Rajasthan Court February 1976 Judgments
Ghanshyam Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)96
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This is the defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment of the premises situated at Deeg in District Bharatpur.2. The ejectment was sought on the ground of bonafide, personal necessity and default in payment of rent. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff by its judgment and decree dated November 29, 1973. The suit decreed on the ground of default in payment of rent, and the claim regarding bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiff was disallowed. The aggrieved tenant filed an appeal which came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Bharatpur, who by his judgment and decree dated July 4, 1975 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree filed by the trial court. Hence this second appeal.3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant appellant has submitted an application on October 16, 1975 under Section 13A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 as amended by Ame...
Tag this Judgment!Bheema and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN568
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The appellants have filed these two appeals one through jail and the other represented against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore dated 31-5-1976, where by he has convicted all the three accused appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.2. The facts giving rise to this case are that a First Information Report was filed on 6-9-1975 at 6 p.m. at Police Station, Ummedpur. This was a written report by one Kesa son of Chatara by cast Kalbi resident of Godan to the Superintendent of Police, Jalore who forwarded the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jalore, Shri Jalamsingh who in turn after due interrogation of Kesa forwarded the report to Police Station, Ummedpur for registration of case under Section 302 I.P.C. It was disclosed in the report that on previous night...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj136; 1976(9)WLN55
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the two orders of the Assistant Collector (S. D. O.) Nagaur dated March 13, 1974 (Ex. 24) and March 29, 1974 (Ex. 25), whereby the learned Assistant Collector held that 5 1/2 bighas of land out of the total 15 1/2 bighas situated in village Mundawa over which the petitioner is alleged to have his possession was 'ghair mumkin abadi Devsthan' and may be recorded as such. The petitioner's contention is that the impugned orders passed by the learned Assistant Collector are completely without jurisdiction and may be quashed. In this connection, it has also been urged that the impugned orders were passed without any opportunity having been given to the petitioner of being heard. 2. In order to establish his right to the land in question, the petitioner has narrated the past history with respect to this land in great detail. But I do not consider it necessary to delve into all those details. For the purpose of disposal of this petit...
Tag this Judgment!Hukma and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1480
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. These three appeals: D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1972: Hukma v. State of Rajasthan D.B., Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1972. Sobha v. State of Rajasthan filed by the appellants from Jail, while the D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 1972: Hukma and Sobha filed through a counsel, arise out of the judgment dated January 20, 1972 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur whereby he convicted the accused-appellant Hukma under Section 302, I. P.C. for committing the murder of Logariya and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. He was also convicted under Section 392, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-; in default of the payment of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Accused-appellant Sobha was convicted under Section 411, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. in default...
Tag this Judgment!Hukma and Sobha Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN118
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. These three appeals : D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1972 Hukma v. State of Rajasthan D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1972. Sobha v. State of Rajasthan filed by the appellants from Jail while the D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 1972 : Hukma and sobha filed through a counsel, arise out of the judgment dated January 20, 1972 of the learned Additional Seasons Judge, Udaipur whereby he convicted the accused appellant Hukma under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of Logariya and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life He was also convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-; in default of the payment of which to further undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years Accused appellant Sobba was convicted under Section 411, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of whi...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN40
M.L. Jain, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 25.9.72 by which he convicted and sentenced the appellant Madan Lal as follows:(1) Under Section 161 I.P.C to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment whereof, to simple imprisonment for one month, and(2) Under Sub-section (2) read with Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) or Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment whereof, to simple imprisonment for two months.The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. I have heard arguments and examined the record.2. The appellant was a Survey Amin in the Settlement Department in circle Amer, District Jaipur at the relevant time. One Kushalaram PW. 1 asked him to survey his land & demarcate it into separate holdings for himself and his six brothers. The appellant demanded Rs. 100/- as bribe fo...
Tag this Judgment!Poosa Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN135
Kalyan Dutta Sharma, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 1975 filed by Poosa Ram and S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 749 of 1975, filed by Amia alias Amrit Lal arise out of on and the same judgment of the Additional Sessions judge, Jodhpur, dated 25th October, 1975, by which Poosa Ram was convicted under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer eight months rigorous imprisonment and Amia appellant was convicted under Section 326/34, I.P.C. and awarded sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 400/-, and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for four months By his very judgment another co-accused Ghanshyam was convicted under Section 352/34, I.P.C. and was released after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, Ghanshyam, however, did not file an-appeal against his conviction and sentence.2. The prosecution cases against b...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Industries and Metal Works and anr. Vs. State Bank of India ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)74
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge Court No. 2, Jaipur City dated 31-7-1972 in a suit for money.2. It is not necessary to narrate the facts of the case. During the course of the arguments of this appeal, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff respondents moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for allowing him to lead additional evidence in respect of the following documents:(1) Postal receipt of letter dated 6-2-65 with acknowledgement due(2) Postal receipt of letter dated 8-7-65(3) Postal receipt of letter dated 12-3-66(4) Two postal receipts of letters dated 18-10-68 with the envelopes bearing endorsement 'refused'(5) Two postal receipts of notice dated 5-11-66 with envelopes bearing endorsement 'refused'(6) Certificates of posting of letters dated 18-10-66 and 5-11-663. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that these documents could not be produced earlier during the course of the trial on account of vaguene...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1485
M.L. Jain, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 25-9-1972 by which he convicted and sentenced the appellant Madan Lal as follows:(1) Under Section 161, I.P.C. to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment whereof, to simple imprisonment for one month, and(2) Under Sub-section (2) read with Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment whereof, to simple imprisonment for two months.The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. I have heard arguments and examined the record.2. The appellant was a Survey Amin in the Settlement Department in circle Amer, District Jaipur at the relevant time. One Kushlaram P.W. 1 asked him to survey his land and demarcate it into separate holdings for himself and his six brothers. The appellant demanded Rs. 100/- as br...
Tag this Judgment!Kayum Ali Vs. Alanoor
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)97
S.N. Modi, J.1. The only point involved in this execution second appeal is whether the consent decree passed on 7-5-70 on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties is a nullity as, it has been passed in contravention of the provisions of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. This appeal arises out of these facts. The respondent was a tenant of a room belonging to the appellant at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,50. The respondent did not pay rent to the landlord for a considerable period of time. Ultimately the plaintiff landlord filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 245/- on 19-9-1966.3. The suit was resisted by the tenant on various grounds which need not be mentioned here.4. Evidence wan led by both the parties in proof of the issues. On 7-5-70 a compromise petition was filed in the court which was signed by both the parties. The court recorded the compromise and passed a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »