Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Year: 1953 Page 1 of about 10 results (0.020 seconds)

Feb 11 1953 (HC)

Manohar Lal Vs. Custodian, Rajasthan, Jodhpur and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-11-1953

Reported in : AIR1953Raj185

ranawat, j.1. this is an application by mano-har lal vaishya of fahari, district bharatpur, against the custodian rajasthan, naib deputy custodian, bharatpur, and tehsildar, pahari, under article 226 of the constitution of india.2. the facts alleged by the petitioner are that he purchased 46 maunds and 8 seers of 'sarson' from one sheo singh meo on the 14th day of the dark half of the month of asarh in samwat year 2004, and paid rs. 800/- to him on the same day. rs. 5/- were paid at the time of settling the transaction, while the balance, it is said, was paid two or three days later sheo singh left india, and went to pakistan. the then custodian of evacuee property, bharatpur, by his order dated 1-3-1949, acting on a report of the naib tehsildar, pahari, ordered the petitioner to deposit with him rs. 831/9/- being the price of the aforesaid 'saron', which had been purchased by the petitioner from sheo singh, who was an evacuee, without allowing any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. the petitioner came to know about this order when a demand for the payment was made from him by the collector as arrears of land revenue.after the petitioner came to know about the order, he moved a review application before the custodian, but it was rejected. the petitioner approached the custodian general of evacuee property in exercise of his revisional powers against the orders of the custodian, rajasthan, but unsuccessfully. the custodian general confirmed the order of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1953 (HC)

Radheyshiam and anr. Vs. Firm Sawai Modi Basdeo Prasad and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-31-1953

Reported in : AIR1953Raj204

ranawat, j. 1. in view of the importance of the questions involved herein, a division bench of this court has referred this case to a larger bench of this court for decision. 2. on 24-3-1947 an ex parte decree was obtained by radheyshiam and radha kishan against the firm of sawai modi basdeo prasad and ramprasad of dholpur for rs. 2498/6/-plus costs in the court of the civil judge, jaipur city. the defrndants at that time were the subjects of the then dholpur state. the suit was entertained in the court of the civil judge, jaipur, as the cause of action arose within the limits of the jurisdiction of that court. the defendants did not enter appearance and the proceedings against them were taken ex parte. at that time the jaipur state and the dholpur state were two different indian states and for the purposes of execution the decrees of the courts of one statewere considered to be decrees of the courts of a foreign state in the other. as the decree inthis case was a personal decree passed by a court of the jaipur state against the defendant who, being a subject of the then dholpur state not residing within the state of jaipur, was a non-resident foreigner, it could not be regarded by the then dholpur state courts to have conclusively determined the rights of the parties in the meaning of section 13, civil p. c., and as such it could not be executed there at that time. the dholpur state merged into the matsya union on 18-3-1948 and subsequently the matsya union became part of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1953 (HC)

Madan Singh and ors. Vs. Collector Sikar

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-16-1953

Reported in : AIR1954Raj104

sharma, j.1. these are 105 petitions filed by various state grantees and cultivators of the territories included in the former jaipur state, which have now been included in the districts of jaipur, jhunjhunu, sawai madhopur, sikar and tonk of the present state of rajasthan. in the year 1947 the then jaipur state passed an act known as the jaipur district boards act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the act). this act came into force on ' 3-10-1947.2. section 3 of the act provided as follows:'(3) (i) there shall be one board of everydistrict or any area which the government mayby notification in the jaipur gazette, declare.the jurisdiction of the board shall not extendto town municipalities.'(ii) every board shall be a body corporate by the name of 'the (name of district) district board' and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and shall be vested with the capacity of suing and being sued in its corporate name, of acquiring, holding and transferring property, moveable or immovable, and of entering into contracts.'3. under section 4 of the act every board was to consist of (a) elected members and (b) such persons as might be nominated by the government. it was also provided in the said section that the number of elected members was not to be less than two-thirds of the whole board.4. on 4-10-1948 while the erstwhile jaipur state was still in existence an amendment was passed by which a new section (section 4-a) was added to the act and it ran as follows:'4-a .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 1953 (HC)

Somath Mal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-11-1953

Reported in : AIR1954Raj162

modi, j.1. these are two writ petitions under article 226 of the constitution, and arise out of the same facts.2. the petitioners are residents of bhinmal and. describe themselves as citizens, voters and taxpayers in that town. the case of the petitioners is that opposite parties nos. 2 to 9, who are members of the municipal board of bhinmal and who will hereinafter be referred to as the board, have been realising from the petitioners and others certain taxes which are mentioned in the schedule appended to their petition and which may briefly be described as (1) octroi on certain articles e. g., cloth, grain, ghee, sugar and some others, if and when brought into the town of bhinmal, and (2) a kharda lag which is a sort of house-tax, without any authority of law, and that such action on the part of the board is unauthorised and illegal. the petitioners further alleged that the boundary limits of the bhinmal municipality had not been denned under any law at all. the petitioners therefore prayed that the opposite parties be restrained by the issue of a writ of prohibition or mandamus or any other writ or order from levying and collecting the taxes in question and that the money already collected from the petitioners in lieu thereof be directed to be refunded. it is stated on behalf of the opposite party no. 1, the state of rajasthan, and the municipal board of bhinmal that a municipality was established in the town of bhinmal by his highness the maharaja of the former state of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 1953 (HC)

Sukh Lal and ors. Vs. Devi Lal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-24-1953

Reported in : AIR1954Raj170

modi, j. 1. the only question which we are called upon to decide at this stage is one of court-fees. we give below a few facts out of which the present question has arisen. 2. the appellants were defendants in the trial court. the plaintiffs-respondents are sons of the respondent bakhtawarlal who was impleaded as defendant no. 5 in the suit. the plaintiffs' case was that their father bakhtawarlal & the plaintiffs were members of a joint hindu family, and that bakhtawarlal sold certain property to defendants nos. 1 to 4, namely, sukhlal, hukmichand, kastoorchand and gahrilal, by a sale-deed dated 10-6-1944, for a sum of rs. 800/-, and that the said property was ancestral property of the family and had been sold to the vendees above-named without the consent of the plaintiffs and without any family necessity. the plaintiffs, therefore, prayed that the sale-deed executed by bakhtawarlal in favour of the vendees be cancelled. the plaintiffs valued their suit at rs. 6000/- for purposes of jurisdiction. they alleged that they were in possession of the property in question and so paid a court-fee of rs. 7/- only. the court-fee paid in the trial court was correct according to the mewar court-fees act, smt. 1988. the learned civil judge who tried the suit granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs that the sale-deed dated 10-6-1944, was null and void and left the parties to bear their own costs. defendants sukhlal, hukmichand and others filed this first appeal on 7-12-1951 against .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 1953 (HC)

State Vs. Kishorilal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-01-1953

Reported in : 1954CriLJ564

ordernigam, j.c.1. on 25-10-1949 the special police establishment presented a charge-sheet against kishorilal, kalyanmal, radha vallabh and chajulal under section 7 of act 24 of 1946. this charge-sheet was presented in the court of the stipendiary magistrate, shri o. k. bhagat. evidence for the prosecution was recorded. then on 6-2-1950 it was urged that as the territory of pant piploda had merged with madhya bharat, the court had ceased to have jurisdiction in the case. the learned magistrate thereupon submitted the file to the district magistrate, ajmer for being transmitted to the chief secretary, madhya bharat for further action. further proceedings were taken in the court of the magistrate at alote.2. the prosecution were not satisfied that the alote court had jurisdiction in the matter and a motion was made before the high court of madhya bharat. the hon'ble the chief justice passed an administrative order on 16-8-1950 directing that the file be sent back for trial at ajmer. as this was an administrative order, the prosecution moved for a judicial order. the judicial order was passed in 'cri. revn. no. 79 of 1951 d/-8-2-1952 (madh b.) (a). the matter was again considered in 'cri (misc) case no. 74 of 1952 (madh-b.) (b) by a division bench of the madhya bharat high court and the learned judges were pleased to order as under:we are of opinion that the file should be sent back to the ajmer court and there the ajmer authorities will take steps before the judicial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1953 (HC)

Madan Mohan Vs. Bankatlal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-26-1953

Reported in : AIR1954Raj145

wanchoo, c.j. 1. this is an application under arts. 226 and 227 of the constitution by madan mohan praying for the issue of a writ of certioran or other appropriate writ or order in connection with the decision of an election petition against the applicant by the election tribunal at bikaner. 2. the facts, which have led to this application, are these: 3. general elections were held in rajasthan in january 1952 for the rajasthan legislative assembly. the applicant way a candidate in that election from the parbatsar (assembly) constituency, and was declared elected after contest. on 9-6-1952, bankatlal, opposite party, presented an election petition to the election commissioner against the election of the applicant. this petition was assigned by the election commission to the tribunal at bikaner, which consisted of shri m.p. asthana as chairman, and shri m.c. bhandari and shri goverdhandas t. gajria as members. shri badri prasad, kunwar dalipsingh, thakur karansingh and thakur shiv singri opposite parties in the present application were not made parties to the election petition. in october, 1952, the applicant objected before the election tribunal that as these four persons had not been made parties to the election petition, the petition was not according to law and must be dismissed. the election. tribunal, by its order dated 19-11-1952, however, refused to dismiss the petition and instead ordered that these four persons should be made parties to the election petition. this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1953 (HC)

Chhagansingh Vs. the State

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-26-1953

Reported in : AIR1954Raj153

ordermodi, j. 1. this is an appeal by the accused chhagan singh who has been convicted of offences under section 307, penal code, and section 19, arms act. he has been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 100/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 307, i. p. c., and to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment under section 19, arms act. 2. the case for the prosecution is briefly as follows: on 27-2-52, malusingh, head constable attached to the police station ratannagar, came to knew that the dacoits mohania, dhannesingh and chhagansingh were in the village raipuria and were expected to stay there during the night. it is said that these persons were wanted by the police in connection with several crimes. malusingh went on the same night to the superintendent of police, churu, shri tarachand (p. w. 1) who immediately on being informed organised a raid party to go to raipuria. the police party led by the superintendent of police left for raipuria in two government cars, and kept guard on the village during the night, but they found in the morning that the dacoits had left raipuria and were staying in the sand-hills in the neighbourhood of the village. the police party tracked them for about 20 to 25 miles and eventually saw them from a distance of about 250 to 300 yards in the jungle of ratansar. the accused and his companions seeing that they were being pursued by the police, jumped down from their camels, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 1953 (HC)

Rawat Man Singh Vs. Roop Chand Sogani and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-20-1953

Reported in : AIR1954Raj158

bapana, j. 1. this is a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india,2. the petitioner bawat man singh is a returned candidate to the rajasthan legislative-assembly from jamua ram garh constituency in the last general election. shri roop chand sogani and shri mangilal opposite party nos. 1 and 2 filed an election petition which is no. 227 of 39ii2 and is pending inquiry before the election tribunal, opposite party no. 6. rawat man singh, shri govind narain jahalani, shri kanhiya lal and shri amrit lal who were candidates at the election were made respondents in that petition.3. the petitioner challenges the validity of the constitution of the election tribunal on the following grounds :1. the chairman was appointed after the appointment of members. 2. on the resignation of the first chairman shri k.c. gupta, the tribunal was not re-constituted, but only a new chairman was appointed. 3. the tribunal was 'functus officio' during the period between the resignation of shri k.c. gupta chairman and the appointment of hon'ble mr. justice k.k. sharma in his place. 4. the members of the tribunal were appointed on different dates which was not contemplated' under the law. 5. shri p.l. shome, an advocate of the calcutta high court could not be appointed as a member of the tribunal functioning in rajasthan. 6. the consent of the president of india had' not been obtained for the appointment of hon'ble mr. justice k.k. sharma as chairman of the tribunal. 4. it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 1953 (HC)

Kishore Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-26-1953

Reported in : AIR1954Raj264

wanchoo, c.j.1. this is an application by kishore singh for the issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order against the state of rajasthan, and the district magistrate of nagaur, after quashing an order under the arms act.2. the case of the applicant is that be possessed a rifle and a 12 bore gun, and held licenses for the same under the law. on 19-5-1953, the distriet magistrate of nagaur ordered, under section 18, arms act, that the two licenses be cancelled with immediate effect. this order was passed without giving any hearing whatsoever to the applicant, and without giving him an opportunity to appear and show cause against such an order being passed against him, and without informing him in any way of the proposed order. the applicant made an approach to the commissioner, jodhpur, in this connection, but got no redress. the applicant relied on the principles of natural justice that no man shall be dealt with by any authority to his material disadvantage without fair and adequate-notice being given to him of what is alleged to be done to his detriment, and without giving him an opportunity of meeting the charge against him. as the district magistrate passed the order in disregard of the principles of natural justice, the order should be quashed.3. the application has been opposed on behalf of the state. it is urged that an enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner was made, and in the course of that enquiry the applicant was interrogated; but the law did not .....

Tag this Judgment!


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