Rajasthan Court November 1966 Judgments
Ali Mohammad Vs. Ramniwas and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj258
I.N. Modi, J.1. These are two connected appeals which arise out of the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu dated the 18th of October, I960 in a suit for redemption of a mortgage. Appeal No. 125 of 1961 has been filed by the mortgagor Ali Mohammad while appeal No. 134 of 1961 by the mortgagees. I propose to dispose of both these appeals by a single judgment.2. It is common ground between the parties that the plaintiff Ali Mohammad along with his mother Mst. Laxmi made a mortgage of the two shops in suit in favour of the defendants to secure a loan of Rs. 1565 by a registered mortgage deed dated 22nd August, 1927 vide Ex. A3. The mortgage was of a usufructuary character. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed to redeem the shops in suit on payment of the mortgage money amounting to Rs. 1565. The defendants resisted the suit.In addition to the mortgage deed Ext. A-3 they urged that by another document Ext. A-1 dated Kati Sudi 9 S. 1987 corresponding to sometime in Nove...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Vs. Fattu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj235
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a defendant's revision application against an order of the appellate court holding that the suit document is not a promissory note. The document runs as follows: 'I Hanuman son of Hiralal declare that I have borrowed Rs. 300/- from Fattu in cash. I shall pay this amount to you on demand or on the demand of the person whom you order payment at the place of business together with interest at Rs. 1.50 per month on Mah Sudi l-S. 2016.' The pronote was executed on Katik Badi 1-X. 2016 and was attested by a witness Bhanwarlal. The appellate court held, following the decision of a learned Singh Judge of the Madras High Court in Muthu Gounder v. Perumayammal, AIR 1961 Mad 347 that the promise contained in the above document was not unconditional inasmuch as the amount was payable on demand, the demand being a condition precedent. 2. In the above case the language of the promissory note runs as follows: '1 promise to pay you or your order after a period of two ...
Tag this Judgment!Singhal Transport Vs. Jesaram Jamumal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Raj89
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by the defendant against an order of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Bhilwara, holding that he has jurisdiction to try the suit. The revision application has been contested by the plaintiff.2. M/s. Krishna Agencies, Jaipur delivered 48 tins of Sarson oil to defendant M/s. Singhal Transport having its head office at Udaipur for carriage to Bhilwara. The consignment was to be delivered to the plaintiff M/s. Jesaram Jamumal of Bhilwara. It was booked by goods ticket No. Fr. 508961 dated 26-6-65. On the face of this ticket it is printed:'The Consignor has expressly declared that the above particulars furnished by him or by his representative or his Agent are correct. No prohibited goods or articles are included and that he is fully aware of and accepts the conditions of carriage given on the back side of this Consignment receipt. Signature of Booking OfficialSignature of Consignor.'3. The above print is signed by the booking official bu...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Hosiery Mills Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC416(Raj)
Kan Singh, J.1. We have before us 9 writ petitions of identical nature by which the petitioners, who are dealers registered under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act', challenge the validity of the Government Notification No. F. 5 (99) E. & T./60 dated 26th March, 1962, issued under Section 4(2) of the Act in supersession of a previous Notification No. F. 5(3) E. & T./58 dated 31st January, 1958, which while exempting the sale of garments the value of which did not exceed Rs. 4 in single piece, excluded hosiery products from the ambit of the exemption. They also seek appropriate writ, order or directions for quashing the assessment orders made by the respondent No. 4, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jaipur. All these writ petitions can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment. We may give a short history of the matter for appreciating the controversy properly.2. The notification that was superseded by the impugned notification was ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Charan Tiwari Vs. Kanhaiyalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj176
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a plaintiffs civil regular second appeal in a suit for arrears of rent which had been decreed in full by the trial Court but was dismissed in part by the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer, on appeal on the ground of limitation.2. The material facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows: The plaintiff is a brother of one Bal Mukund Tiwari, deceased, who created a trust with respect to the property in suit of which the defendant was made a trustee along with two other persons with whom we are not concerned. It is admitted that the defendant had been living in the said property as a tenant since 1945 on a rent of Rs. 12/8/- per mensem. The plaintiff's case is that the aforesaid trust had been held to be void by the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, by his judgment dated the 30th September, 1959, in civil suit No, 116 of 1958 filed at the instance of the plaintiff himself and that he had been declared to be the nearest heir of Bal Mukund deceased and as such ...
Tag this Judgment!Sibal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1966
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ468Raj
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition by one Sibal Singh, who was a sub-inspector of police in the State of Raj as than and by it he questions the validity of the order of his compulsory retirement dated 21 August 1935 (Ex 37 on record), issued under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1952. He also prays for an appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondent. The relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows:The petitioner joined the service in the erstwhile Jodhpur State in the Police Department as a constable on 13 April 1934. He claims that on account of his hard and honest work ha was promoted first as a head constable and then as an officiating sub-inspector in 1917. He says that he also received sanad and cash rewards for his good work from time to time. On the formation of Rajasthan he came to be confirmed as a sub-inspector of police on 16 August 1952 under orders of the inspector-General of Police. He submits that, as sub-inspector, his work was apprec...
Tag this Judgment!Badan Bai Vs. Bhom Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Raj39; [1967(15)FLR13]; (1967)IILLJ340Raj
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30(1)(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act against an order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner distributing compensation amongst the dependants of the deceased workman.2. The relevant facts are these. M/s. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd., reported to the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner that a workman named Vijay Singh son of Bhom Singh had died on 30-1-63 as a result of an accident during the course of his employment. On 4-2-63 Vijay Singh's widow Smt. Badan Bai filed a claim before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Another claim xvas filed on 25-2-63 by the workman's father Bhomsingh who claimed that he was dependant on Vijaysingh. On 4-5-63 a sum of Rs. 2400/- was deposited by the employer with the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under Section 8(1).The Commissioner held an enquiry as to who were the dependants of the workman and came to the finding that besides ...
Tag this Judgment!KutbuddIn and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj257
ORDERB.P. Beri, J. 1. This is a bail application under Section 498 Cr. P. C. on behalf of four accused persons who are facing their trial before the District Magistrate, Jaipur under Section 3 read with Section 9 of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 (Act XIX of 1923) (hereinafter called 'the Act') and Rules 39 and 41 of the Defence of India Rules. 2. Mr. Nuri appearing for the applicants urged that they were arrested on 19th September, 1965 and excepting for a brief interval when they were admitted to bail by this Court, they have been throughout in custody. Section 3 of the Act, urged the learned counsel, envisages two categories of offences. The first is when any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, inter alia, obtains, collects, records or publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official code or pass word, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or i...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Raghuraj Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Raj14
Modi, J.1. These two civil appeals arise out of a single judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Bun'di, dated 14th October. 1958, in a suit for refund of money and we propose to dispose of them together by present judgment.2. The material facts may shortly be stated as follows :--3. The plaintiff was the ex-Jagirdar of Thikana Koila in the former State of Kola It is admitted that his jagir was resumed by the State on the 1st August, 1954. under the Rajas-than Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The State of Kota. as it then was, was merged in what may conveniently be called the first United State of Rajasthan in April, 1948, and became part of the second United State of Rajasthan which was formed in the middle of 1949 The last mentioned State was then formed into the Part B State of Rajasthan with the coming into force of the Constitution on 26th January. 1950. and is now represented by the present State of Rajasthan as it was constituted under the States Reorganisation A...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kanchan Vs. Babu Bhai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj184
D.M. Bhandari, J.1. This Civil Second Appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration filed by Shrimati Kanchan, wife of Dharamchand Gandhi plaintiff-appellant against Veer Chand Gandhi Respondent No. 10 and Jai Shanker Brahmin whose legal representatives are Defendant respondents Nos. 1 to 9 in this appeal. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that Jai Shanker defendant had obtained a money decree for the recovery of Rs. 7,224-3-6 against Veerchand Gandhi defendant on 29-7-57 in execution of which he got attached two houses situate in village Kohra, more particularly described in Para. No. 2 of the plaint, These houses belonged to Vaneychand Gandhi son of Veerchand Gandhi who had separated from his father in Sambat 1987. The said Vaneychand made a gift of these two houses on 13-9-1955 and executed a registered deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff appellant who was the daughter-in-law of the donor.The plaintiff-appellant filed an objection application under Order 21, Rule 58 C. P. C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›