Rajasthan Court January 1977 Judgments
Dr. Achalmal Singhvi Vs. Chano Khan and Sons and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Raj213; 1977()WLN57
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This is a Civil Misc. First Appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated October 28, 1971.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on January 15, 1969, Dr. Achal Mal Singhvi was driving his own car bearing No. RJQ 7513 on the Chowpasni Road, Jodhpur. He was coming from 4-A Road. He took a turn towards Sanishcharji-ka-than on the main Chowpasni Road. He had hardly driven the car a few feet after taking the turn when a truck No. RJS 359 dashed against the applicant's car. It was stated that the driver of the truck was driving it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The mud-guard and the hood of the car on the left side were damaged. The applicant, Dr. Singhvi, also received simple injuries on his body, and it was contended by him that he also received a great mental shock. A composite claim was filed before the Claims Tribunal in which claim for damages to the car a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kishan Pyari Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Raj9; 1977()WLN1
ORDERRajindar Sachar, J.1. Whether an amendment made by incorporating Sub-section (3) in Section 14 of Raiasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act hereinafter to be called 'the Act', by means of Ordinance 26 of 1975 as replaced by Amendment Act 14 of 1976 will apply to suits for eviction which had been filed before the coming into force of the said amendment is the question that calls for decision in the present revision petition.2. Section 13 (1) (h) of the Act provides that no court shall pass any decree, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant unless it is satisfied that the premises are required reasonably and bona fide by the landlord for the purposes mentioned therein. This provision applies equally to premises let out for residential as well as commercial or business purposes.3. On 30-3-72 the premises in dispute were let out to the petitioner-tenant. On 7-2-75 the respondent-landlord filed a suit under Section 13 (1)...
Tag this Judgment!Madhudevi Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)45
S.N. Modi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of Munsiff No. 2, Jodhpur, dated April 24, 1976, whereby he allowed the application filed on behalf of the respondent for impleading Dalip Singh, the husband of the petitioner, to be a party in the suit.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition may briefly be stated as follows. The plaintiff-petitioner is the owner of the bungalow described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint. She claimed ownership of the bungalow on the basis of a registered partitioned dated September 27, 1968. In the year 1975, she applied under Schedule VI of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Act No. 8 of 1910) to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board to provide electricity connection for light and power to her Bungalow. The application for providing light and power connections were accepted by the defendant-non-petitioner. The plaintiff-petitioner thereafter deposited the security amount demanded by the defendant-non-petitioner and...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)88
Rajindar Sachar, J.1. The proceedings under Section 25(2) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1,952, (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') were started with a claim of the petitioner that certain properties were his personal properties. By a decision of 23-3-64 the Additional Collector held certain properties to be the personal properties of the petitioner. The State being aggrieved, filed an appeal under Section 39 of the Act before the Board of Revenue. The appeal was filed on 19-5-65.2. Section 39(1) provides for an appeal to be filed within 90 days from the date of the decision. When the appeal came up before the Board of Revenue the petitioner raised an objection that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period The defence of the State was that though the Older undoubtedly was passed on 23-3-64 and the presence of Bhawani Shanker Upadhyay, the Legal Adviser (Jagir) was recorded in the order sheet, he was in fact not present and the Government came to k...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Vs. Mukan Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)34
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This is a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by, the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi on April 30, 1976.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Mukan Chand filed a suit against the defendants Babulal and Ruparam for arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendants from a shop situated in Sumerpur as described in para 1 of the plaint It was contended by the plaintiff that according to the rent-rote executed on December 4, 1969 the rate of rent was Rs. 61/- per month. It was also contended that the defendant No. 2 has not paid the arrears, of rent from December 4, 1971 and that a portion of the shop in question has been sub-let to the defendant No. 2. Thus, the ejectment was claimed on the ground of default and sub-letting.3. The defendants, however, denied the allegations in the plaint. It was contended that the defendants are ready any willing to pay the arrears of rent upto the date of fra...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Sushilkumar Kamalkant and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)93
Rajindar Sachar, J.1. This order will dispose of Sales Tax References Nos. 31/76 and 168/76.2. The Commercial Taxes Officer by an order of 16-9-65 made an assessment of the firm Messrs. Sushil Kumar Kamal Kant, Bhadra for the years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963 64 under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, hereinafter to be called 'the Act'. B) the said assessments a demand of Rs. 24,739.58 was created on the firm. The lax now having been paid recovery proceedings were started against the petitioner Gulabchand Malpani, one of the partners of the said firm. In pursuance of the recovery proceedings the petitioner's property was attached. The petitioner appeared before the Commercial Taxes Officer and prayed that as the firm had been dissolved recovery proceedings should be dropped. This plea however was rejected by the Commercial Taxes Officer by his order dated 2-12-72 on the ground that no appeal or revision had been filed against the earlier assessment orders. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)96
R.L. Gupta, J.1. A writ petition No. 335/1966 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by Sohan Singh appellant against the State of Rajasthan and others challenging the order of his dismissal. This writ petition was fixed for hearing on 13-9-1969. Nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner on that day. The writ petition was, however, heard on merits and was dismissed oh 13-9-1969. Therefore, an application was moved by Shri R.N. Surolia, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on 18-9-1969 for re-hearing of the above writ petition on the grounds set forth in that application. That application for re-hearing was admitted & the Rule-nisi was issued to the respondent dent. After hearing, that application for re hearing (restoration) was dismissed as on reasonable cause was held to have been shown, by the order of the Court dated 7-4-70. Thereafter, this special appeal was presented on 8-4-70. As this special appeal was barred by time, an application under Section 5 and 14th ...
Tag this Judgment!Anaram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN99
M.L. Jain, J.1. On 2nd October, 1972, Ratan Singh PW 6 Station House Officer Gudamalani got the information that revision petitioner Anaram was smuggling opium. With six constables he arrived on the Bus Stand Gandhav. Anaram was there in the bus which was coming from Barmer. Anaram was surrounded and was searched. The search yielded 1.860 Kgs. of opium from his possession. It was seized by the Police and 30 gms. was sent for chemical examination. The report of the Assistant Director, Chemical Section, Police Forensic Science Laboratory, C.I.D Rajasthan, Jaipur is Ex. P. 6. The parcel Which was received by the said Director contained only 28 gms. of solid darks brown coloured substance. The result of examination was that it was opium as it had 5.75% morphine. The accused was challenged under Section 9 of the Opium Act. He was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, on 29-7-74 under the said section and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 months and to a fine of...
Tag this Judgment!Tilak Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)17
M.L. Jain, J.1. The facts of this revision petition are that on the night intervening the 2nd and 3rd July, 1973, a theft took place in village Davli in house of Chota Ram from where silver and gold ornaments were stolen. A report of this occurrence was lodged in the Police Station, Degana. One accused Chandra gave information on 20-11-1973 that he had sold the various stolen ornaments of gold and silver to some dealers in Delhi. Upon this information, and led by the accused the police went to the shop of the petitioner Tilak Raj in Sadar Bazar, Delhi and the accused Tilak Raj produced on 24th November, 1973, gold weighing 5 tolas which he said was pledged with him by Chandra against a loan of Rs. 1000/- which he advanced to him with interest at the rate of Rs. 1.50% p.m. He is also said to have produced the instrument of pledge. The police seized the 5 tolas of the gold and recorded the statement of the petitioner. Later on, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Bhanwar Singh of Degana ca...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kiran Devi Vs. Thakur Das and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)18
M.L. Jain, J.1. The facts of this revision petition are that Mst. Kiran Devi filed a complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, on 19th September, 1970, that she was married to accused No. 1, Thakur Das on 10th February, 1969. But on 24th June, 1970, he married accused No. 2 Mst. Baodi alias Mst. Pushpa in conspiracy with the remaining other 10 accused persons. She brought a complaint that the accused have committed an offence under Section 494/100 IPC and should be punished for the same.2. The learned Magistrate issued process against all the accused persons named in the complaint but since the warrants of Mst. Pushpa and her father remained unserved, he appears to have dropped the proceedings against them. After recording the evidence of five witnesses, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 11th September, 1972, discharged the remaining accused persons as well. He held that it was not proved that the marriage between Thakur Das and Mst. Pushpa was solemnised in a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »