Rajasthan Court August 1964 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.
Gayoor Ahmad Khan Vs. Hazarimal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj41
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by one Gayoor Ahmad Khan of Banner against an appellate order of the District Judge, Balotra holding that the executing Court (Munsif Barmer) had jurisdiction to attach a camel which was in the custody of a Court at Balotra under Order 21, Rule 52, C. P. C. 2. Hazari Mal and Prabhu Lal respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have a money decree against Achar respondent No. 3. In, execution of this decree a camel belonging to Achar was attached by the Amin, Achar seized the camel from the custody of the Amin by force and was prosecuted under Section 394, I. P. C. The camel was delivered in the custody of Gayoor Ahmad Khan applicant by the Sessions Court, Balotra. The decree-holders again applied for the attachment of this camel in execution of their decree under Order 21, Rule 52, C. P. C. and the camel was attached. GayoorAhmad Khan failed to produce it before the Court. Execution was then levied against Gayoor Ahmad Khan. This was resisted by h...
Mst. Kusuma Devi and anr. Vs. Govind Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj40; 1965CriLJ224
ORDERI.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a revision by Mst. Kusuma Devi against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, dated 22nd March, 1963. Upholding an order of the City Magistrate, Jaipur, dated the 28th May, 1962, directing that she should appear in Court for being examined in a proceeding under Section 107, Cri. P. C. 2. It appears that on the application of respondent Thakur Govind Singh, a case was registered under Section 107, Cri. P. C. against the petitioner and her husband in the Court of the City Magistrate, Jaipur. The petitioner was admittedly exempted from personal attendance in Court and was permitted to appear by a pleader under Section 116, Cri. P. C. After the evidence of the opposite party, who was the petitioner in the trial Court was concluded, the Magistrate adjourned the case for the examination of the petitioner and for his evidence. An application was moved on behalf of the petitioner here that the provisions of Section 342, Cri, P. C. were not applica...
Bajrang Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj82
ORDER1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Bairang Singh, erstwhile Jagirdar of Harpura, District Aimer.2. His Jagir was resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of jagirs Act, 1952 (which with hereinafter be referred to as the Act). The question of compensation to be given to him was decided by the Deputy Collector (Jagir), Ajmer on 30th August, 1958. The Deputy Collector (Jagir) communicated this decision to the Government under Section 33 of the Act and it reached the Government on 3rd of October, 1958. The Government of Rajasthan preferred an appeal against the said decision under Section 39 of the Act and that appeal was filed on 1st December, 1958 before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. When the appeal came up for hearing, it was urged by the petitioner, who was respondent in that appeal, that the appeal was time barred. It was pointed out that under Rule 39 of the Act 90 days timewas provided for filing an appeal from the ...
State Vs. Parasram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj9
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara recommending that the charge-framed against the accused Parasram under Section 466, Indian Penal Code be quashed. With this recommendation there is an implicit further recommendation that the commitment of the accused for trial to the Court of session Bhilwara be also quashed. The Sessions Judge also recommends that the other offence under Section 167, Indian Penal Code be directed to be tried by the committing Magistrate.2. The facts giving rise to the reference are briefly these:3. The accused Parasram is a Patwari in the service of the Rajasthan State. He was holding charge of the Patwar circle, Meloni, for the period from Samvat years 2014 to 2017. In the village. Meloni there is a well named 'Panch Chhorin'. The complainant Dayaram and his brother Parthu were shown as holder of 1/5th share in the well in the revenue record up to the samvat year 2014. Champa Jat was not shown as a co-sharer with Dayaram a...
Bijai Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj11; [1965(10)FLR154]
Bhandari, J.1. This is a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on behalf of Bijai Cotton Mills Ltd., Bijainagar which carries on the business of manufacturing yarn at Bijainagar, Tehsil Beawar, which formed part of the State of Ajmer-Merwara before its merger in Rajasthan in 1956.2. Sometime in the year 1950 a dispute arose between the petitioner and its workmen regarding the scale of wages being paid to the workmen. The contention of the workmen was that it was much below the subsistence level. The Government of Ajmer referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(15) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These proceedings after a prolonged trial ended on the 7th June 1955 in an award by Mr. C. Jacob, who was appointed as the Tribunal. In substance the award fixed the basic minimum wages to be paid to all categories of workmen as specified in the enclosure to the award. The workmen were further held entitled to t...
Chiman Lal Vs. Amar Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj3
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a defendant's revision application against two orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Banswara, dated 31-1-64 and 2-3-64. 2. Chiman Lal defendant mortgaged a house in favour of Lalchand and Bhanwarlal on 18-7-52 for Rs. 6,000/- under a registered mortgage-deed. Lalchand and Bhanwarlal assigned the mortgagee rights in favour of Amarchand on 23-1-60 and he instituted the present suit for sale on the basis of the mortgage-deed on 15-5-63. The defendant pleaded that there were two novations of the mortgage deed--one in S. 2009-10 when a new Khata was opened by Lalchand and Bhanwarlal and again on Migsar Badi 2, S. 2016 (corresponding to 2-12-59) when Lalchand executed a writing. No registered document was executed at the time of the alleged novation of contract in S. 2009-10. Nor was the writing dated 2-12-59 registered. The learned Senior Civil Judge held under his order dated 31-1-64 that no unregistered agreement varying the terms of the mortgage could be rec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›