipur, as a result of the assessment proceedings taken against the firm, Messrs. K. Gunamal and Company.The petitioners along with some other persons started a business of manufacturing biscuits and confectionery in the city of Jaipur under the name and style of Messrs. K. Gunamal and Company some time in September, 1950. The deed of partnership is said to have been executed on February 5, 1950, before the business was started by the firm. On February 5, 1952, an application was made on behalf of the firm for its registration under the Income-tax Act before the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Jaipur, but the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Ram and anr. Vs. the Additional Collector and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj205
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 228 of the Constitution filed by Daya Ram and Jeth Mali who ware at one time partners of a firm Messrs. K. Gunamal and Company at Jaipur, challenging the recovery proceedings taken up by the Additional Collector of Jaipur on a demand of income-tax to the tune of Rs. 1,42,150/57 nP. issued by the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Jaipur, as a result of the assessment proceedings taken against the firm Messrs. K. Gunamal and Company. 2. The petitioners along with some other parsons started a business of manufacturing biscuits and confectionery in the city of Jaipur under the name and style of Messrs. K. Gunamal and Company sometime in September, 1950. The deed of Partnership is said to have been executed on 5-2-50, before the business was started by the firm. On 5-2-52, an application was made on behalf of the firm for its registration under the Income-tax Act before the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Jaipur, but the application was rejected ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahant Bhagwandas Vs. Suggan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj143; 1965CriLJ242
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J. 1. These eight references by the Additional District Magistrate, Alwar, should conveniently be disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts in each of them are similar though not Identical. The petitioner in each ofthe references is Bhagwandas. The non-petitioners are different in each of the references.There is alleged to be a dispute between thepetitioner and the non-petitioners as regards possession of some agricultural holdings in threevillages. Each set of the non-petitioners submitted an application on 20th of July, 1963, forinitiating proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. It was alleged in these petitions thateach set of non-petitioners had been in cultivatory possession of an agricultural holding and entries in the revenue record showed their cultivation in the samvat years 2018 and 2019. It was further stated that in respect of the cultivation of 'Rabi' crop of samvat year 2019 the Patwari had made entries in favour of the non-petitioners but the...
Tag this Judgment!Bijai Lal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj96; 1965CriLJ597
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, recommending that the order of the Municipal Magistrate, First Class No. 2. Jaipur, dated 2-1-1961 issuing process against the accused-petitioner Hijai Lal, be set aside.2. The facts giving rise to the present reference are briefly as follows:That there is a cinema house Ganga Talkies at Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur'. One Gopal Chand was given a contract to run a restaurant in the premises of the cinema house to cater to the needs of the cinema visitors and other persons also. Gopalehand not obtained the requisite licence as required by Rule 50 of the Rules made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On 2nd January, 1961. the Perokar of the Municipal Council, Jaipur, presented, after obtaining the consent of the local authority, a complaint against Gopalchand only for offences punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) read with R...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj74; 1965CriLJ478
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. The three appellants, Kalu, Buchia and Delia of village Binds, have been convicted and sentenced as follows by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, vide his order dated 21st April, 1964:--U/s.328 r/w sec. 34 I PC7 years R.I.325 r/w sec. 34 IPC5 years R.I..324 r/w sec. 34 IPC1 year's R.I.323 r/w sec. 34 IPC6 months R.I.All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. Six more persons were tried along with the appellants but they have been acquitted.3. The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants and the six others, may be briefly given as follows: One Mst. Kesar--daughter of Goria of village Banda--was given in marriage to Panna--the elder brother of Manna PW/1 of village Pathria. According to the present prosecution, after Panna's death, Manna contracted a 'nata' marriage with Mst. Kesar on the 12th day of the death of his brother Panna. Thereafter, the prosecution case is that she went to her father Goria at village Banda. The prosecution ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›