Rajasthan Court March 1977 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Nanu Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN227
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This appeal by Nanuram is directed against the judgment dated October 14, 1976 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar whereby he convicted the accused-appellant Nanuram under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to death.2. Tersely speaking, shorn of necessary details, the prosecution case, as disclosed at the trial is that PW. 4 Shri Chothu Ram, his wife Mst. Lichhma (since deceased) and the accused Nanuram with his family used to reside in the same compound. PW. 4 Choturam and accused-appellant Nanuram used to work as 'Seeries' of PW. 1 Sultan Singh. Nearby 40 days prior to the date of the occurrence Mst. Lichhma (deceased) had given birth to a child On the fateful day the accused-appellant Nanuram was working on the fields in which tubewell is situated only PW. 4 Choturam was working at a little distance from those fields. Mst. Lichhma (deceased) used to habitually wear silver 'Hansali' Article 2 & a pair of silver 'Kadi' Article 3, and a gold f...
Rishab Das JaIn and ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)68
S.N. Modi, J.1. Vijay Kumar, Rishab Das and Jai Dev entered into a partnership to carry on business in patroleum products at Ganganagar under the name and style of M/s Jai Dev Jain & Co. On 6-7-71 Vijay Kumar served a notice to other partners by which he dissolved the partnership and called upon the partners to settle the accounts. Ultimately Vijay Kumar filed a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership. He also moved an application for appointment of a receiver. The court allowed the application and one Shri H.M. Chopra was appointed receiver to manage the partnership business. On 17-1-1973 a preliminary decree was passed in the suit whereby (he share of Vijay Kumar in the partnership business was declared as 34 paisa and that of Rishabdas and Jaidev was declared as 38 paisa each. The trial court also appointed a Commissioner to go into the accounts of the partnership business. The Commissioner was directed to submit his report before 304-1973. The receiver Shri H....
Prem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)158
D.P. Gupta, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be restrained from proceeding to recover the amount of Rs. 12,609/- from the petitioner under the provisions of Section 257A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The case of the petitioner is that Jagir bonds in the sum of Rs. 12,609/- were collected by the petitioner from the office of the Collector Jagir, Pali as a Power of Attorney holder of one Karan Singh, who claimed to be an ex-Jagirdar. It was subsequently discovered that Karan Singh was not a Jagirdar and no amount was payable to him by way of compensation under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The Collector, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 12,609/- which was erroneously paid to the petitioner because such amount was not payable either to Karan Singh or to the petitioner. A demand was made and on the failure of the petitioner to...
Ramji Das Aneja Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)152
D.P. Gupta, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Two submissions were made by learned Counsel. In the first place, he urged that Rule 7A of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 is ultra vires of the provisions of Article 234 of the Constitution of India because While Article 234 vests the power of appointment of a Judicial Officer of Subordinate Judiciary in the Governor of the State, Rule 7A authorises the High Court to make promotions to the post of Civil Judge from amongst officers holding posts of Munsifs. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as a Munsif in a substantive capacity by the Governor and that is Hot challenged by the petitioner. The question of 'further promotion from' Inter post of Munsif to that of Civil Judge, within the Rajasthan Judicial Service, is not governed by die provisions of Article 234 of the Constitution, Article 234 provides that the control over District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto, including the postin...
Mahboob Khan Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)549
A.P. Sen, Actg. C.J.1. These two writ petitions directed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan Jaipur dated 5-7-1976, raise common questions and, therefore they are disposed of by this common order.2. The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, by it resolution dated 1-10-1974, Ex. P/1, granted stage carriage permits to the applicants on route Kankrauli-Marwar Jn via Soniana and Madri. The respondents No. 5 to 24, who are existing operators over portions of the said route, in their joint representation under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, had objected to the grant The route Udaipur Bhilwara via Madri is a notified route for exclusive operation by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, vide map, Ex. P/2.3. In revision, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') by its order dated 15-5-1975, Ex. P/3, held that the grant of permits to the applicants on the route was contrary...
Faiz Mohammed Vs. Mst. Hushan Banu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)60
S.N. Modi, J.1. This revision application by the defendant is directed against the judgment arid decree of the judge, Small Causes Court, Jodhpur dated 23 5-1973.2 The plaintiff respondent filed a suit alleging that her marriage with the defendant took place on 1-4-1967, that she was divorced on 10-6-71, that at the time of her marriage certain articles mentioned in Schedule A were give in 'dahej' that 'dahej' articles belonged to her and that since the said articles were retained by the defendant, she was entitled to get back those articles or their value amounting to Rs. 400/-. The defendant contested the Suit. He admitted that his marriage took place with the respondent but he denied that he divorced her. He also denied that the articles mentioned in Schedule A were given in 'dahej'. The learned Judge after evidence came to the conclusion that the defendant had divorced the plaintiff and that the former had not returned the articles given in 'dahej' to the latter. The learned Judge,...
Nand Lal and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)118
Rajindar Sachar, J.1. The respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a suit for a declaration that the land mentioned therein has been purchased by them from Bahadur Khan and Mst. Hamidan by a registered sale deed on 29-5 1963 for Rs. 2000/- and claiming that they should be declared Khatedar-tenant. The suit of the respondents No. 2 and 3 was dismissed on 13-10-1965 by the Assistant Collector. Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority being the Appeal No. 733/1965.2. It appears that the petitioners to the writ petition also claimed that they had purchased the land from the said Bahadur Khan and Mst. Hamidan by a registered sale-deed sometime on 13 3-1964 for Rs. 3000/-. On the basis of the said claim a mutation was affected in their favour on 25-3-1964. Respondents No 2 and 3 were aggrieved and went in appeal to the Collector, who remanded the matter back for further enquin. Aggrieved against that order the petitioners filed an appeal No. 600/1966 before the Rev...
Mooli Devi Vs. Pareek Commercial Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)116
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 10, 1976 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Suit No. 1 of 1970 hereby the learned Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff under Order XXI, Rule 63, Civil P.C., and refused to set side the attachment dated February 13, 1960 and the sale effected on April 28, 1968 of the property in dispute.2. Tersely speaking the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Pareek Commercial Bank became a public limited concern in October 1943 and Vastulal Partek respondent No. 2, father of the appellant remained Chairman and Principal Officer of the Bank till the date of liquidation. Prior to liquidation he committed a breach of trust regarding defalcation resulting in a loss to the Bank. The Bank was ordered to be wound up in July 1952 and in the same year a liquidator was appointed. On an application filed under Section 235 of the Companies Act, 1913 by the Liquidator this Court ordered Vastulal to pay a sum o...
Sumer Mal Singhvi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN154
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a Sub-Inspector of Police and was compulsory retired under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthans Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') by the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, dated November 14, 1975. In this petition it has been prayed that the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner be set aside, because the petitioner had a clean record of service and there was nothing to warrant an action against him under Rule 244(2) of the Rules. In para 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that an adverse remark was entered in his confidential rolls, which was communicated to him vide letter dated June 6, 1972 but he has made a representation in respect thereof & no decision has been communicated to him. According to the petitioner, the increments of the petitioner were withheld on two occasions without cumulative effect and there was no justification for ...
Kesari Lal Vs. Sub-divisional Officer, Ramgajmandi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Raj229
Sachar, J.1. This petition has been filed against the judgment of the Board of Revenue against the proceedings under ceiling law which were started against one Smt. Chandrakanta under Chapter III-B added to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be called the 'old law').2. The land was originally recorded in the name of one Smt. Gulab Bai, who had adopted Govindlal, son of petitioner No. 1. After the death of Smt. Gulab Bai, the land was recorded in the name of Govindlal and after his death, in the name of Smt. Chandrakanta, who was recorded as the Khatedar tenant. Since she was holding the land in excess of the ceiling area, notices were issued to her and the present petitioners joined the proceedings and claimed one-fourth share in favour of each of the three petitioners and one-fourth share in favour of Bam Narain, another son of Kesharilal. An effort was made before the authorities to contend that the petitioners were in possession of the land since 1957 on the basis of on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »