Rajasthan Court May 1976 Judgments
Bajrang Singh Shekhawat and anr. Vs. University of Jodhpur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)148
S.N. Modi, J.1. These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, one by Bajrang Singh and the other by Ram Chandra have been filed against the University of Jodhpur praying that be any appropriate writ, direction or order, the notification No. Exam/227-248 Jodhpur dated April 24/25, 1975 (Ex. 1) be set aside or quashed and the request of the petitioners for getting their answer books in two subjects re-evaluated be allowed. As both these writ petitions involve common question of law and are based almost on identical facts, they are being disposed of together by this judgment.2. The salient facts of the two writ petitions are as follows.Bajreng Singh's writ petition.3. Bajrang Singh appeared at the examination of the L.L.B. I year of the University of Jodhpur held. In the month of June, 1976. The result was declared on September 21, 1975. Bajrang Singh was declared on September 21, 1975. Bajrang Singh was declared unsuccessful because he failed in paper I-Law of Contract ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwarlal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj215; 1976(9)WLN277
ORDERRajindar Sachar, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the impugned order (Ex. 7) of respondent No. 2 dated 13th March, 1975, by which it had been ordered that the earnest money which had been deposited by the petitioners be forfeited and also declaring the petitioners to be disqualified for a period of three years from obtaining any licence under the Rajasthan Excise Act and the Rules. 2. Licence for the retail sale of country liquor in the State is governed by the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 as amended (hereinafter to be called as 'the Rules'). 3. By notification of 30th March, 1972, the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 41 of the Act made certain amendments to the Rules. Rule 67-I provides that licence for exclusive privilege of selling by retail country liquor at a shop may be granted amongst others by inviting sealed tend...
Tag this Judgment!Kaloo Singh Vs. Asstt. Mining Engineer (Recovery) Mines and Geological ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj199; 1976(9)WLN204
ORDERP.D. Kudal, J. 1. This is a revision petition under Section 115, CPC against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge No 2, Jodhpur dated March 15, 1973. 2. The plaintiff-applicant Kaloo Singh filed a suit against the Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery) and the Mining Engineer, Mines and Geological Department, Jodhpur on 12-4-1971 before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur. The plaintiff prayed that the defendant is not entitled to recover the balance of the 'theka' amount either under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, or under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952. The plaintiff also prayed for issue of injunction restraining the defendants from effecting the recovery of the balance of the 'theka' amount. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were struck by the learned District Judge. 3. Issue No. 6 reads as follows: 'Whether the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient?' 4. The case was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional D...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramnarayan Upadhaya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN234
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an application in revision filed by the State of of Rajasthan against an order of the Special Judge for Anti-Corruption Department cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 25th September, 1975, by which ornaments, cash and silver utensils seized upon search from the house of Ram Narayan Upadhya non-petitioners, were ordered to be delivered to a superddar of the status of a person paying income-tax on a nearly income of Rs. 40,000/-, provided such Superddar gave an undertiking that he would keep ornaments, cash and utensils intact and would not in any manner dispose them of.2. The short facts giving rise to this revision-petition may be narrated as follows.3. A complaint was received against Ramnarayan Upadhaya, Enforcement Officer, Bikaner, that he, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise, abasing his position as a public servant, obtained for himself valuable things or pecuniary advantage and that be was in possession of pecuniary sources or property disproportionate...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Kumar Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj195; 1976(9)WLN222
ORDERP.D. Kudal, J. 1. This is a revision petition under Section 115, CPC against the order of the learned District Judge, Pali dated September 2, 1975.2. The facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur filed a suit against the defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 76,281.21. Along with the plaint some documents were also produced. On behalf of the plaintiff an application under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2, CPC was filed on July 4, 1975, wherein it was contended that the admission and denial of the documents on behalf of the defendant Vishnu Kumar were not specific, and as such, the defendant Vishnu Kumar may be examined orally. On behalf of the defendants, a reply was submitted on July 8, 1975 stating therein that the admission and denial of documents have been in accordance with General Rules (Civil), 1952, and that there was no occasion for examining the defendant Vishnu Kumar as a duly authorised and...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Khilari and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj219; 1976(9)WLN300
ORDERD.P. Gupta, J.1. These 29 writ petitions arise in somewhat similar circumstances and, therefore, it would be proper to dispose them of by a common order.2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions were employed in different capacities at various places in Rajasthan in the Indian Railways and they were removed from service as a sequel to the All India Strike of Railwaymen, which took place in May, 1974. It is common ground that the Central Government, by virtue of the powers conferred upon it under Rule 118 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 prohibited any strike in the Railway Service in India in connection with any industrial dispute for a period of six months with effect from November 26, 1973. Several Unions representing railway employees gave notices of an All India Strike of employees working on Indian Railways, which was to take effect from May 8, 1974, to ventilate the grievances of the railway employees, in respect of various matters relating to their service condition...
Tag this Judgment!Tagaram Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)181
D.P. Gupta, J.1. A new bus route from Jalore to Chitalwana via Bhagli (hereinafter referred to as 'the route') which is 168 kilometres long was opened by the Regional Transport Authority, Jodbpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.T.A.') and a limit of three permits and one return trip every day was fixed by the R.T.A. on the route. The R.T.A. invited applications for the grant of three permits on the route. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 submitted applications for grant of permits on the route which ware duly published in accordance with law. The petitioner, who is an operator of an overlapping route, is alleged to have filed objections or representation on March 6, 1973 in respect of the applications of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, under Section 57(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The matter relating to the grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits on the route came up for consideration before the R.T.A. . on February 25. 1974 and two permits gra...
Tag this Judgment!Pukhraj Vs. Mishrimal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN251
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This is a revision petition under Section 115, CPC against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Jalore dated November 18, 1974,2. The relevant facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that on November 18, 1974, Shri Deval Income-tax Inspector, D. Ward Bombay appeared before the learned Civil Judge with the assessment files for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72. On an objection being raised by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff his evidence was not recorded and it was held that the facts contained in an assessment order could not be divulged in view of Section 138 of the Income-tax Act. Feeling aggrieved against this order of the learned Civil Judge the present revision petition has been filed.3. It was contended on behalf of the defendant-applicant that after the Income-tax Act from 1st April, 1984 there is no legal bar against the production of assessment proceedings in a Court of Law. It was also contended that Section 137 of the Inc...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Das Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN218
K.D. Sharma, J.1. Badri Das has come up in revision to this Court against an order of the Sessions Judge, Partabgath, dated 28th January, 1975, by which he was ordered to be committed to the Court of Session for trial under Section 304, IPC.2. The incident that led to the arrest and prosecution of Badri Das petitioner may be shortly described as followed:Badri Das was married to a girl Shyam Kunwar by name. The relations between the wife and the husband gradually became striated after their marriage. Shyam Kunwar left her matrimonial home and went to her father's house. She was however, persuaded by her grand uncle Purshottam Das to go back to her husband's home. On her return to her husband's house she was again maltreated by her husband and in laws. Her husband Badri Das subjected her body to electric stocks by forcibly causing her feet to come into contact or touch with live wires. Kanhiaya Das and Birdhi Chand were the two eye-witnesses who saw Badri Das petitioner charging the bod...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Chand Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj197
ORDERD.P. Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner was the holder of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on Karauli--Narainpur--Tatwada route (hereinafter referred to as 'the route'). The aforesaid permit was issued to him by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.T.A.') on August 20, 1968 and was valid upto August 19, 1971. It was thereafter renewed for a further period of three years i.e. upto August 19, 1974.2. Under the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') an application for the renewal of a stage carriage permit is to be made at least 120 days before the date of its expiry. Under Sub-section (3) of the aforesaid section, the Regional Transport Authority is further authorised to entertain an application for renewal of a permit, which has been made not more than 15 days after the last date specified in the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section. The petitioner subm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »