Rajasthan Court August 1971 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.
Registrar of Companies Vs. S. Sohanmull Golcha P. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1971
Reported in: 1971(4)WLN329
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This petition for the winding-up of Messrs. S. Sohanmull Golcha Private Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the company ', was presented by the Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, on May 13, 1964, under Section 439(1)(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), on the ground that the company was unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 433(e). It remained pending all this time because of certain orders of the court, including an order dated February 3, 1967, directing that the case may be listed for hearing after the case (Union of India v. S. Sohanmull Golcha P. Ltd.) pending in the Hon'ble High Court at New Delhi was decided.2. The company was incorporated on August 24, 1943, as a private company, with its registered office in Jaipur. It has an authorised capital of Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 50,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10, but its issued and subscribed capital is Rs. 50,000 as only Re. 1 has been paid up for each share. The ...
Sheikh Mohammed Abdul Qadir and ors. Vs. the Anjuman Moinia Fakhria an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN396
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. These two cross appeals against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, arise out of a suit for partition between two sects (Thoks) of Khadims (servitors) of the renowned saint Khawaja Moinudin Chisty whose tomb at Ajmer generally known as Durgah Khawaja Sahib, Ajmer, has for centuries past been a place of pilgrimage for devout Muslims. Sheikh Hajrat Syed Mohd. Yadgar Sahib and Hajrat Syed Fakhruddin Sahib were the two original disciples or Khawaja Moinudin Chisty. The descendants of Sheikh Hajarat Mohd. Yadgar Sahib constitute one sect (Thok) of Khadmis and are khown as Sheikhzada Khadims. Similarly, the descendants of Hajrat Syed Fakhrudin Sahib constitute another sect (Thok) of Khadims and are khown as Syedzada Khadims.2. The present suit was brought on 6.7.53 by five persons representing the entire sect of Sheikhzada Khadims against the Anjuman Moinia Fakhria Chistia Khawaja Syedzadas, a corporate body of the Syedzada Khadims register...
Harjiram Vs. Ghanshyam Das
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj62; 1971(4)WLN422
J.P. Jain, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor and is directed against the order of the District Judge, Alwar dated 18th April, 1970 by which he affirmed the order passed by the Civil Judge, Alwar dismissing the objection petition of the appellant under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Ghanshyam Das respondent obtained a decree for Rs. 5380/- on 6-5-1967 against Harjiram from the Court of Civil Judge, Alwar. The decretal amount including the cost and the interest came to Rs. 6622.38 paise. The decree-holder took out execution application on 27-7-1967 and sought the attachment of the following articles:-- (1) Lathe (Kharad) machine. (2) Drilling (Barma) machine. (3) Transformer welding machine. (4) Electric motor of 3 Horse Power used for operating the above machines. (5) Other miscellaneous articles like chisel, wrench, Sandasi, hammer, file etc. The attachment was effected on 12-8-1967. On 22-12-1967 the judgment-debtor filed an objection under Sectio...
Hemraj Vs. Surajmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj155; 1971(4)WLN267
ORDERJ.P. Jain, J.1. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by one Hemraj challenging the order dated 10th January, 1970 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 2/69 by which his application dated 12th May, 1969 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.2. The petitioner purchased a house situate in the City of Ajmer for Rs. 20,000/-Non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 Surajmal and his mother Smt. Gulab Bai claimed this house by way of pre-emption. With a view to settle the claim out of the Court, the parties agreed to make a reference to arbitration. They mutually agreed to appoint Shri Manakchand Sogani Advocate, non-petitioner No. 3, Shri Kistoorchand Jhanwar Advocate, non-petitioner No. 4 and Shri Mukandram Garg, Advocate, non-petitioner No. 5 as arbitrators. The dispute was referred to the arbitrators and the arbitrators gave their award on 2nd November, 1968, The arbitrators by an application dated 2nd...
Jatanlal and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN578
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal and is directed against the appellate judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ajmer dated 22-1-1963. accepting the defendant-respondents' appeal and dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.2. The relevant facts are these. On 21-4-1952, 160 bags of Laddu Jagreer (Gur) weighing 404 mds. and 25 bags of 'Khandsari' sugar weighing 216 mds. 30 Srs. were tendered by firm Brahmanand Sadhuram of Sambal-Hatim Sarai for conveyance to Nasirabad. The goods were accepted by the staff of the Railway under No. 1 NR 733681. In the Railway Receipt the consignor mentioned the consignee as self. The Railway Receipt with a hundi for Rs. 7,000/- was sent by consignor to the United Commercial Bank, Ajmer. The plaintiffs firm Ghisalal Jatanlal who carry on business as Commission Agent paid Rs. 7,000/- to the Bank and obtained an endorsement of the Railway Receipt in their favour. Subsequently, the plaintiffs obtained delivery of the goods but there was shortag...
Vijai Raj and ors. Vs. Mst. Gamni and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN306
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. As this second appeal by some of the plaintiffs against the appellate judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Sirohi, dated August 22, 1961, must fail on a preliminary objection, it will be sufficient to state the important facts.2. The suit house is situated in village Mundara, in the former 'Jagir' of Thakur Mod Singh. Plaintiffs Vijai Raj, his sons, brother and sister instituted the present suit for its possession and recovery of mesne profits on the ground that Thakur Mod Singh, father of Pratap Singh (defendant No. 9) had sold it on Bhadwa bad 6, Section 1996 (August 24, 1940) for Rs. 291/- and executed a 'patta' in favour of plaintiff Vijai Raj and his sons Hastimal, Pakhraj and Dan mal as well as Vijai Raj's father Himatmal. Plaintiff Vijai Raj was the Kamdar of the Thikana of Thakur Mod Singh, and the ''patta' in question is said to have been written in his 'bahi'. The suit house, according to the plaintiffs belonged to Jagirdar who had allowed Bhera (defendant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›