Rajasthan Court July 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.
K and C Daga Vs. K.S. Pillay
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)190
M.L. Jain, J.1. The facts of this writ petition are that the Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. used to hire labour through contractors for doing certain jobs including the job of loading gypsum from the railway siding to the railway wagons. The contractors in their turn used to employ labour on piece rate basis. The workmen of the Bikaner Gypsums Ltd raised a dispute regarding increase of dearness allowance, which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Jaipur. Meanwhile, an interim relief in the dearness allowance was allowed to its workmen by the said Company. The piece rate labour of the contractions also clamoured for dearness allowance and on 26-2-66 a settlement was reached between the petitioner contractor M/s K. & C Daga and his workmen. The first of the terms of the said agreement was that the labour shall get the same relief as will be granted to the worksmen of M/s. Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. in accordance with the award that the said Tribunal may give. The second of the te...
Smt. Priti Parihar Vs. Kailash Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN357
D.P. Gupta, J.1.This is an appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the wife's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called 'the Act).2. The respondent filed a petition for divorce before the District Judge Jodhpur in which a decree for divorce was passed on January 4, 1977. The appellant Smt. Priti Parihar filed an appeal in this Court against the aforesaid decree. Along with the appeal she also filed an application under Section 24 of the Act praying for grant of interim maintenance and expenses of the appeal. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 15-4-1977. directed the respondent to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 200/- per month by way of maintenance pendente lite and also awarded her a sum of Rs. 400/- by way of expenses of the appeal. This order has been challenged by the wife in this appeal.3. A preliminary objection has been raised in respect of the maintainability of the appeal and it, has been urged by th...
Nand Kishore Vs. Dr. Naraindas and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Raj255; 1977()WLN441
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, C.J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff (East) Jaipur City dated 6th Oct., 1972 whereby he permitted an amendment to be incorporated in the plaint.2. A suit was filed by the respondent for the ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 for the payment of the arrears of rent. It so happened that during the pendency of suit his son failed in the examination and, therefore, a necessity was felt by the plaintiff that his son be rehabilitated in some business and for that purpose an application was filed that the shop in dispute was required for his personal necessity and it was in these circumstances that he applied for the permission to amend his plaint. This prayer of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant on the ground that the fresh cause of action cannot be made the basis for amendment and therefo...
Harnam Shah Bhatiya Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)227
M.L. Jain, J.1. The facts of this writ petition are that out of the scope of two not temporary stage carriage permits on the Hanumangarh Town Hanumangarh Junction City Bus Service route (hereinafter called the petitioner's route) the petitioner holds one such permit valid upto 24th March, 1978. One other permit already granted is also in existence. On dated 12 10-1976, the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, howeser, increased the scope from two to four and on 1-11-1976 granted temporary permits in favour of non-petitioner Bhupendrasingh and one Banwarilal. Upon revisions, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal quashed the increase in the scope and the grant of temporary permits by its order on 4-12-76. However, the RTA persisted and on 14-12-76 increased the scope to six stage carriage permits against which one of the existing operator. M/s Mahalaxmi Transport Company preferred a revision, which is still pending with the STAT and yet the R.T.A. invited applications for the grant of...
Roopa Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)577
V.P. Tyagi, C.J.1. This revision has been filed by Roopa petitioner challenging his conviction under Section 379 I.P.C. whereunder he has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment & a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in de fault to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur while upholding the conviction of the petitioner made by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bharatpur vide his judgment dated 30-8-1976.2. It may be mentioned that the accused petitioner was convicted by the trial court for an offence under Section 379 and 411 I.P.C. but the learned Sessions Judge did not pass any order about the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 I.P.C. which presumably appears to mean that the learned Judge did not think it proper to uphold the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 I.P.C.3. The petitioner was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default to further undergo six months rigo...
The Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur Vs. Smt. Prem Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1979Raj66; 1977()WLN363
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. These two revisions filed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, are directed against an order of Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated 18-8-1973 holding that the reference applications filed by it under Section 18 oil the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, were not competent inasmuch as it was not 'person interested' within the meaning of Section 18.2. The decision of these revisions must turn on a consideration of Section 18 (1) of the Rajasthan Land AcquisitionAct, 1953, which reads as follows:--'18. Reference to Court. -- (1) The State Government department on whose behalf or the company for which acquisition is being made or any person interested who has not accepted the award or the amendment thereof may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the court whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the amount of costs allowed, the persons to wh...
Jagmal Vs. Ram Karan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1979Raj65
A.P. Sen, J.1. This purports to be an appeal by the plaintiff under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (m) of the Civil P. C. against the order of Civil Judge, Ganganagar, dated 14-3-1977, refusing to record an alleged compromise.2. The Civil P, C, (Amendment) Act, 1976, came into force w. e. f. 1-2-1977, making drastic changes in the Civil P. C. Section 89 of the Amendment Act brings about several changes in Order XLIII. By Clause 1 (b), Clauses (b), (e), (g), (h), (m), (o) and (v) of Order XLIII have been omitted. As a result of the amendment, the order passed by the learned Civil Judge was a non-appealable order. The order was passed on 14-3-1977. Order XLIII, Rule 1 (m) stood deleted w. e. f. 1-2-1977. The present appeal was filed on 23-4-1977.3. Shri B. R. Arora, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, raises a preliminary objection that having regard to the provision contained in Section 97 (2) (zb), the vested right of appeal, if any, against an order under Order 23, Rule 3, was taken away b...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Sharma and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)225
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a first appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar dated July 19, 1967.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts necessarily for the disposal of this appeal are like this. The respondent is a partnership firm. It took contract from the defendant, the State of Rajasthan, for excavation of Suratgarh Branch Canal from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 10,000 in the year 1961-62 under work order No. 65 dated 1-11-61. The respondent also executed an agreement in this respect in favour of the defendant. The respondent completed the entire work undertaken by it within the extended period granted by the defendant. According to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 16,658/- remained with the defendant as security deposit for performing the work in accordance with the terms of the contract. The; said amount was withheld by the defend not without any cymae or reason. The respondent served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and filed the met, out of which th...
Birma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)497
M.L. Jain, J.1. The facts of this writ petition are that in village Ulasi, Tehsil Javal, District Nagaur, there is a public well the way to which lies there through the Nadi and the Dhani, but the villagers who reside on the northern side of the well do not appear to have a direct excess thereto and have to take a longer route. In order to provide a straight path for them, it was proposed that a portion of Khasra No. 115 in the Khatedari of the petitioner Birma Ram be acquired. Accordingly, a notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was issued by the State Govt. on 22-12-73. But no notice under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 thereof in Form No. 1 A provided for the purpose in the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules, 1956 was issued. As a matter of fact, no notice of any kind under this subsection was ever issued. The S.D.M., Nagaur by his order dated 18-9-74, however, made a report to the Collector Nagaur that no one has presented any objection against the pr...
Ghasi Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)235
V.P. Tyagi, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance and is directed against the judgment of the Single Judge dated October 27, 1970.2. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has limited his argument only to one point, namely, that his client was entitled to get 7% over and above the rate quoted by him for using the river shingle chips and, therefore, we propose to discuss this question alone.3. The plaintiff had taken a contract for providing 3/4' bitumen carpet on road from Sirohi to Kalandari from mile of to 18 and for that purpose a tender was given by him quoting that he would charge 7% above the rates mentioned in Schedule 'G' In that tender he had to use hand broken chips but later on by his letter Ex. 6 the plaintiff withdrew condition mentioned in the tender and further stated that he would use the same kind of chips which had been used on Sumerpur-Sirohi road on miles 18 to 23, that is, river shingle chips, and would charge...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »