Rajasthan Court September 1970 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.
Pannalal and anr. Vs. Ramnarayan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj294; 1970(3)WLN729
C.B. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree dated 16th August, 1963, of the Senior Civil Judge. Aimer, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the contract for sale of a house.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Ram Naravan, defendant No. 1. entered into an agreement in writing with the plaintiffs for the sale of his house bearing AMC No. 24-412 situated in Ramsani Mohalla. Aimer, and more par-ticularly described in para 1 of the plaint. This house has already been sold by defendant No. 1 to Sheo Sahai defendant No. 2 on 3rd December. 1957, with the condition of reconveying the house by Sheo Sahai within a period of six years on payment of Rs. 6000/- by Ramnaravan on the basis of a subsequent agreement dated 3-3-58. It was further stimulated between the plaintiffs and Ramnaravan in the subsequent agreement dated 2nd June, 1961, that Sheo Sahai would either join as a vendor in the deed of sale to be executed in favour of the plaintiffs or th...
Sukhdeo and ors. Vs. Kisturchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN537
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a revision application by the accused Sukhdeo and others in a case under Sections 447, 427 and 147 Indian Penal Code against I the order of the Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Bundi holding that the prosecution of the accused was not barred under Section 197, Cr.P.C.2. Kistorcharad resident of Gendoli lodged the complaint against Sukhdeo and nine others to the effect they opened a new way through the field of the complainant after closing the way which lay through the field of accused No. 5 Bala and in doing so they caused damage to the standing crop as also the fencing of the complainant's field. The accused were alleged to have committed the offence of criminal trespass as well. After the accused were summoned they put in an application before the learned Magistrate that Sukhdeo was the Sar Panch of the Gram Panchayat & the complainant had closed an existing way through his field which was reopened by the Panchayat. The learned Magistrate dismissed the app...
Amba Lal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1207
ORDERKan Singh, J.1. The revision application before me raises a question of procedure. The gravamen of the matter is whether in a proceeding for commitment Under Section 207-A, Criminal P.C. when the Magistrate, after recording the evidence, is of opinion that there are no grounds for committing the accused person for trial, but, on the other hand, he thinks that the case should be tried before him- self he is required to proceed to record the evidence de novo or he can act on the evidence already recorded by him and proceed further in the matter. At this point I may briefly narrate the events.2. The accused petitioners Amba Lal and Sharwar Lai were proceeded against for offences Under Sections 307, 325, 379 and 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code in accordance with Section 207-A, Criminal P.C. on a challan presented by the Station House Officer, Padu. During the committal, proceedings the prosecution examined two doctors P.W. 1, Dr. S.C. Mathur and P.W. 3 Dr. Hargovind and on...
Suleman Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN544
L.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a habeas corpus petition filed by Suleman, confined at present in the Central Jail, Jaipur. The averments in the application are that the petitioner is an Indian national and belongs to village Burhanka Tala, District Barmer. He had been convicted and sentenced by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhinmal, on April 15, 1907, under the Foreigners Act. He had been released from the Central Jail, Jodhpur, on February 3, 1968. On August 5, 1968, he was called by the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, from his house and was told that he was required to proceed to Jaipur in connection with some inquiry. The Circle Inspector, Barmer, escorted him to Jaipur on August 7, 1968, and was kept at the Special Police Station Ramganj. The same day the Jaipur police arrested him under Section 3/9, of the Indian Official Secrets Act and was kept in custody upto August 23, 1968. On August 24, 1968, he was sent to the Central Jail Jaipur, as he was implicated in a false espionage char...
Kali Charan Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN533
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a revision application by one Kali Charan against the order forfeiting his surety bond in a sum of Rs. 2000/--executed by him in connection with the appearance of one Mahavir Prasad in a case under Section 366 Indian Penal Code. The relevant facts are briefly these.2. On 28.3.69, Kali Charan executed a surety bend undertaking to produce Mahavir Prasad accused on 3.4.69 in the court of the Munsif Magistrate. Dholpur and in any other court to which the case may be transferred, failing which he would pay Rs. 2000/--and the Government could recover the same from him. The bond was verified by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur in whose it was produced. On 26.5.70 the accused was absent though his surety, the petitioner, was present. The learned Additional Sessions Judge forested the entire amount of the bond and gave 15 days time to the petitioner to deposit the amount.3. In assailing the legality of this order it was contended by learned Counsel for the petition...
Chunnilal Vs. Ghanshyamdas and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Raj286; 1970(3)WLN792
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a money suit.2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff-respondent Ghanshyamdas is that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 Chunilal. Nemichand and Mitha Lal were working as commission agents in partnership under the name and style of firm. Jairoop Chunnilal at Jodhpur in connection with sale and purchase of gold and silver bars and Ganeshmal defendant No. 4 transacted business in sold and silver through the agency of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in Section 2001 and Section 2002. It was further alleged in the plaint that Ganesh Mal had also money dealings with defendants Nos. 1 to 3 who used to maintain accounts of all the dealings of Ganeshmal of cash as well as of gold and silver. It was averred that on Srawan Bad 9, Section 2002, Ranulal the Munim of firm Jairoop Chunnilal sent an account to Ganeshmal marked Ex. 1 showing an amount of Rs. 29,780/14/3 to the credit of Ganeshmal and Rs. 22,422/12/6 on the debit side. Thus according to...
Chimansingh and ors. Vs. Hanuman
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Raj23
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This second appeal by the decree holders raises an important question of law which arises under the following circumstances :--The appellants obtained a preliminary decree for recovery of Rs. 2500/- by sale of the mortgaged house under Order XXXIV, Rule 4. Civil P. C. on 30-7-1959 from the Court of Civil Judge. Jodhpur. Three months' time was granted to the defendant for making the payment of the decretal amount. It was further provided in the preliminary decree that in case the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property fell short of the decretal amount, the plaintiffs would be entitled to make an application for a personal decree which would be disposed according to law. The judgment debtor having not paid the decretal amount 'within the period fixed in the preliminary decree, final decree was passed on 15-2-1960 in pursuance of 'which the mortgaged house was put to auction and sold for Rs. 1208/-. Consequently, the plaintiffs presented an application on 21-3-1961 unde...
The Mavli Co-operative Sahkari Samiti Mavli Vs. Soram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ759
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur recommending that the order of learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Vallabhnagar dated 27th May 1968 be set aside and he may be directed to issue necessary warrant Under Section 37 (1) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.2. It appears that Alarakh and Amarchand newly elected Chairman and Secretary of the Mavli Samyukta Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Mavli submitted an application on 22-2-1968 before the sub-divisional Magistrate, Vallabhnagar Under Section 37 (1) of the Raiasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (which will hereinafter be called 'the Act' praying for issue of a warrant against the non petitioners Soram and others Under Section 37 (3) of the Act authorising any police officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector to enter and search the place where the records of the Samiti are kept and to seize such records and also to deliver the records so seized to the newly constituted Samiti. The l...
The Mavli Co-operative Sebkari Samiti Vs. Soram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN532
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional essions Judge, Udaipur recommending that the order of the learned Sub-Divisonal Magistrate, Vallabhnagar dated 27.5.1968 be set aside and he may be directed to issue necessary warrant under Section 37 (i) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 19652. It appears that Alarakh arid Amarchand newly elected Chairman and Secretary of the Mavli Samyukta Sebkari Samiti Ltd., Mavli submitted an application on 22.2.1961 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vallabhnagar under Section 37 (i) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act. 1965 which will hereinafter the called the Act' praving for issue of a warrant against the nonpetitione'rs Soram and others under Section 37 (3) of the Act authorising any police officer not below the rank of a Sub Inspector to enter and search the place where the records of the Samiti are kept and to seize such record's and also to deliver the records so seized to the newly constituted Samiti. The teamed S...
Ramju Vs. Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1970
Reported in: 1970WLN718
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7th April, 1964, of the District Judge, Bhilwara, in a suit for injunction.2. Plaintiff owns a house, in Ward No. 6, Bhilwara, and in frount of that house, he constructed a verandah 27' x 8' in the year 1953. It is not ditputed that the said verandah was construtted without giving and notice to the Municipal Board, Bhilwara, or obtaining its permission. It is also not disputed that in January, 1957, a complaint was filed by the Municipal Board against the plaintiff in a criminal court, and on his admission that certain construction had been raised without obtaining permission of the Muncipal Board, a fine of Rs. 21/- was imposed upon him. Thereafter, plaintiff's brother Ismail who was impleaded as defendant No. 2 made an application to the Municipal Board for demolition of the verandah on the ground that the passage to his house was obstructed by the verandah. The building Committee of the Municipal ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›