Rajasthan Court February 1977 Judgments
Mehboob Alam and anr. Vs. Smt. Nasira Begum and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Raj189; 1977()WLN94
ORDERD.P. Gupta, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendants against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, dated April 27, 1976 by which he held that the document dated December 25, 1961 produced by the defendants was compulsorily registrable under the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and was inadmissible in evidence on account of the provisions of Section 49 thereof. An objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the revision application is not maintainable under Section 115, C. P. C. in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Harakchand v. State of Rajasthan, 1970 Ra.i LW 320 (FB). In Harakchand's case the question of admissibility of a document in evidence on the ground of non-registration thereof was raised before the trial court who rejected the objection and held that the document was admissible in evidence, holding that the same was not compulsorily registrable. The Full Bench of t...
Tag this Judgment!Manager Rashtradoot Dainik Press Vs. Rajasthan Samachar Patra Karmchar ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN129
D.P. Gupta, J.1.The question that arises for determination in this writ petition is as to whether the State Government is competent to make an amendment by way of addition in a reference made under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), pending adjudication before an Industrial Tribunal.2. The facts briefly put are that there was an industrial dispute between the Management of five newspapers and their workman, represented by the Rajasthan Samachar Patra Karamchari Sangh, Jaipur (hereinafter called as 'the Union') in respect of the implementation of the recommendations of the Wage Board in relation to non-working journalist employees. The State Government, by, its order dated August 30, 1969 referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act. Whether the work of printing carried on in the under mentioned presses on contract basic is contrary to the recommendations of the wage Board? If so, to w...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Vs. Revti Prasad and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Raj191; 1977()WLN70
ORDERD.P. Gupta, J.1. Learned counsel for the parties agree that both the revision applications may be heard together and as respondent No. 1 alone would be affected by the decision of these revision applications, they may be heard and disposed of without effecting service upon the remaining respondents.2. In a suit for grant of a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from executing his decree for ejectment obtained against the remaining respondents, an application for temporary injunction was moved by the plaintiff. The trial court granted a temporary injunction, which was set aside on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City by his order dated January 29, 1977. The learned Additional District Judge agreed with the trial court on the question that the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the properties in question, but he concluded that the execution of a decree lawfully obtained could not be stayed by means of a temporary injunction, and...
Tag this Judgment!Mal Chand and ors. Vs. Basant Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)64
S.N. Modi, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Churu dated 16-11-1972 whereby he set aside the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Churu dated 25-3-1970 and remanded the case back to him after framing an Additional issue for fresh decision on merits.2. A preliminary objection has been raised that this revision application is not maintainable as an appeal lies against an order of remand made under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC as amended in Rajasthan. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in reply submits that this revision application be treated as an appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Churu dated 16-11-1972. I uphold the preliminary objection and treat this revision application as an appeal.3. The relevant facts of the case are that the defendant respondent told the house in dispute to the plaintiff appellants for Rs. 12500/- vide sale deed Ex. 1 dated 7-6-1960. The sale deed contains a condition that in c...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)63
A.P. Sen, Actg. C.J.1. This writ petition by one Kanhaiyalal & Kishansingh is directed against an order of the Tehsildar-cum-Encroachment Officer, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur dated 30-10-1974 reviewing his earlier order dated 7-8-1974 dropping the proceedings against them.2. There were six cases started against the petitioners over the construction of their house on plots No. 15 and 16 situate in front of General Hospital, Udaipur. Of these four cases relate to the removal of encroachment under Section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 on the adjoining lands and the other two under Section 90 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 for unauthorised construction. By notices dated 10-12-1969 exhibit D/5 and dated 29-12-1969, exhibit D[6, the Urban Improvement Trust Udaipur called upon the petitioners to remove the unauthorised construction under Section 90-A of the U.I.T. Act. In response to these notices, the petitioners addressed a letter dated 30 12 1969 exhibit ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kesardevi Vs. Rameshwarlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)150
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by the landlord in a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.2. The dispute relates to a shop situated in the town of Rajgarh, District Churu. The plaintiff let out this shop to the defendant on annual rent of Rs. 400/-. The defendant paid rent of the shop up to June 1961. No rent was paid thereafter by the defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, issued notice terminating the tenancy and brought the suit on 8.4.1966 for eviction and claim-ed arrears of rent for the past three years amounting to Rs. 1200/-. It may be mentioned here that on the date, the suit was instituted by the plaintiff the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950 was not made applicable to the town of Rajgarh. But during the pendency of the suit on 30.3.1967 the said Act was made applicable to Rajgarh town. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds which would be clear from the following issues framed by the trial court:1 vk;k eqnbZ;] nqdku tsj cgl d...
Tag this Judgment!Fatehlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN88
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. On January 7, 1974 Balu (P.W. 1) went to Pannalal, Agriculture Extension Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Asind and asked him to supply urea fertilizer. Pannalal showed his inability for want of stock, at which Balu in a. taunting language said that it was available in the market at black market rates, which made Pannalal to give him a hundred rupee currency note initialled by him. He asked Balu to purchase urea fertilizer available from the market and report back to him Balu in the company of Magna went to the accused-petitioner Fatehlal, who offered to sell fertilizer at the rate of Rs. 78/- per 'katta'. The real to purchase seven 'kattas' of fertilizer at the rate of Rs. 78/- each was settled. Balu paid a currency note of Rs. 100/-to the accused, took delivery of one 'katta', assuring him that he would return to have the remaining 'kattas' when he would pay the balance. Thereafter Balu reported it to Pannalal. First information report Ex P. 1 regarding this transaction ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavlal Vs. Laxman and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)112
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a revision application by defendent Madhay lal against the order of the Munsif, Gulabpura dated 19.10.1972 whereby learned Munsif rejected the prayer of the petitioner to file written statement after allowing amendment of the plaint.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision application are that non-petitioner Laxman brought a suit for pre-emption on 15.9.1966 against the vendee Madanlal and vendor Madhavlal in respect of some agricultural land. The plaintiff claimed himself to be a co-sharer in the suit property and on that basis he pleaded that he was entitled to pre-empt the suit property sold by Madhavlal in favour of Madanlal. The summons of the suit were served on the petitioner Madhavlal but he did not but in appearance in the court with the result that ex-parte proceedings were ordered against him. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff Laxman moved an application seeking permission to amend the plaint by adding the following para:^^fodYi ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kusum Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)51
A.P. Sen, Actg. C.J.1. These two writ petitions by Smt. Kusum Kumari Nalwaya, relate to the grant of prospecting licence for soap stone under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.2. It appears that the petitioner had on 19.11.69 made an application for grant of a prospecting licence for soap stone over an area of 4266.666 acres or 1726.676 hectacres in village Danti Kheda, Tehsil Aspur, Dungarpur. By letter dated 17-11-1970, the State Government intimated the petitioner that application for prospecting licence, was rejected inasmuch as the area in question had been reserved for investigation by the Geological Survey of India for lead and zinc. This was by virtue of the notification dated 11.9.1969, issued by the Stale Government in that behalf, which was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 9.4.1970, Being aggrieved, the petitioner went in revision to the Central Government tinder Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.3. By Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Samela Ral Vs. the Additional District Development Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)56
A.P. Sen, Actg. C.J.1. These two writ petitions involve common question and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Ren on 10-5-1968. The Gram Panchayat consisted of 11 Panchas and a Sarpanch i.e. 12 in all. At a meeting held on 7-12-1972 the Gram Panchayat by its resolution No. 3 expressed their no-confidence in the petitioner. The motion of no-confidence was carried unanimously. As a result, the office of the Sarpanch became vacant under Section 19(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. The petitioner by these two writ petitions challenges the validity of the motion of no-confidence on the ground that three of the Panchas viz., Nazira, Razak and Bhikaram having absented themselves from the five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat held on 29-10-1972, 5-11-1972, 12-11-1972, 19-11-1972 and 26-11-1972, they ceased to be Panchas under Section 17(2) of the Act and, therefore, their participation at the meeti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »