Rajasthan Court April 1969 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.
Suraj Bai and ors. Vs. Nawab Mohammed Mukarram Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN209
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The defendant respondent in this case is Nawab Mohd. Mukarram Ali Khan who owned a Haveli popularly known as Nawab Sahib's Ki Haveli situated in Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur. He agreed to sell a portion of it for a sum of Rs. 49,999/-to the plaintiffs Ram Kishore and others by an agreement dated 24th August, 1955, which has been placed on the record and marked Ex. 1. It may be stated here that the plaintiffs Ram Kishore Ganeshlal and Damodar dass died during the pendency of this appeal and are now represented by their heirs. A part of the sale price, that is Rs. 10,000/- was paid at the time of the execution of the agreement and it was stipulated that the plaintiffs purchaser would get the sale deed prepared at their expense and thereafter the defendant would present the same for registration and get the sale deed registered on payment of Rs. 39,999/- and also transfer the possession of the property in question to the vendees. It has also been provided in the agreement that ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Chhuttanlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1206
1. Briefly narrated, the prosecution story is as follows. On 31st October 1960, the Agent, State Bank of India, Jaipur, sent to the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur, two forged currency notes, one of the denomination of Rs. 100/- received by the Bank from one Manakchand and the other of the denomination of Rs. 10/- produced in the Bank by Banshi Dhar Satyanarain, Jaipur. The District Superintendent of Police sent these notes to the Currency Note Press, Nasik Road, for examination. Mr. B. L. Kulthe, P. W. 13, Assistant Supervisor and Expert in Detection of Forged Currency and Bank Notes, Studio, India Security Press, sent his reports No. 39 (C/L/2) 1324 and No. 39 (X/H/3) 1323 both dated 10th May 1981, stating therein that the two notes were forged ones. Thereafter the police registered a case at the Police Station, Manak Chowk, Jaipur, under Section 489B, Indian Penal Code, on 21st June 1981. Ram Pratap, P. W. 6, S. I. started investigation. A. R. Khan, P. W. 29, Inspector, C. I. D., a...
Daulat Raj Vs. Idol Shri Chhaganram Maganlalji Maharaj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN206
Jagat Narain, J.1. This is a revision application by a tenant against an appellate order of the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer, fixing the standard rent of the premises consisting of one shop and two godowns at Rs. 40/- per month.2. The shop and one godown were let out to the defendant on 1.1.1943 at Rs. 11/- and Rs. 4/- respectively. In 1965 a fresh agreement was entered into between the parties under which another godown was also let out to the defendant by the plaintiff. This godown was fetching a rent of Rs. 1.50 on 1.1.43. Under the new agreement the rent for the premises consisting of a shop and two godowns; was settled at Rs. 28/-between the parties. On 28.2.66 the landlord filed the.; present suit for enhancement of rent claiming that the basic rent of the premises was Rs. 16.50. on 1.1.43 and in view of the increased prevailing cost he was entitled to enhancement of the rent to Rs. 41.25 at 2 1/2 times the basic rent as the premises were let out for commercial purposes.3. The t...
Pyarelal and ors. Vs. Rani Raman Kumari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj256; 1969()WLN403
Bhandari, C.J.1. These three references have been made by Jagat Narayan, J., in revision petitions filed in this Court and a common question of law regarding interpretation of Sections 5 and 6 of the Rajas-than Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (Act No. 28 of 1957) (hereinafter called the Act) has been raised in them. These Sections run as follows:--'5. Abatement or stay of suit or insolvency petition.-- (1) Whenever a suit or an insolvency petition against a debtor shall have been brought or made and pending in a competent Court and such debtor or the person who brought or made such suit or petition applies to such Court in this behalf, the Court shall- (i) abate such suit or petition if it is satisfied on affidavit or otherwise that an application to the Debt Relief Court under Section 6 or Section 6A has been made and admitted and is pending, or (ii) stay proceedings in such suit or application if it is satisfied as aforesaid that the defendant or the opposite party, as...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M.H. Shah and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1969
Reported in: [1973]30STC269(Raj)
D.M. Bhandari, C.J.1. These two applications have been filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Ajmer, under Section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) praying that this court may direct the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan to state the case and refer it to this court.2. In both these applications, the respondent is the firm Messrs. M.H. Shah & Co., which was appointed as railway auctioneer under the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement exhibit 1 dated 7th April, 1962, for auctioning 'the coal ashes of the Union of India pertaining to the Western Railway. The respondent was assessed to sales tax for the accounting years 1962-63 and 1963-64 by two separate assessment orders. But later on proceedings were taken against the respondent under Section 12 of the Act by issuing notices to it to show cause why it should not be reassessed and it was reassessed on 10th September, 1965, by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Ajmer. Two separate appeals were f...
Ramchander and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ653
L.S. Mehta, J.1. By his judgment, dated September 24, 1966, Sessions Judge. Ganganagar, convicted the accused Ramchander under Section 302, read with Section 34, I.P.C., and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He was also convicted under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. By the same judgment, Budhram was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was also convicted under Section 307, read with Section 34. Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years, Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Prosecution story can be summarised in this way. There were two faction in the village Lalewala, Police Station, Padampur, District Ganganagar. The accused Budhram and Ramchander belonged to one faction. Jeeraj and others owed allegiance to the other rival group. It is alleged that Budhram and Ramchander g...
Tarachand and ors. Vs. Misrimal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj53
Bhandari, C.J.1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the High Court Ordinance from the judgment dated 9th April, 1964 of: Jagat Narayan J. in a case arising under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23rd December, 1955 a decree was passed in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell two plots of land by the Civil Judge, Pali. The decree was in favour of Misrimal and Hanwantraj and against Tara-chand, Birdichand and Roopchand. This decree was not drawn up in proper form, but the substance of the decree is that the defendants shall deliver possession of two thalas (plots) mentioned in para 2 (b) of the plaint to the plaintiffs and that the defendants will execute a sale deed of these plots in favour of the plaintiffs, and that according to the agreement Ex. 1, the total sale-price of the plots in dispute is Rs. 4,000 out of which Rs 1,000 has already been received by the defendants ana Rs. 2545/7/- are due to the pla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›