Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1955 Page 1 of about 14 results (0.009 seconds)

Oct 20 1955 (HC)

Kr. Amarsingh of Sabalpore Vs. Madanmohan Lal

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-20-1955

Reported in : AIR1956Raj58

modi, j. 1. this is a complaint by kr. amarsingh of sa-balpore, tehsil parbatsar, of professional misconduct against shri madan mohan, an advocate practising at parbatsar,. district nagaur. 2. the material facts are these. one lalia jat of village laroli, tehsil parbatsar, had made a report, some time in april 1951, at the police station parbatsar against the petitioner kr. amarsingh that he accompanied by some other persons had managed to steal several cart-loads of grass belonging to the complainant. shortly after, the petitioner's kamdar nath-mal happened to go to parbatsar and meet shri madan mohan. during the course of conversation between nathmal and shri madanmohan, the latter is alleged to have told nathmal that he had very good relations with the sub-inspector of police, parbatsar, who was his caste-fellow and hoped to hush up the complaint against kr. amarsingh provided a handsome bribe be paid to the sub-inspector through shri madan mohan, otherwise the thikana people would be in trouble. thereupon nathmal reported the whole matter to the petitioner, and it is said that the latter sent rs. 150/- with nathmal to shri madan mohan for being paid as bribe to the sub-inspector in connection with lalia's complaint. nathmal went to shri madan mohan and gave the sum of rs. 150/- but the latter told nathmal that the sub-inspector would not be satisfied with only rs. 150/- and wanted rs. 250/- more. nathmal then suggested to shri madan mohan that the latter might write a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1955 (HC)

Thakursingh and ors. Vs. Bhaironlal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-24-1955

Reported in : AIR1956Raj113

ordersharma, j.1. this is an application for revision by the defendants thakursingh and bans singh against the order of the learned munsif, dholpur, refusing to grant an application for review of the ex parte judgment dated 8-7-1953.2. the facts are that the opposite party bhaironlal and bal kishan filed a suit for the recovery of rs. 423/- against the applicants. this suit was instituted in the court of munsif. bari. sri narain swaroop appeared as a pleader for the defendant-applicant's in this case. the entire evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendants was recorded before the munsif, bari and the plaintiffs' arguments were also over.arguments were made on behalf of the defendants on 8th, 20th and 21st august, 1952. the case came up for remaining arguments of the defendants on 22-8-1952 but on that date arguments could not be heard and the case was fixed for the remaining arguments of the defendants on 29-8-1952. on the last mentioned date the arguments on behalf of the defendants were concluded and 12-9--1952 was fixed for the hearing of the reply on behalf of the plaintiffs.the munsif, however, who had heard the case till then, was transferred and no other munsif was posted in his place. thereafter sometimes parties appeared and sometimes they did not appear and ultimately the case was transferred from the court of munsif, bari to the 'court of munsif, dholpur.on 20-5-1953 the case was put up before the munsif, dholpur, who fixed 20-5-1953 for arguments and ordered that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 1955 (HC)

Narendra Singh Vs. the State

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-13-1955

Reported in : 1957CriLJ243

ranawat, j. 1. this is a criminal reference by the additional sessions judge of bundi, dated the 29th january, 1955.2. a case under section 395, i. p, c., is pending inquiry in the court of the sub-divisional magistrate, bundi, on a police report. one of the accused, namely, narendra singh was also an accused in that case. but he was shown as absconding by the police and he appeared before the sub-divisional magistrate subsequently, a test identification was then arranged and the prosecution witnesses failed to identify him.thereafter, the prosecution moved the magistrate for arranging another identification parade on the ground that in the previous proceedings the faces of the accused were so hid that the witnesses could not possibly identify them. the learned magistrate turned down the request. the prosecution then moved the district magistrate who ordered the sub-divisional magistrate to reconduct the identification proceedings for narendra singh.the learned district magistrate assumed that in the previous identification proceedings the faces of the accused were so hid as not to allow a fair opportunity to the witnesses to identify the accused. the accused then went to the additional sessions judge, bundi and it was urged on his behalf that the district magistrate had no jurisdiction to interfere in the judicial discretion of the sub-divisional magistrate in asking him to arrange a fresh identification parade when the magistrate had already turned down such a request.the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 1955 (HC)

Meghraj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-22-1955

Reported in : AIR1956Raj28; (1956)IILLJ366Raj

wanchoo, c.j.1. these are four connected applications under article 226 o the constitution by meghraj (no. 22), mukandas (no 28), jeetmal (no. 98) and chunnilal (no. 243). as the main points raised in them are the same, we propose to decide them by one judgment.2. of the four applicants, meghraj was a, male nurse in m. t. b. hospital, bari (udaipur), while the other three were male nurses at the mahatma gandhi hospital jodhpur. they were dismissed on various dates in 1952. their appeals were also dismissed in 1954. thereafter, the present applications were filed, and the order of dismissal was challenged.3. two main points have been, raised by the applicants in their applications. the first is that there was no rule in the government servants' conduct rules which prohibited strikes by government servants. therefore, even if the applicants went on strike, they could not be dismissed from service on that ground, and, in any case, the order of the director of medical and health services dismissing, them for contravening rule 21 of the government servants' conduct rules could not be sustained for the applicants did not commit any breach of that rule.the second point that is urged is that no opportunity was given to them after the enquiry had been completed and their guilt had been established to show cause against the proposed punishment, and their dismissal therefore without complying with theprovisions of article 311 of the constitution was illegal.4. a further point has been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1955 (HC)

State Vs. Indraj

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-12-1955

Reported in : AIR1957Raj234; 1957CriLJ907

wanchoo, c.j.1. this is an appeal by the state against the acquittal of indraj by a magistrate of the first class of an offence under section 454 of the i. p. c.2. the prosecution case was briefly this. shivkaran and his family lived in nangal bari. he and members of his family had gone out to their fields on the morning of 29-9-1952 and had shut up the house. when they returned in the evening, they found, that the floor of the house was open and that the lock of an almirah inside the house had been broken. the almirah contained rs. 350/- in currency notes and a tin-box containing gold and silver ornaments. the money as well as the box of ornaments were found missing. it was also stated in the first report that the house of the accused indraj was next door and that the accused knew that the money and ornaments were in that almirah. suspicion was expressed against indraj on the further ground that he was a gambler. it was also explained that there was delay in the report as they were trying all along to find out about the theft.3. the report of the incident was made in the thana on 3-10-1952. the police arrived on the scene on the 4th oct. and it is said that a list of stolen property was prepared on that day. the list is ex. p. 5. this list was prepared as there was not a complete list of the stolen property in the first report where only a few ornaments were mentioned and it was stated that the details would be given by shivkaran and his wife. the case for the prosecution .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 1955 (HC)

Umed Singh Vs. the State

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-27-1955

Reported in : 1955CriLJ1518

orderdave, j.1. this is a revision application by the complainant and it arises in the following circumstances:2. the petitioner filed a complaint under sections 147, 323 and 424, ipc against 10 persons in the court of the magistrate at jetaran. after recording the complainant's evidence. 5 of the accused were charged by the court under sections 323 and 424, ipc and the rest were discharged. thereafter, the prosecution witnesses were recalled for further cross-examination by the accused. one of such witnesses was daljitsingh, sub-inspector of police. he was cross-examined on 18-1-1954.after his examination, it was submitted by the witness that he had attended the court on a previous date also viz. 1-8-1952 but he could not be examined on that date as the magistrate was not present at the headquarters and, therefore, he requested that he should be paid his expenses for that date as well. the witness .requested the court to verify the fact of his attendance from some vakils. accordingly, the magistrate verified from three vakils shri abhey-karan, shri bachhraj and shri badridan and being thus satisfied, lie ordered the complainant to pay the expenses of the witness for the previous date (1-8-1952) as well.3. against the said order dated 18-1-1954, the complainant filed a revision application in the court of the sessions judge, pali. it was urged by him that the attendance of the said witness was not recorded on the order-sheet of 1-8-1952, and that the magistrate's finding .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 1955 (HC)

Devichand Vs. Rikhab Chand and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-20-1955

Reported in : AIR1957Raj255

wanchoo, c. j.1. this is a revision by devichand against theorder of the civil judge, pali, and arises in the following circumstances :the applicant is defendant in a suit pending in the court of civil judge, pali, since 1954. the suit relates to tahsil bali. on the 1st march 1955, jurisdiction over tahsil ball in cases triable by a civil judge was transferred from the court of the civil judge, paii, to the court of the senior civil judge, sirohi. consequently, the applicant made an application to the civil judge, pali, that he no longerhad jurisdiction to decide the suit, and that only the senior civil judge sirohi had such jurisdiction. this contention was based on the civil judge, pali, losing jurisdictidn even over pending cases when the work relating to bali tahsil was transferred by a notification issued by the government tothe court of senior civil judge, sirohi. the application was dismissed by the civil judge, and he has relied on the order of this court dated the 23rd of april, 1955. 2. we do not think it necessary to decide inthis case whether after the notification of the 1st of march, 1955, the civil judge, pali, lost jurisdictioneven over pending cases in his court relating to bali tahsil as there is an order of this court, which, in our opinion, concludes the matter. it has been urged by learned counsel that the order, on which the learned civil judge has relied, is not a judicialorder of transfer, but an administrative order, and therefore is not valid. we are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1955 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, Ajmer, Rajasthan and Madhya Bharat ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-23-1955

Reported in : AIR1956Raj30; [1956]29ITR165(Raj)

wanchoo, c. j. 1. this is a reference by the appellate tribunal under the income-tax act.2. the following question has been referred to this court for answer :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the higher exemption limit of rs. 7,200/- in terms of the proviso to para. a in part i of schedule i of section 2, finance act of 1951?'3. the facts of the case are these: the assessee messrs dhannalal devilal of jaipur filed a return for the assessment year 1951-52, and claimed the benefit of the higher exemption limit as provided in para. a in part i of schedule i of s. 2, finance act of 1951. the firm in question was at that time owned by two minors . named sita ram and madhav who were members of an undivided hindu family.further at the relevant time this family had ., two other members, namely the widowed mother and the widowed grand-mother of the two minors. the question arose whether is view of the existence of these ladies, and particularly the widowed mother, the assessee could claim the higher exemption limit of rs. 7,200/-. the income-tax officer held that they could not. the appellate assistant commissioner, however, held that they could. thereupon, there was an appeal before the tribunal which agreed with the appellate assistant commissioner.the present reference has been made by the tribunal on the application of the commissioner of income-tax. it came for hearing before a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1955 (HC)

Bhimsingh Vs. State

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-21-1955

Reported in : 1955CriLJ992

sharma, j.1. this is an appeal by bhimsingh accused who has been convicted by the learned special judge (sessions judge) bharatpur under section 165a, penal code, and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 30/-2. the circumstances under which the prosecution was started against the appellant are said to be that the appellant presented an application ex. pi before the sub-tahsildar kumher for help of the police in preventing the intervention of one chitar in the cultivation of a certain field in village pachmoor, sub-tehsil kurnher, district bharatpur which according to the appellant had been in his cultivatory possession for sometime past. this application was presented in the sub-tehsil, kumher on the 13-8-1953 and it was forwarded to the sub-divisional officer, bharatpur with a recommendation that the appellant be granted relief prayed for by him. the application came up before mr. p. s. saxena, sub-divisional officer and sub-divisional magistrate, bharatpur 'hereinafter to be referred to us the sub-divisional magistrate) on 14-8-1.9.53 and he finding no reason to take the action prayed for, consigned it to the record room and directed the appellant to seek his remedy in proper court. the appellant was present at the time the order was made and after hearing the order, requested the magistrate to take something from him and make an order in his iavour and while so saying he put his hand into his pocket and brought out a money bag.the sub- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 1955 (HC)

Mst. Gulab Bai Vs. Mst. Manphool Bai

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-13-1955

Reported in : AIR1956Raj98

wanchoo, c.j. 1. this is an application by manphool bai under order 12, rule 5 of the supreme-court rules, and it is prayed that this court should issue a certificate that the appeal has not been effectually prosecuted by the appellant. 2. the circumstances leading to this application may be briefly narrated. a suit was brought by mst. manphool bai in november, 1943, for arrears of rent and ejectment against laduram who was tenant of the shop in dispute, and mst. gulab bai who was also' made a defendant though no relief was claimed against her. it may be mentioned that manphool bai claimed to be the daughter-in-law of gulab bai by virtue of the adoption of her husband by gulab bai, end filed the suit as the widow of the adopted son phool chand. the suit was decreed by the first court, but on appeal the district judge set aside that decree, and dismissed the suit. thereupon, there was a second appeal in this court, which was allowed on 2-1-1952, and the suit was decreed against laduram. there was then an application for leave to appeal by mst. gulab bai on 28-1-1952, and a certificate was granted to her on 30-9-1953. 3. we are in this case concerned with what happened after the certificate was granted. under order 45, rule 7, the applicant for leave co appeal has to take certain steps after the certificate 3s granted. he has within 90 days, or such further period, not exceeding sixty days, as the court may upon cause shown allow from the date of the decree complained of, or .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //