Rajasthan Court July 1976 Judgments
immamudIn and ors. Vs. Mst. Khatoon and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj142
Sen, J.1. These two appeals by the defendants arc directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Jalore dated 17th September, 1974 holding them jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 70,200/- as compensation to the plaintiff for the death of her husband under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.2. The claim for compensation arises in this way: The State Government of Rajasthan, defendant No. 1, had by a contract dated 1-8-1966 (Exhibit A/I), given the contract for construction of the Higher Secondary School, Jalore to the defendant No. 2 M/s. Dalley Khan & Sons, Jodhpur at 14 1/2% above the schedule of rates i. e. at an estimated cost of Rs. 1,05,788/-. The defendant No. 2 had undertaken to construct the building in accordance with the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions in writing etc. The building was originally estimated to cost Rs. 2,31,000/-, but the plans were modified to reduce the cost to Rs. 2,03,500/- by replacing stone-slab roofing by As...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Razaq Vs. Dhoop Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)287
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This is a civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 39(6) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 against the order of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, dated July 7, 1972, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act was dismissed.2. On behalf of the respondent a preliminary objection was raised that an appeal under Section 39(6) of the Indian Arbitration Act is not maintainable against an order rejecting the application under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, refusing to invalidate the agreement for arbitration.3. The appellant filed an appeal before this Court on August 14, 1972. The award was passed by Shri Damodar Pandaya on June 16, 1970, against which no application was made by the appellant before the learned District Judge under Section 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act to set aside the award, and thus, the award became final. The validity of the award is now being challenged in this appeal.4. The quest...
Tag this Judgment!Tara and Lakha Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN853
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. The two appellants Lakha and Taga were tried, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore along with six other accused (acquitted) in connection with an offence which took place in the intervening night of 3rd and 4th April, 1975, in the house of Dewa (since deceased). In the course of that occurrence Dewa (deceased) sustained serious injuries;, and as a result of those injuries he met an instantaneous death. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted I both the accused appellants under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of the payment of which they were to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. Rest of the accused were acquitted of all the charges.2. Shorn of all, unnecessary details, the prosecution story as disclosed at the trial is that P.W. 7 Mst. Mani was betrothed to Bhagwara, son of Kana Jat, resident of village Meerpura. Since Dewa (deceased), father of Mst. ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Shiv Ray and anr. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ843; 1976(9)WLN330
ORDERM.L. Jain, J.1. This application under Section 432 Cr.P.C. has arisen in the following circumstances:2. The petitioners are doctors, who were on duty in the Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer, on the night intervening 24th and 25th February, 1973. It was alleged that they committed rape upon Miss Francis Anthony who was a trainee nurse aged 20 years. The police after investigation challaned the case on 13-9-73 under Section 354 IPC because they found that no case either under Section 376 or 342 IPC was made out. During the trial under Section 354 I.P.C. Miss Francis Anthony was examined in the court of the Magistrate, Ajmer on 20-8-75. She maintained that she was ravished by the accused. When her examinalion-in-chief was still going on, the A.P.P. submitted to the court that the case was under Section 376 IPC and therefore, the court could not proceed with the trial and could instead commit the case to the court of session for trial. The trial magistrate committed the case to the c...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)317
Rajendra Sachar, J.1. The petitioner is a student of M.Sc. (Previous) Chemistry. He took a second semester in June, 1975. He attempted the first two papers without anything happening in the ball. He was attempting the third paper of physical chemistry on 6th of June, 1975, when he was accosted by the invigilator's and his accused book was taken because according to the invigilator's report 'the candidate had written some material connected with his paper physical chemistry on the palm of his left band. He was not copying this material. The Centre Superintendent sent the case to the University with his remarks that the candidate had written some martial relevant to the paper on the palm of his left band. He was not using it for, copying and was detected during the course of close examination by the invigilator. A show cause notice was sent to the petitioner dated 13th of June, 1975 by the University calling upon him to show cause why action should not be taken against him for using unfa...
Tag this Judgment!Mastana Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti, Pali Vs. Board of Revenue for Raj ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj4; 1976(9)WLN349
Kudal, J.1. This is a writ petition directed against the judgment of the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan dated April 17, 1968.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Patwari. Kharda and the Revenue Inspector, Pali reported the fact of trespass by Gambhira, Sardul, Jetha, Amara, Chandra and Ganesh in the land in dispute on January 7, 1960. The disputed lands consisting of Khasra Nos. 558/1 measuring 920 bighas 8 biswas and 558/2 measuring 151 bighas 17 biswas are situated in village Kharda. tehsil Pali. On this report, the non-petitioners were served with a notice as envisaged under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act calling upon them to withdraw from the land trespassed by them. The Tehsildar on May 25, 1960 declared them trespassers for the St. years 2015 and 2016 and ordered their eviction from the land in dispute, and also imposed a penalty of six times the rent. As the non-petitioners failed to vacate the land trespassed by them, further proceedings were r...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Singh Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Ja ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj108
ORDERD.P. Gupta, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by Govind Singh, who was formerly an operator of Bikaner-Salasar route in the following circumstances:-- 2. Govind Singh had two non-temporary stage carriage permits on Bika-ner -- Salasar route, one of which was valid upto August 31, 1974, while the other was valid upto June 1, 1975 after their renewal. I am concerned in the present case with the last mentioned permit of the petitioner, which was renewed by the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the R. T. A.') dated September 5, 1972 upto June 1, 1975 with the condition that the route of the said permit shall be rendered ineffective from Bikaner to Nokha upon the publication of the nationalisation scheme, It is admitted by the petitioner that Bikaner --Nokha portion of the route of the petitioner's aforesaid permit formed part ofthe bus route from Jodhpur to Bikaner, in respect of which a nationalisation scheme was approved by the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Satyapal Vs. Sarad Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)244
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants tenant in a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits against the appellate judgment of Civil Judge, Kota dated 11.9.75. The plaintiff landlord sought eviction of the tenant on two grounds. Firstly that the defendant committed default in payment of rent and secondly that the landlord required the premises reasonably and bonafide for his own use and occupation. The trial court upheld both these grounds and decreed the suit. The appellate court held that the plaintiff was not able to prove that he required the premises reasonably and bonafide for his own use and occupation. The appellate court however, upheld the decree on the ground of default in payment of rent.2. The defendant tenant has now come up in second appeal to this Court. After the judgment of the appellate court, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was amended by Ordinance No. 26/75 which came into force on 29 9 75...
Tag this Judgment!Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)273
A.P. Sen, J.1. This writ petition, filed by M/s Man Industrial Corporation Limited. Jaipur, which is the dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1955, is directed against the order of the Commercial Taxes Officer Circle 'B', Jaipur City dated February 12, 1968 imposing penalty of Rs. 835/- under Section 16(1)(b) and Rs. 40,000/- under Section 16(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The penalty has been imposed due to delay in submission of its returns under the Central Sales Tax Act for the quarters ending 31st Marct, 1965 and for the delay in payment of tax under that Act.2. The short question involved in the petition is whether any penlty could be levied under Section 16(1)(b) and (c) of the Rajasthan Salts Tax Act either for delay in submission of returns under (he Central Sales Tax Act or for any delay ID payment of tax under that Act.3. The decision turns on a proper construction of Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which enacts:Subject to the othe...
Tag this Judgment!Amarjeet Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1976
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)325
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This is an application for bail under Section 428 Cr. P.C.2. A case under Section 452, 307, 147 and 148 IPC was registered on 17-10-1974 against the accused applicant along with five others The prosecution case is that elections were held in the Dayanand College, Ajmer in those days and that there was tension between the two contesting candidates. The accused applicant along wish others was siding Purshottam while the com plainant party was canvasing for the other candidate. It is alleged that on the night intervening 16th and 17th October 1974, the applicant along with others went to the room of Gurdayal Singh and assaulted him when he was sleeping in the room His cousin Ram Niwas was also sleeping and was assaulted. It is alleged that Gurdayal Singh and Ram Niwas sustained injuries. An application for grant of anticipatory bail was also moved before the Learned Sessions Judge which was rejected on February 12, 1975.3. It has been contended on behalf of the accused ap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »