Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 13 results (0.012 seconds)

Jan 24 1956 (HC)

Gainda Raghuvir Vs. the State

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-24-1956

Reported in : 1957CriLJ157

bapna, j.1. this is an appeal by gainda, son of raghuvir kachi of nagla-bhensa, police station rupbas, who has been convicted under section 165a of the indian penal code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and to pay a fine of rs. 200 /-, and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by the learned special (sessions) judge, bharatpur, by judgment dated 15-6-1955. the sum of rs. 100/-, which was sought to be offered as bribe was directed to be forfeited to the government.2. the case for the prosecution is that mutation of one bigha and twelve taiswas of land in khasra no. 1543 in village bhensa was made in favour of girraj nai by shri kaluram, naib tehsildar, rupbas, by order dated 31-10-1954. this order was by consent of gainda, in whose name that land previously stood. gainda, however, changed his mind, and approached shri kalurarn to reverse the entry and on 4-11-1954, offered to pay illegal gratification to shri kaluram.shri kaluram refused to be tempted, but gainda accompanied by deoji went to his house on the next day, that is, 5-11-1954. the naib tehsildar suspected that they had come for the same purpose of offering him a bribe again, and wrote to the police officer to come and take action. he also sent for two respectable persons of the locality, nashilal and pyarelal. after the arrival of the sub-inspector nathi singh, pyare lal and nathilal, the naib tehsildar entered his baithak. gainda offered rs. 100/-, and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1956 (HC)

Ramratan Vs. Shridhar Kalla

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-17-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Raj7

modi, j. 1. this is a complaint by one ramratan maheshwari, resident of village deshnok, tehsil bikaner, for professional misconduct against shri shridhar kalla, an advocate of this court. shri kalla has been practising in jaipur for the last three or four years but was regularly practising in the courts at jodhpur upto 1952. 2. the allegations made by the petitioner in his petition dated 28-10-1953, may be briefly summarised as follows. the petitioner's case is that he had engaged shri kalla in three cases from 1948 onwards. in the first place, he had engaged shri kalla to file a suit against tarachand and leelchand sons of khivraj of barmer for rs. 1098/4/6 in the court of the munsiff, jodhpur city, and that he had paid him a sum of rs. 125/- on account of his professional fees and expenses (rs. 50/- by way of remuneration and rs. 75/- for court-fees, and certain incidental expenses) in connection with this suit on or about 11-3-1948. ramratan's case further is that immediately after this engagement he had personally given all the original documents to shri kalla to be filed with the plaint and that a plaint had also been prepared by the latter and that he had signed that and a vakalatnama as well, and gave all these papers to sri kalla for presenting them in court.the petitioner's complaint is that shri kalla filed this suit (no. 255 of 1951) as late as 2-7-1951 (as a matter of fact the suit was filed on 2-6-1951, which was the last working day before the summer vacation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 1956 (HC)

Brij Sunder Sharma Vs. Election Tribunal, Jaipur and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-27-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Raj189

order1. this is an application by shri brij sunder sharma under article 226 of the constitution of india for a writ of certiorari, against the election tribunal, jaipur, and 8 others, for. setting aside its order dated 30th april, 1956, and also for prohibition against the said tribunal directing it not to forward its order dated the 30th april, 1956, to the election commission. in the alternative, writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under article 226 of the constitution against the said tribunal for setting aside the said order has been prayed for. it has further been prayed in the alternative that under article 227 of the constitution the said order be quashed. 2. the circumstances leading to this petition are as noted below: (2a) in november, 1953, a bye-election was held to fill in a seat of the rajasthan legislative assembly from the sironj constituency in district kotah, shri abhinna hari, respondent no. 2, shri madan lal agarwal, respondent no. 3, shri kesri mal jain, respondent no. 4 and shri brij sunder sharma, the petitioner before us, filled in their, nomination papers and at the time of scrutiny of the said papers the nomination paper of shri abhinna hari was rejected and the election was consequently contested by the three remaining candidates. shri brij sunder sharma was declared successful at the election, by means of a gazette notification or the 23rd november, 1954. shri abhinna hari (hereinafter to be referred as respondent no. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 1956 (HC)

Gopal Das Vs. Ghisalal

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-11-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Raj264

bapna, j.1. this is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of money.2. respondent ghisalal instituted the present suit on 25th august 1951, against the appellant ma-hant gopal das on the allegation that the said ma-hant gopal das borrowed rs. 1,475 from the plaintiff on 15th september 1948, for the purpose of providing bhog kharach lor the temple of shri janki ballabhji, of which the defendant was the mahant, and promised to repay the same on the 14th of january 1949, but as he failed to pay the same, the suit had to be instituted for recovery of the principal amount of rs. 1,475 and interest rs. 258-2-0, total being rs. 1,733-2-0.3. the defendant denied 'the execution of the ruqqa or the taking of the loan, and pleaded that one kan das was the adhikari of the temple, who had been turned out and the ruqqa had been fabricated with his assistance. the defendant specifically raised the issue how the defendant was personally sought to be made liabie when the purpose of the loan was stated to be the provision of bhog rag of the temple. the plaintiff made it clear through his advocate on more than one occasion that the suit was against the defendant in his personal capacity, and no claim was sought to be enforced against the property of the temple.4. the trial court, after evidence, dismissed the suit, but on appeal the learned district judge of sikar by judgment of 8th august 1952, held that the execution of the document ex. p-2, the ruqqa, dated 15-9-48 by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 1956 (HC)

Anant Ram and ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Jodhpur and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-04-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Raj145

wanchoo, c.j.1. these are five connected writ applications by five railway servants against the order of the district magistrate, jodhpur, under the payment of wages act (no. 4) of 1936 (hereinafter called the act), and have been heard together as common points have been raised in them. we shall dispose them off by one judgment.2. it is best to set out the facts of each case briefly, and we shall then indicate common points of law that arise in these cases. 3. case no. 54 is by anantram. he was in the service of the then jodhpur railway. in march, 1951, he was served with a charge-sheet by the then chief engineer and was removed from service on 26-3-1951. the order of his removal was set aside on or about 1-4-1953. however, another charge-sheet based on the same charges was framed against him on 29-4-1953.it appears that the earlier order of dismissal was set aside on the ground of defect in procedure, and that was why anantram was again served with a fresh charge-sheet, on the same charges. on this second charge-sheet, anantram was punished by stoppage of one increment. this second order was passed on 29-3-1954, and his appeal against that order was rejected on 31-8-1954. the applicant was not given his pay for the period from 27-3-1951, to 7-4-1953 and that period was treated as leave without pay.the applicant made a representation in connection with the withholding of his pay, and thereupon he was informed on 31-9-1954, that the period from 27-3-1951, to 7-4-1953, was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 1956 (HC)

Kesari Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-29-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Raj284

bapna, j.1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution against an order of the government removing the petitioner from the office of chairman of the town municipality of sironj.2. the case of the petitioner is that he was-duly elected as chairman or the town municipality of sironj, district kotah, and had been working as such since 26th february, 1955. he was the secretary of the praja socialist party, and for various reasons mentioned in the petition had incurred the wrath of the tehsil and district congress committees, which began to press the congress-men in authority to bring about the petitioner's removal in order to boost up the prestige of the congress in that area, and that as result of this pressure the present government, which was run by the congress party, ordered his removal under cover of section 22 (10) of the rajasthan town municipalities act, 1951 (act no. 23 of 1951). it was alleged that he was served by the secretary, local self-government, with a charge-sheet by letter dated 10th november, 1955 of which an explanation was given by him on the 3rd december, 1955. later at an interview he explained the case to the deputy minister, and had shown that none of the charges were tenable; but nevertheless an order of removal from chairmanship of the town municipality of sironj was passed by the government on 24th january, 1956, and served upon him on the 6th february, 1956. it was urged that the charges were baseless, and had not been proved. it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 1956 (HC)

Anokhmal Bhurelal Vs. Chief Panchayat Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur and o ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-07-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Raj388

ranawat, j. 1. this is an application under article 226 of the constitution of india.2. the petitioner is one anokhmal of village, choru, in tehsil uniara, district tonk. his case is that a village panchayat was established at choru under the provisions of the rajasthan panchayat act, and the elections of panchas and sarpanch of the said panchayat were held on the 21st of october, 1955, and respondents nos. 3 to 17 were declared elected. it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that notice under rule 4 of the panchayat election rules of 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the rules) was published by the returning officer on the 14th of october, 1955. and a copy thereof was affixed on the notice board of the panchayat the same day. copies of the said notice were also circulated in the villages constituting the choru panchayat through patwaris on the 15th of october, 1955.thus the case of the petitioner is that the notice under rule 4 of the rules was not announced7 days before the date of election and the proceedings of election are, therefore, challenged tobe invalid. the prayer of the petitioner is that the proceedings of election be declared to be invalid and the chief panchayat officer be directedto hold fresh elections of the panchayat. it hasalso been stated by the petitioner that he raisedan objection in this behalf before the returningofficer at the time of election, but it was not considered and the proceedings of election were conducted if spite of the objection .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1956 (HC)

Rajasthan Bar Council Vs. Nathuram and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-24-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Raj179; 1956CriLJ1350

modi j. 1. this is a contempt of court matter set in motion by the secretary, rajasthan bar council, against two sub-inspectors of police nathuram and harnamsingh in relation to the arrest of shri fateh chand kothari, an advocate of this court, practising at churu.2. the material facts which have culminated in the present proceedings are briefly these. shri kothari was briefed by one sagarmal in a complaint filed by him under sections 452 and 506, i.p.c. against his son-in-law maniram and another person manoharlal (obviously a friend of maniram) in the court of the extra magistrate, first class, churu, on 22-7-1953.the allegations made by sagarmal were that his daughter mt. lilawati was being treated by her husband maniram with great cruelty and so she had come to her father's house, that maniram and manoharlal had come over to churu about four days ago and met sagarmal on the night of the 21st july and called upon him to send mt. lilawati with them else they threatened that they would take her away by force and cut her nose and then leave her.it was also mentioned in the complaint that manoharlal had stated at the meeting that 'the thanedar of churu' was his friend and that it would not be difficult for them to implicate sagarmal and his daughter falsely. sagarmal further complained that the thanedar accompanied by two or three persons of churu had come to his house on the 20th july and had asked the latter to send his daughter away with maniram whereupon sagarmal requested .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 1956 (HC)

Mubarak Begam and anr. Vs. Sushil Kumar and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-30-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Raj154

dave, j.1. this is a first appeal in execution proceedings against the order of the civil judge, bikaner, dated the 3rd september, 1954, and arises in the following circumstances :--2. on 26th of april, 1953, respondent no. 1, sushil kumar, who is a minor, presented an execution application through his next friend and guardian mt. gitabai, who is his mother, for execution of a decree dated 12th july, 1951, against the judgment-debtor zahur ahmad. the decree was for rs. 9,525-14-0 and the said amount was to be realised from the sale of the mortgaged property which consisted of a house situated in mohalla gusaiyan at bikaner. this property was put to auction by the sales amin from 4th january, 1954, to 7th january, 1954. on the last date, i.e., 7th january, 1954, the highest bid was that of one gopalal goswami for rs. 8,500. it was represented to the court that the bid was low and, therefore, the executing court ordered the sales amin to auction the property again on 8th of january, 1954. on that date also the highest bid was rs. 8,500 and the bidder deposited l/4th amount of auction price. the judgment-debtor, however, made an application to the court that the property was very valuable, that the bid was very low and, therefore, it should be got- auctioned again. this request was allowed by the court with the consent of the decree-holder and the property was again put to auction from 26th may, 1954, to 29th may, 1954. the report of the sales amin shows that on all the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1956 (HC)

Chimna Vs. Chunnilal and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-17-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Raj378

modi, j.1. this is second appeal by the judgment-debtor chimna and arises under, the following circumstances.2. the respondents chunnilal and bhakhtawarmal and certain others as plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant appellant for rs. 3073/7/- on the allegation that they had incurred losses with respect to certain transactions for the purchase of gold mohars and silver petiesmade by them for and at the instance of the defendant and the latter was therefore, liable to reimburse them for the losses incurred.3. the defendant resisted the plaintiffs' suit in his written statement, but it is not necessary for the purposes of this appeal to state the de-calls of the objections raised. on the 18th march, 1948, the parties entered into a compromise and obtained a decree on its basis. by this compromise decree it was agreed that the defendant would pay a sum of rs. 700/- on falgun sudi 11 smt. 2004 (corresponding to the 21st march, 1948), and a further instalment of rs. 100/- on the baisak sudi 15 (corresponding to 22nd may, 1948).it was further provided that if the defendant had failed to pay rs. 1700/- as specified on the due dates, the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover the entire, amount of the suit. the defendant thereafter paid the first instalment of rs. 700/- on the 3rd april 1948 instead of the 21st march, 1948 but the decree-holders accepted the amount. the defendant again failed to pay the second instalment on the 22nd may, 1948, and deposited the said amount in .....

Tag this Judgment!


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