Rajasthan Court January 1977 Judgments
Ram Rakh Vyas Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Raj243; 1977()WLN16
ORDER, 1976.In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act. 1956 (37 of 1956), the President, after consultation with the Governor of Rajasthan and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Rajasthan, is pleased to make the following order, namely: 1. Short title and commencement:-- (1) This order may be called the High Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur) Order, 1976.(2) It shall come into force on the 31st day of January, 1977.' 2. Establishment of a Permanent Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur:-- There shall be established a permanent Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, and such Judges of the High Court of Rajasthan, being not less than five in number, as the Chief Justice of that High Court may, from time to time, nominate, shall sit at Jaipur in order to exercise the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the districts of...
Tag this Judgment!Parekh Automobiles and ors. Vs. Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)137
M.L. Joshi, J.1. These two writ petitions challenge the validity of the levy as the octroi on the petroleum products by the Municipal Council Jodhpur sell from depot of the Indian Oil Corporation at Jodhpur, hereinafter called the respondent No. 2 to its retail outlets viz Dangiavas and Mogda. The petitions are based on almost identical facts and involve common questions of law and so they are being disposed of by a single judgment.2. As the facts and points involved in both the writ petitioner are almost similar it will be sufficient to narrate facts from writ petition NO. 17/76 Parekh Automobiles v. Municipal Council Jodhpur and Anr. as the decision in this case will govern the decision in the another writ petition also.3. The petitioner Parekh Automobiles Co., has a retail outlet for the sale of petroleum products at Dangiavas. The petitioner has been allotted retail outle by the respondent No. 2 for sale of petroleum products such as diesel oil, mobile oil etc. at Dingiavas which i...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Kumar and ors. Vs. Budh Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Raj238; 1977()WLN51
ORDERRajindar Sachar, J.1. This is a revision petition by the defendant against the order of the Civil Judge dated 13-12-75 by which he has held that the suit is cognizable by the Civil Court.2. The plaintiff has filed a suit alleging that he is the owner and in possession of the suit land. It is alleged that the defendant No. 4 purporting to act as the holder of a power of attorney from the plaintiff has executed a sale deed in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 of the land belonging to plaintiff. It is alleged that defendant No. 4 was not appointed by the plaintiffs nor was he the holder of power of attorney from the plaintiffs and consequently the sale deeds executed are void, inoperative and of no effect and therefore they should be cancelled and the defendants be restrained by permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit land. Defendant through an application raised the preliminary objection that the court-fees has not been properly paid and suit...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer, Pwd, (B and R) Vs. NaraIn Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1977
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ141Raj; 1977()WLN101
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur, dated July 31, 1975.2. The facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that Narain Lal was working as a motor driver in the office of the Executive Engineer, Udaipur, The applicant has contended that on April 6, 1971 he received personal injuries in the accident which occurred in the course of his employment. The jeep in which the applicant was going had turned over and as a result thereof the applicant received several serious injuries in his head and the collar bone was broken. The monthly wages which the applicant was receiving at the time of the accident were Rs. 258. It was contended that as the respondent had not made any payment of compensation to him payable under the Act, he has filed an application claiming payment of compensation to the extent of Rs. 11,500.3. The opposite party, however, denied the cl...
Tag this Judgment!Uchab Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)14
M.L. Joshi, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 18th of October, 1975 (Ex. 3) and the order dated 22nd of October, 1975 of the Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner (Ex. 4).2. This facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are as follows: One deceased Khivsingh was holding 440 Bighas of Nahari land. Khiv Singh died on 7th of August, 1966 leaving behind him two sons Karni Singh and Nathusingh and three daughters Uchabkanwar (petitioner) Smt. Jatankanwar and Smt. Pusupkanwar besides two widows Smt. Jaskanwar and Smt. Bhim Kanwar. According to the petitioner, on the death of Khivsingh the land held by deceased Khivsingh devolved upon his heirs, namely, sons, daughters and widows and the petitioner received her share in the land by succession which was recorded in the Jamabandi by mutation in her favour.3. The further case of the petitioner is that in pursu...
Tag this Judgment!The Board of Muslim Wakfs for Rajasthan Vs. Bhanwar Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)38
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This special appeal by the Board of Muslim Wakfs for Rajasthan, Jaipur under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance No. 15 of 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as the Ordinance') is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated December 9, 1969 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 107 of 1969 refusing to declare the decree dated July 9, 1969 passed in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 602 of 1963 as void.2. Tersely put shorn of unnecessary details the facts giving rise to this special appeal are as under.3. The respondents Bhanwar Chand, Padamchand, and Moolchand, in the status of trustees of Khatargach sect filed a suit on March 20, 1958 in the court, of Civil Judge, Nagaur for declaration of title to, and possession of, a 'nohara', described in para No. 3 of the plaint against Ayub, Hafiz, Kasam and others as managers of Masjid Khari, situated in Mohalla Teliwada, Nagaur. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that the docume...
Tag this Judgment!idan Puri Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)28
A.P. Sen, J.1. This special appeal by Idan Puri who was & Skilled Fitter in the Northern Railway Workshop, Jodhpur, is directed against an order of P.N. Shanghai, J. dated 3-4-1972 dismissing his writ petition for quashing the order of his dismissal dated 27-2-1971.2. The learned Single Judge declined to invoke his discretionary powers under Article 226 of. the Constitution on the ground that an earlier writ petition filed by the appellant for a relief similar to that claimed in the present writ petition, had been dismissed by this Court summarily, on the ground that while it was permissible for him to have filed a revision-application under Rule 24(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 he had not availed of that remedy though he was specifically informed by letter, Ex. 3, dated 24-6-1971. As that statutory remedy was held to be equally efficacious and convenient the writ petition was dismissed. thereafter, the appellant filed a revision but it appears from let...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Basi Bai Vs. Firm Mangi Lal Chuni Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)55
Rajindar Sachar, J.1. This is a defendant's revision against the order of the lower appellate court dated 13th December, 1972 by which he has remanded the case to the trial court for fresh decision.2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,099.75 on the allegation that the defendant-petitioner had executed a pronote for Rs. 1,801/- in his favour. The balance of the amount was made up of interest. The defendant countered the allegation and maintained that she had neither executed the promissory rote and that nothing was due from her. The folio-Ming three issues were framed:1. Whether the defendant executed the suit pronote of Rs. 1801/- in favour of the plaintiff?2. In case issue No. 1 is decided in the affirmative whether the suit pronote is without consideration?3. What shall be the relief?3. The burden of proof of issue No. I was placed on the plaintiff, while it was placed on the defendant with regard to issue No. 2.4. The plaintiff led his evidence and examined...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN32
M.L. Joshi, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Govindprasad. The facts giving rise to his writ petition briefly stated are as follows.2. The petitioner was a tool checker in foundry shop No. 3 in Northern Railway Workshop at Jodhpur at the relevant time in the year 1965. He was prosecuted on a police report under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged misappropriation of 29 copper ingots. On account of this case the petitioner was suspended by the Works Manager Northern Railway Jodhpur with effect from 26th of November, 1965. Ultimately the petitioner was acquitted by this Court by its judgment dated 16th of April, 1969 passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1967. The petitioner, there-after approached the Deputy C.M.E. (West) Northern Railway Jodhpur, non-petitioner No. 2, and reported himself for duty. He was allowed to resume duty from 15t...
Tag this Judgment!Teju and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN47
Rajindar Sachar, J.1. This writ petition challenges the impugned order of the Board of Revenue dated September 26, 1972 by which it held that the appeal of the petitioners had abated in entirety.2. Plaintiff respondent filed a suit against the present petitioners and some other defendants on the allegation that the petitioners had forcibly occupied the land which the plaintiffs claim in their ownership. The disputed land was comprised in three Khatas, namely, Khata No. 116/1, Khata No. 117 and Khata No. 122/1. The defendants in their reply denied that they had forcibly occupied the land On the contrary, they pleaded that they were in occupation of the separate pieces of land for a number of years. In the written statement, the possession of different defendants to different numbers was separately mentioned as being in their possession since long. The trial court by its judgment dated April 20 1956, dismissed the suit. The appellate court accepted the appeal and remanded the case. Howev...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »