Rajasthan Court December 1968 Judgments
Pabudan Hiralal Vs. Shri Mahesh Industries and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Raj59
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by the plaintiff against an order of the trial Court recalling a witness of the plaintiff as a witness of the defendant.2. One application was made on 30-1-68 in which it was stated that Manak Chand had not brought his account books, when he made his statement and so he may be recalled for further cross-examination. No order was passed on this application and it seems that it was not pressed. Another application was made on 3-4-68 in which it was stated that if Manak Chand be not called for fur-ther cross-examination the defendants may be allowed to call his Munim or any other partner to prove his account books. On this application the Court passed an order for summoning Manak Chand on 5-4-68. On 8-5-68 another order was passed which shows that the intention of the Court was to summon Manak Chand as a witness of defendant No. 1.3. There is no express provision in the Code for recalling a witness of the plaintiff as a witness of th...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal and ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Sharma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN206
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by three defendants who are contesting the present suit instituted on 10-10-64 against them and against some other defendants. The allegation of the plaintiff is that the New Cotton & Wool Pressing Factory, near Railway Station, Beawar, is a partnership concern in which the plaintiff and the defendams are partners. It is alleged that the partnership started in 1886-87 A. D and dissolution of partnership took place on 31-7-64. The suit is for declaration that the partnership was dissolved on 31-7-64 and for rendition of account In the alternative the plaintiff has prayed that in case the court comes to the finding that the partnership was not dissolved on 3-7-64 it may be decreed for dissolution of partnership. Para 17 of the plaint runs as follows:That for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction the suit is at present valued at Rs. 5000/- and court fee thereon is paid and the plaintiff undertakes to pay further court fee when his share ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas and ors. Vs. Hanuman Sahai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN179
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application by Ram Niwas, Rameshwar Lal and Sita Ram defendants against and order of Munsif, Jaipur city (West) dated 27.5.68 directing the amendment of the plan attached to a compromise.2. The suit was instituted by Hanuman Sahai, plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendants are real brothers and they are the owners of a plot of land on which some constructions are standing. According to the plaint allegation the defendants started contructing a shop at the north east corner of the plot. The present suit was instituted for a mandatory and prohibitory injunction against making any constructions on the ground that the plot was joint property. The suit was contested by all the 3 defendants, but ultimately they arrived at a compromise under which they partitioned the entire land as well as the construction amongst the four brothers by metes and bounds retaing some protions as joint properties. This compromise was recorded by the court. The plan showin...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Hoora and ors. Vs. Abdul Karim
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN208
Jagat Narain, J.1. This is a revision by the legal representatives of one Allarakha against an order of the District Judge, Merta holding that the application filed by Allarakha under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act was not in accordance with law as the award which he filed had not been filed in accordance with Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act. Allarakha filed the original registered award in court and alleged in paras 6 and 7 of his application under Section 17 that the arbitrators had given the award to him for taking legal proceedings.2. It is common ground between the parties that the dispute between Allarakha & Abdul Karim with regard to a piece of land situated at Merta was referred to five arbitrators under an agreement which is on record. The five arbitrators appointed under it were Haji Mulla Usman, Abdulla, Farid Baksh, Noor Mohammad and Ashraf Ali. Four of these arbitrators filed an affidavit in support of the application of Allarakha in which it was alleged that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Hoora and ors. Vs. Abdul Karim
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Raj22
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a revision application by the legal representatives of one Allarakha against an order of the District Judge, Merta, holding that the application filed oy Allarakha under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act was not in accordance with law as the award which he filed had not been filed in accordance with Section 14(2) of of the Arbitration Act. Allarakha filed the original registered award in Court and alleged in Paras. 6 and 7 of his application under Section 17 that the arbitrators had given the award to him for taking legal proceedings. 2. It is common ground between the parties that the dispute between Allarakha and Abdul Karim with regard to a piece of land situated at Merta was referrea to five arbitrators under an agreement which is on record. The five arbitrators appointed under it were Haji Mulla Usman, Abdulla, Farid Baksh, Noor Mohammad and Ashraf Ali. Four of these arbitrators filed an affidavit in support of the application of Allarakha in whic...
Tag this Judgment!Prithvi Singh Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN275
L.S. Mehta, J.1. Accused Prithvi Singh, son of Dayal Singh, Jat Sikh resident of Mohalla, District Ganganagar, has been convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, on November 25, 1967, under Section 302, I.P.C, and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-∈ default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. He has further been held guilty under Section 307, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. He has also been convicted under Section 25, Indian Arms Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The other accused, Dayal Singh, father of Prithvi Singh, and Mai Singh, brother of Prithvi Singh, have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 302/34, and 307/34, Penal Code.2. The prosecution story can be ranged within a narrow compass. The accused Dayal Singh was on inmical terms with Gurumukh Singh. It is allege...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR84(Raj)
Bhandari, J. 1. This is a reference by the Central Board of Revenue under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, hereinafter called the Act. The statement of the case submitted by the Central Board of Revenue discloses the following facts which have given rise to this reference: Daudas, son of Sukhdeo, submitted a statement of account under Section 53(1) of the Act to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Jaipur, giving the details of various properties belonging to a Hindu undivided family consisting of his father, Sukhdeo, who died on February 24, 1957, and his sons and grandsons. On the death of Daudas on 3rd May, 1957, his son, Mukandas, pursued the proceedings before the said officer. The properties of the deceased, Sukhdeo, comprised of several items, such as mortgage deeds executed in favour of Sukhdeo and his four sons, house property and money-lending business. The statement further shows that Sukhdeo, after having served a jagirdar, started tobacco business under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Premraj Vs. Smt. Gavribai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-1968
Reported in: 1968WLN204
Jagat Narain, J.1. This is a revision application by Prem Raj, defendant No. 6 against an order of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, refusing to allow an amendment of the written statement.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that this Court has no power to interfere with the order of the trial court under Section 115(c) C.P.C. Reliance is placed on an unreported decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Radhev Shyam and Ors. v. Ram Auter and Ors. Civil appeal No. 506/1965 decided on 7.2.67. In that case it has no where been held that the High Court cannot interfere in revision under Section 115 with an order allowing on amendment of the plaint or disallowing it The revision application was filed before the Allahabed High Court in that case against an order of the trial court refusing an amendment of the plaint. The learned single Judge of the High Court when deciding the case was under the impression that it was an appeal. On this ground their Lordships set aside the Judgment o...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Taneja and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ945
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. These are the four references submitted by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, recommending that the order of the special Magistrate, Jaipur City, dated December 11, 1967, directing the prosecution of M, C. Taneja, M. R. Kirtane and S. C. Bhattacharji, be quashed.2. The facts of the case, as alleged by the prosecution, are that on October 17, 1959, in pursuance of the scheme for financing Small Scale Industries and at the request of M/s. Gandhi Industries, Jaipur, a cash credit limit of Rs. 10,000, upon the security of the pledge of goods purchased and mercandise deposited on lock and key basis, was sanctioned by the State Bank of India and cash and credit account was allowed to be opened and operated. The limit of the advances upon this cash credit account was such as was not to exceed with interest thereon 60% of the market value of the goods purchased and the mercandise for the time being pledged. This cash credit limit was subsequently enhanced as per request...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Bhagwatsingh of Udaipur Vs. Maharana Bhopal Electric Supply C ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Raj72
P.N. Shinghal, J. 1. As both the Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, he has preferred the present second appeal which arises from the appellate judgment and decree of the District Judge of Udaipur dated August 9, 1960, in the following circumstances. 2. The plaintiff is the ruler of the former Udaipur State. He raised the present suit on April 14, 1955, with the allegation that the Maharana Bhopal Electric Supply Company Limited. Udaipur, Defendant No 1 (herein-after referred to as 'the Company') was constituted in 1950 to generate and supply electricity, which was the responsibility of the firm of Messrs. Bhandari Iron and Steel Company. The Company has been discharging that responsibility. It was pleaded in paragraph 6 that an agreement was made with the aforesaid firm of Messrs. Bhandari Iron and Steel Company on October 10/11, 1946 (Ex. 11) according to which electricity was to be supplied to the Maharana on the following condition: 'Free power to palaces up to a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »