Rajasthan Court April 1977 Judgments
Gajraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN245
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was working as an Inspector, Cooperative Societies and Supervisor of Ramgarh Minor Irrigation Works, Ramgarh (District Alwar) in the year 1971. A charge was levelled against the petitioner that in the aforesaid capacity he made a false verification in respect of the receipt of some equipment and accessories of pumping set etc. supplied to one Makhan Singh of village Sakhla, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar, although the articles were not actually received from the supplier in accordance with the bills The petitioner denied the allegation contained in the charge sheet and a disciplinary inquiry ensued. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bharatpur was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, who in his report dated January 8, 1973 came to the conclusion that the charge was proved and that Makhan Singh had not received the articles in accordance with the bills from the supplier and that the petitioner made a false verification report in respect of the deli...
Tag this Judgment!Mali Ram Vs. R.T.A. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Raj8
ORDERSachar, J.1. There was a route Neem-ka-thana to Alwar, for which the petitioner has been granted a temporary permit, which was to run up to April 28, 1977.2. A scheme for the route from Neem-ka-thana to Kotputli has been approved and notified under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Another draft scheme under Section 68-C has been prepared for the route -- Kotputli to Alwar. The said scheme has not yet been approved under Section 63-D. Respondent No. 2, the Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation, applied and obtained from the R.T.A., respondent No. 1, temporary permit to ply its buses from Neem-ka-thana to Alwar. After the grant of permit, the R.T.A., by its order dated April 1, 1977, ordered that as permit has been granted to the Corporation, and as it will not be having two permits, the permit of thepetitioner will cease to be effective as soon as the Corporation is given the second permit applied for and put the buses on t...
Tag this Judgment!Shyama Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN278
K.D. Sharma, J.1. S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 1976 and S.B. Criminal Jari Appeal No. 707 of 1976, filed by Shyama arise out of one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, dated 29th July, 1976, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, and an default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.2. The incident that led to the arrest and prosecution of the appellant may be briefly stated as follows: Mst. Dhapuri wife of Ratna Bhil resident of Kalyanpura, District Barmer, was residing in Mohalla Darjion-ki-Bagichi, Masuria at Jodhpur, on 12th March, 1976. Her daughter Kamla, aged about 12 years, also lived with her in the same house. Shyama appellant and his wife Mst. Balki Bhil too were living in the vicinity of the house of Mst. Dhapuri. On 12th March, 1976, at about 4 p.m. the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Mali Ram Vs. Rta and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN454
Rajindar Sachar, J.1. There was a route Neem-ka-Thana to Alwar, fur which the petitioner has been granted a temporary permit, which was to run upto April 28, 1977.2. A scheme for the route from Neem-ka-Thana, to Kotputli has been approved and notified under Section 68(D)(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Here in after referred to as 'the Act'). Another draft, scheme under Section 68(C) has been prepared for the route Kotpurli to Alwar. The said scheme has not been approved under Section 68 D. Respondent No. 2, the Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation applied and obtained from the RTA, respondent No. 1, temporary permit to ply its buses from Neem-ka-Thana to Alwar. After the grant of permit, the RTA, by its order dated April 1, 1977. ordered that as permit has been granted to the Corporation and as it will now be having two permits, the permit of the petitioner Will cease to be effective as soon as the Corporation is given the second permit applied for and put the buses on the rou...
Tag this Judgment!Sahiram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)196
D.P. Gupta, J.1. In this writ petition, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given any notice nor was he afforded an opportunity of hearing by the Superintending Engineer (Irrigation) Bikaner Irrigation Circle, Sri Ganganagar, in respect of the reorganisation of Chak No. 18GG and 19GG by including therein some Murabbas of Chak No. 13 HH. The petitioner is a land holder of Murabbas Nos. 32 & 33 in Chak No. 13 HH. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on account of the reorganisation of the aforesaid Chaks, some portion of Chak 13 HH was separated and included in Chak Nos. 19GG and the petitioner suffered two fold injury on account of this reorganisation of Chaks. In the first place, the petitioner's fear is that the quantity of water supplied to the petitioner would be reduced considerably as the size of the outlet would also be reduced, on account of the reorganisation resulting in reduction of the area of th...
Tag this Judgment!Gramwasi Sheodanpur Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN210
K.D.Sharma, J.1.This is a revision-petition filed Under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. 1898 hereinafter referred 1o as the old Code, by the villagers of village Sheodanpur, through Nand Ram, Panch of the Gram Panchayat, against an order of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated 11th September, 1974, by which an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, on 25th February, 1974, in proceedings under Section 133 of the old Code was set aside in revision on the ground that the villagers of Sheodanpur could not lead satisfactory evidence to show that any unlawful obstruction was caused by Roopdas in the public way. Aggrieved by this order the villagers of Sheodanpur have came up in revision to this Court.2. I have heard Mr. Hastimal Parekh for the petitioner, Mr. R.N. Bishnoi for the non-petitioner, Roopdas and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, Public Prosecutor, for the State. It is not necessary for me to decide this revision petition on merits because there is a glaring manifest error...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanlal and ors. Vs. Gram Panchayat and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN121
D.P. Gupta, J.1.This revision application has been filed against the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge. Jodhpur, holding that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit filed before him. The argument of the learned Counsel is that suit is exclusively triable by a revenue court and the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the same.2. I have read the plaint with great care and attention. The case of the plaintiff in a nut shell is that the land in dispute was left as 'Agor land' for the benefit of the general public and it was a common land of village people and as such, no khatedari rights could have accrued or could have been granted in the and in dispute. According to the plaintiff the land has been used since times immemorial as 'Agor land', that is, land necessary for the flow of water thereon into a reservoir or tank, used for drinking water for the village. The petitioner has sought a declaration to the effect that the land in dispute is un...
Tag this Judgment!Balkaran Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN173
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. Five accused Balkaran Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Uday Singh, Madha Singh and Hargovind Singh were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in connection with an occurrence which took place on August 28, 1973 at 9.30 A.M. near the culvert, on the outskirts of village Karadwala. In the course of that occurrence, Jeeta Singh (since deceased) received fatal injuries & P.W. 6 Balvinder Singh also sustained gunshot wounds. The case of the defence is that in the same occurrence, appellant Balkaran Singh and his brother-accused-appellant Gurcharan Singh also sustained injuries & they acted in exercise of the right of self-defence. The learned Addl. Sess Judge by his judgment of May 15, 1975 held that the accused were aggressors & the first shot was fired by the, accused He convicted the accused-appellants Balkaran Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Udey Singh under Section 302/34 I.P.C. for causing the death of Jeeta Singh and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment. The...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. Jang Bahadur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Raj196; 1977()WLN143
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J. 1. This is a revision application directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City dated April 14, 1976. The learned District Judge by his aforesaid order partly accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Munsif refusing temporary injunction and directed the maintenance of status quo as it existed on the date of the filing of the suit.2. The material facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision application stated in brief are as under:--The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner on the ground of actionable nuisance. The case of the plaintiff as set forth in the plaint is that he has been living as a tenant in some of the apartments of the defendant-petitioner since the year 1974. It is the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant wanted him to vacate the demised premises, but he did not agree to vacate. Thereupon the defendant with a view to harass the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN212
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Mohinder Singh against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated 13-3 1975, by which the appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months for causing the death of Butta Singh.2. The prosecution case against the appellant was that on 22-3 1974 at about 5 p.m. he along with Gurdeep Singh visited the house of Butta Singh. Gurdeep Singh informed the mother of Butta Singh that Butta Singh's mother-in-law had come to village Karadwala after undergoing an eye-operation and Butta Singh and his wife should meet her Butta Singh's mother then prepared tea for Butta Singh. Mohinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh and herself. All of them took tea in the house. Thereafter Mohinder Singh and Butta Singh went together out of the house and Gurdeep Sin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »