Rajasthan Court October 1974 Judgments
State of Raj. and anr. Vs. Dr. B.L. Asawa and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN882
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. This is a special appeal by she State of Rajasthan against the order of learned Single Judge of this Court dated March 29, 1974 partly allowing the writ petition filed by respondent Dr. B.L. Asawa.2. Dr. B.L. Asawa, the respondent before us, passed his M.B.B.S. Examination from the University of Rajasthan in the year 1954 and was substantively appointed as a Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Rajasthan Medical Service with effect from May 26, 1956. He secured the degree of M.D. (Forensic Medicine) from the University of Bihar, Muzzaffarpur in the year 1970 Thereafter he was appointed as an officiating Lecturer in Forensic Medicine at the S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur on purely ad-hoc and temporary basis with effect from January 4, 1971 by the order of the State Government dated December 31, 1970 as modified on February 14, 1972.XX XX XX XX XX3. The Rajasthan Publics Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') advertised two posts of Lecturers in Fore...
Tag this Judgment!Saidas Vs. Legal Representatives of Deceased Ameerbux
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Raj128; 1974(7)WLN805
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff-landlord's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment in respect of a shopsituated in the town of Sri Ganganagar. The suit was originally instituted against Ameerbux, who died during the pendency of this appeal on 10-5-74, and the present respondents have been substituted in his place as his legal representatives. The suit for ejectment was based on two grounds: (1) default in payment of rent; and (2) sub-letting. The trial Court dismissed the suit, and its judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar. Hence, this second appeal by the plaintiff.2. Kallu, one of the sons of Ameerbux has filed a written objection in this Court on 3-10-74 that besides his father Ameer Bux, he was also tenant in respect of the suit premises in his personal capacity. In support of this assertion he has filed a number of rent-receipts alleged to have been issued in his favour by the plaintiff. The plaintiff-appellant has denied Kallu's stat...
Tag this Judgment!Yash Deva Vs. Mayo College
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN903
C.M. Ladha, J.1. This is a defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a Suit for ejectment from bungalow No. B 6 situated in the campus of the Mayo College Ajmer and also fur arrears of rent and future rent/mesne profits as also for water charges.2. The plaintiff, Secretary, Mayo College, General Council, Ajmer, filed the suit on 4th September, 1967 alleging that by resolution No. 14 dated 25th February, 1967 the General Council had decided to start a Preparatory School, and also to take steps to get the Staff quarters at Alwar Gate Ajmer, vacated from the present occupants for the said purpose. It was alleged that the bungalow No. B-6, which was in occnpation of the defendant, as tenant of the plaintiff, was reasonably and bona fide required for educational purposes by the plaintiff. Besides the agreed rent at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month, water charges at the rate of Rs. 8/- per month were also claimed. So far as the claim for rent is concerned, there is no dispute. The two po...
Tag this Judgment!Bankatlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN866
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The petitioner challenged the validity of the order of his detention made by the District Magistrate, Jodhpur under Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (for short the Act) and prays for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.2. The order of detention was passed on March 18, 1974. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was taken into custody on March 19, 1974.3. The detention order (for short, the first order) which was served on the detenue at the time of his arrest on March 19, 1974 stated:..whereas, the said Shri Bankat Lal has been indulging in rampant adulteration or essential foodstuff and supply thereof for consumption by the community at large, operating a factory and firm under the name style of Laxmi Narain Moondra situated in Makrana Mohalla, Jodhour for such adulteration, so much so that 170 odd bags of material which among other things, includes 7 tins of sawdust, 15 bags of calour (yellow and Gherwa), 70 bags of Chilli se...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Masits
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN895
Kalyan Dutta Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State against a judgment of Special Excise Magistrate, First Class, Jaipur, dated 6th February, 1971, acquitting Masita respondent of an offence punishable under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.2. The prosecution case against the respondent was that on 19.10.1968 at about 8.15 a.m. he was seen near Nawab crossing, Ghat-Gate, Jaipur; carrying illicit liquor in a gunny bag on the carrier of his cycle by Head Constable Radha Gopal and two other Constables who were patrolling the area. The Head Constable asked the respondent to stop Out the latter ran away after leaving the cycle, the gunny-bag containing 8 bottles of illicit wipe and his Chhappals The Head Constable seized all these articles in the presence of Motbirs after taking a sample of illicit wine for chemical analysis. The articles seized were properly sealed there and then The Head Constable thereafter made a written report to the Station House Officer; Ramgan...
Tag this Judgment!Padmalochan and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Raj64; 1974(7)WLN929
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. This is an appeal directed, against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, by which the suit of the appellants claiming interest in the sum of Rs. 76,500/- was dismissed.2. The office hag raised an objection that fixed court-fee in the sum of Rs. 300/- is inadequate, and ad valorem court-fee should have been paid on the amount claimed. We issued a notice to the learned Government Advocate and the Deputy Government Advocate appears in answer to it.3. Some facts of this dispute might be recaptulated to appraise the scope of the controversy. The State of Rajasthan acquired in the year 1949-50 a parcel of land situate in Bhojpura near Gandhi Nagar area in Jaipur. Its compensation in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- was determined by the Revenue Department on 14-8-1951 and it was in point of fact also sanctioned on that date but the amount was paid to Shri Praduman Ojha father of the plaintiffs by the State on 7-1-1965. The plaintiffs, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Yash Deva Vs. Mayo College, Ajmer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Raj111
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from bungalow No. B-6 situated in the campus of the Mayo College, Aimer and also for arrears of rent and future rent mesne profits as also for water charges. 2. The plaintiff, Secretary, Mayo College, General Council, Ajmer, filed the suit on 4th September, 1967 alleging that by resolution No. 14 dated 25th February, 1967 the General Council had decided to start a Preparatory School, and also to take steps to get the Staff Quarters at Alwar Gate, Ajmer, vacated from the present occupants for the said purpose. It was alleged that the bungalow No. B-6, which was in occupation of the defendant, as tenant of the plaintiff, was reasonably and bona fide required for educational purposes by the plaintiff. Besides the agreed rent at the rate of Rs. 75 per month, water charges at the rate of Rs. 8 per month were also claimed. So far as the claim for rent is concerned, there is no dispute. The two po...
Tag this Judgment!Navratan Mal Vyas Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN877
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. During the relevant period, the petitioner was posted as Head Constable of police at Nagaur in the office of the Prosecuting Inspector, Nagaur. On 9.2.60 he was charge-sheeted by the Deputy inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, The charge ran as follows:That you Shri Navratanmal, H.C. No. 59 of District Nagaur (under suspension) entered in conspiracy with other constables and Head Constables, not to take meals and to go on hunger strike. You are therefore charged for indisciplinary conduct.After holding an enquiry, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, vide order dated 24.5.60 found that the above charge stood proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore ordered to be compulsorily retired on proportionate pension from service with effect from the date of service of the order The petitioner went in appeal against the said order but the appeal was dismissed by the Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Umrao Alias Landiya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN933
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by one Umrao and has been placed before me on a difference of opinion between the Judges hearing the appeal in Division Bench.2. Umrao was put on trial in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar on two counts; one under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and the other under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Ssssions Judge found Umrao guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but acquitted him of the other charge observing that an act of concealing the dead body of the deceased was not screening the offender as the accused himself was the offender, The learned trial Judge relied on State v. Mohanlal AIR 1958 Raj 388 for his conclusion that a murderer by removing a dead body from a place of murder to another place cannot be held to screem himself as the person to be screened must b? somebody else than the offender within the meaning of Section 201 Indian Penal Code The convict appealed and the appeal was heard by a Divis...
Tag this Judgment!Bhera and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Raj55; 1974(7)WLN800
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. These three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise an identical question and can be disposed of by a single judgment. Different learned Members of the Board of Revenue by their judgments of different dates following the decision of the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue in Madhosingh v. Motilal, 1971 RRD 194 declined to hear the three review petitions of the petitioners before us, on the ground that the judgments against which those review applications were made, were rendered by the Members who were no longer attached to the Board of Revenue and the petitions failed in view of the interpretation siven to Order 47, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue.2. While the learned counsel for the petitioners before us contend that the view taken in Madhosingh's case 1971 RRD 194 (FB) (Board of Rev.) is erroneous, the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners supported it for the reasons given there...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »