Rajasthan Court December 1977 Judgments
NaraIn Prasad Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Raj162; 1978CriLJ1445; 1977WLN(UC)540
Shrimal, J.1. Tersely speaking shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is that on Sept. 6, 1970 Food Inspector Shri V.D. Sharma visited the shop of the petitioner Narain Prasad and found him selling sweet-meats. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity demanded from him a sample of 'Ghewar.' The accused-petitioner refused to take the prescribed notice in the prescribed form No. 6 and also refused to sell him the sample of 'Ghewar'. He was tried for contravening the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Magistrate First Class, Ajmer found the accused guilty under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act and sentenced him to one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 750/- and in default of the payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, vide his judgment dated Nov. 29, 1971.2. Being aggrieved by the judgment of his conviction and sente...
Tag this Judgment!Kum Dheeprada Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)515
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner is a graduate and received the B.T. degree of the Agra University in the year 1953. By the order of the Director of Education of the former State of Ajmer dated May 29, 1953 the petitioner was appointed temporarily as Assistant Mistress, Government Girls Middle School, Kekri in the scale of Rs. 100-250. The petitioner joined her duties Assistant Mistress on June 1. 1953. A few months there after she was promoted as Head Mistress by the order of the Director of Education of Ex-Ajmer State dated August 10, 1953 in the same grade of Rs. 100-250 with special pay of Rs. 25/- per month Then by the order of the Director of Education, dated September 14. 1956 the petitioner was promoted as Officiating Assistant Mistress in the Government Central Girls High School, Ajmer in the scale of Rs. 120-300 It appears that in the former State of Ajmer there were two grades of trained graduates teachers out of which the grade of Rs. 100-250 was meant for teachers employed ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Official Liquidator of Golcha Properties P. Ltd ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1977
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas251(Raj); [1979]117ITR377(Raj); 1977()WLN701
P.D. Kudal, J.1. A petition under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, has been moved on behalf of the ITO, Central Circle-IV, Jaipur.2. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been prayed that leave may be granted to the petitioner to make order or orders under Section 210 of the I.T. Act, 1961, requiring the company (in liquidation) to pay to the credit of the Central Government advance tax as contemplated by that section in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 (accounting year 1977-78) and to issue requisite notices for the purpose.3. On behalf of the official liquidator, it is contended that no leave should be granted to the petitioner for the payment of advance tax as the income-tax of the company in liquidation is not liable to be taxed. It was further contended that notice of this application be issued to all the parties in D.B. Special Appeal No. 4 of 1976, in view of the fact that the official liquidator is estopped from making any payment to the income-tax department or t...
Tag this Judgment!Khubi Lal Vs. Smt. Champa Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)504
R.L. Gupta, J.1. Smt Champa Bai non petitioner No. 1 obtained a decree against Sohanlal non-petitioner No. 2 on June 28, 1965. The property in dispute was attached in execution of that decree One Smt. Kesar Bai filed an objection under Order 21 Rule 58 CPG asserting that the property exclusively belonged to her and she was in possession. That objection was allowed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Udaipur and the suit property was released from attachment by his order dated 1510 1969. The decree-holder Smt. Champa Bai, therefore, filed a suit under Order 21 Rule 63 CPC against Smt. Kesar Bai, Sohanlal (judgment-debtor) and the petitioner Khubi Ram. No relief was however, claimed. against the petitioner in that suit. The petitioner in spite of service of summons failed to appear and ex-parte proceedings went on against him. Kaspr Bai contested the Mst. During the tendency of the suit Kesar Bai died. Khubi Ram and Sohan Lal who were already on record in different capacity, were taken to ...
Tag this Judgment!Kana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)499
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner had completed 25 years of qualifying service', within the meaning of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), on the date when he was compulsorily retired from Government Service. The brief facts which have given rise to this question and which are not in dispute between the parties are the petitioner was appointed as a Nakedar in the Excise and Customs Department of the State Government on January 22, 1948. His services were subsequently transferred to the Irrigation Department where he continued to serve for some time but on March 3, 1958 he resigned from his post. Subsequently, he applied again for an appointment and on December 26, 1958, he was appointed as a Patwari in the Revenue Department of the State. Thereafter, on the request of the petitioner himself, the State Government condoned the interruption i...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Lal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN697
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. The common questions of fact and Jaw arise in these two writ petitions, as such they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Selling of intoxicants has always been considered as a business attended with danger to the community. To mitigate this evil the State in exercise of its police power have been regulating the business. The State possesses the right of complete control over all respects of intoxicants viz., manufacture, collection, sale and consumption. The reasons are obvious public morality, public interest, harmful and dangerous effect on the edict. loss of hard earned mow v of the undiscerning and in providing common man and thereby lowering his standard of living, driving him into chronic state of indebtedness and eventually distrupt the peace and happiness of his humble home,3. The State having come to the conclusion that the consumption of intoxicating liquor was not in public interest, it enacted the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 (Act No 17 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1977
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)139
D.P. Gupta, J.1. In this writ, petitioner seeks to challenge the order of termination of his employment as a temp rary Lower Division Clerk. He was employed in connection with famine Relief work in Jodhpur District of the Stat, of Rajsathan. The petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis as Lower Division Clerk and was posted at Onion by the order of the Collector, Jodhpur, dated January 16, 1970. One of the conditions of the temporary employment of the petitioner was that this temporary service would be liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason. The petitioner continued to hold the post of a Lower Davison Clerk in a purely temporary capacity. Until his service was terminated by the order of the Collector, Jodhpur, dated March 15, 1971. On May 15, 1971 the Tehsildar, Osian conveyed to the petitioner that his service was terminated and he was relieved of the charge he id by him in pursuance of the order of the Collector, Jodhpur, d...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Vs. Shanti Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Raj57
ORDERP.D. Kudal, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 115, C. P. C. is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 20th Aug., 1977.2. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition, are that the suit was dismissed in default on 10th April, 1977. An application for restoration of the suit was filed on the same day. The notice of the restoration application was given to the learned counsel for the defendant who endorsed on the back of the notice that his power has terminated with the dismissal of the suit. It appears that the learned Munsiff had decided this question on 25th May, 1977, that the power of attorney of the learned counsel did not terminate with the dismissal of the suit is default. The application for restoration was eventually allowed on 20th August, 1977. The defendant-petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order of restoration has come up in revision before t...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)502
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the termination of the service of the petitioner from the post of a Lower Division Clerk by the order of the Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Canal Project, Bikaner dated February 23, 1973, without giving him one month's notice or without simultaneously paying him one month's salary in lieu of notice, is void in view of the provisions of Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') The petitioner was initially employed as a work-charge Timekeeper in the Rajasthan Canal Project on February 1, 1971. He was made semi permanent on the aforesaid post by the order dated February 26, 1971 with effect from February 15, 1971. Thereafter, he was appointed as a temporary Lower Division Clerk for a period of three months in the first instance against a leave vacancy by the Superintending Engineer. Rajasthan Canal Project, Mechanical Sub-Division, Suratgarh Junction, dated May 14...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Devi and ors. Vs. Indra Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)547
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115, CPC is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 20th August, 1977.2. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant or the disposal of this revision petition, are that the suit was dismissed in default on 16th April, 1977. An application for restoration of the suit was filed on the same day. The notice of the restoration application was given to the learned Counsel for the defendant who endorsed on the back of the notice that his power has terminated with the dismissal of the suit. It appears that the learned Munsiff had decided this question on 25th May, 1977, that the power of attorney of the learned Counsel did not terminate with the dismissal of the suit in default. The application for restoration was eventually allowed on 20th August, 1977. The defendant-petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order of restoration has came up in revision before this Court.3....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »