Rajasthan Court September 1977 Judgments
Sangram Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN379
Kalyan Dutta Sharma, J.1. These two appeals-one filed by Sangram Singh and another preferred by Madan Singh son of Ugam Singh and Laxmi Narain alias Laxman arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Sessions judge, Jaipur City, on 19th February, 1973, in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1971 convicting and sentencing each of the three appellants in the following manner: 1. Sangram Singhi) Under Section 120B r/w Five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.Section 457, I.P.C. 200/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for two months.ii) Under Section 120B r/w Three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.Section 330, I.P.C. 200/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for two months.iii) Under Section 120B r/w Two years, R.I.Section 411, I.P.C.iv) Under Section 120B r/w Two years' R.I.Section 414, I.P.C.v) Under Section 109 r/w S. Five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.457, I.P.C. 200/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for two monthsvi) Under Section 109 r/w Three years' ...
Tag this Judgment!Hazari Mal Vs. Pusa Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)449
S.N. Modi, J.1. The plaintiffs have preferred this revision petition challenging the correctness of the order of the District Judge, Merta dated December 15, 1976 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was returned holding that it was not entertainable by a civil court.2. The plaintiffs instituted a Suit on 2-1-1976 for the recovery of Rs. 11896/- from the defendant-respondent. It is common ground between the parties that the plaintiffs are money lenders within the meaning of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 and that the suit was hi ought on the basis of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 9-4-1972 i.e. after the commencement of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963. It is also not in dispute that the defendant-respondent in this case is a member of a scheduled caste 'Balai' by caste. It is also rot in dispute that the plaintiff should have initiated proceedings for determination of the debt under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural ...
Tag this Judgment!Nemi Chand and ors. Vs. the Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Raj45; 1977()WLN634
ORDERP.D. Kudal, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Bharatpur dated 12th August, 1974, whereby the order issuing injunction of the learned Munsiff, Bharatpur dated 1st June, 1976 was reversed.2. The brief facts which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the plaintiffs Nemi Chand and others filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was also filed praying that the defendant be restrained from auctioning the suit land. The learned Munsiff initially issued an injunction in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant on 15th May, 1974. After hearing the parties the injunction was confirmed on 1-6-1974. The defendant feel-ing aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bharatpur. The appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge on 12th August, 1974, and the order of...
Tag this Judgment!Asharam Vs. Ramlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)401
R.L. Gupta, J.1. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant, who is the son of the plaintiff, alleging that the plaintiff non-petitioner had given the petitioner-defendant a licence to occupy the suit portion of the house and that he had revoked the licence. Therefore, the petitioner-defendant be asked to vacate the house. The petitioner-defendant contested the suit and maintained that he had the right to stay on in the house as he has got a share in the whole of the house because the house is a joint Hindu family property and the petitioner is occupying the flat in his own right as the son and he cannot be dispossessed. In the Income-tax Department also the non-petitioner has shown the whole property as the joint Hindu family property and the non-petitioner's contention to this effect was upheld at the appellate stage.2. The issues were framed in the case. On 16.11.72 the petitioner gave notice to the Advocate of the non-petitioner to produce sale-deed ...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal Pathak Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)432
D.P. Gupta, J.1. In this writ petition, the first submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the inquiry was not fair inasmuch is the petitioner was neither allowed any defence counsel nor he was allowed an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses appearing for the department nor he was allowed to examine witnesses in his defence. Under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') the delinquent Government servant, who is served with a charge sheet under Rule 16, is permitted to present his defence with the assistance of any other Government servant approved by the Disciplinary Authority. It is not the case of the petitioner that he desired to take the assistance of any other Government servant or any other person for purposes of presenting his d fence but the Disciplinary Authority or the Inquiry Officer refined permission to the petitioner to allow such Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)370
M.L. Jain, J.1. The farts of this writ petition are that the respondents accorded a sanction of mining; lease for building stone in favour of the petitioner on 25-3-1958. The dead rent was of Rs. 4501/- and royalties were to be charged as stated in the order of sanction. The mining lease was for the period from 1-4-1958 to 3-3-1960. Besides, the petitioner was requiifd to pay surface rent and all taxes as per the Government Rules The petitioner deposited Rs. 1125/- of the first installment and Rs. 1125/- towards security. No lease deed was executed. The petitioner contends that he was a not given the possession of the mines By his order dated 5-5-1959, the Director of Mines and Geology, however cancelled the lease on the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit the due installments as stipulated in the agreement. Thereafter, the Department of Mines and Geology sent a certificate of recovery on 27-1-1960 of the recovery of Rs. 3,945/60 under the Rajasthan Public Demand Recovery Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Shiv Dayal Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Raj48; 1977()WLN626
ORDERP.D. Kudal, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Alwar dated 22nd April, 1975, whereby he allowed an application of the respondent No. 4 Prabhatilal under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., end ordered that he be implead-ed as defendant No. 4 in the suit.2. The facts of the case, in brief, which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition, are that Murlidhar plaintiff filed a suit against Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar and its President and Secretary for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Parbhati Lal defendant No. 4 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. praying that he should be impleaded as a defendant in the suit as his interest is vitally involved and that his presence would enable the Court to completely and finally adjudicate upon all the points involved in the suit. The learned Civil Judge allowed th...
Tag this Judgment!Prajapati Garh Nirman Samiti Ltd. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)426
M.L. Jain, J.1. The writ petitions NOS. 1901/75, 1904/75 and 1924/75 are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of these petitions are identical. The petitioners purchased lands from Shri Gaj Singh, the Ex-Ruler of Jodhpur, for the construction of houses by registered sale-deeds as follows:1. Petition No. 1901/75, 35242-00 sq. yds for Rs. 4 Lakhs by a registered sale-deed on 4-11-71.2. Petition No. 1904/75, 25,200 sq. yards for Rs. 3,65000/- by a; registered sale-deed dated 4-11-71.3. Petition No. 1924/75 1,81,818.00 sq. yards for Rs. 9,60,000/- by registered sale-deed dated 5-11-1971.3. The land is comprised in Khasra No. 421 in the revenue record. A Gazette notification was issued on 13-8-64 under Section 7 of the Rajas ban Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land-owners Estates Act, 19,63 according to which the estates of all the land owners in Rajasthan vested in the State Government with effect from 1/9/1964 Notices under Section 9A of the said Act were issued on 19 11-19...
Tag this Judgment!The Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)344
M.L. Jain, J.1. This is a petition for grant of a writ of certiorari directed against the order of the Rajasthan State Go-operative Tribunal, Jaipur, dated June 29, 1971. The petitioner the Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bikaner, a cooperative society vas formed on 19-5-1951 with Bikaner and Churu districts within us area of operation On 27-3-1361, Churu Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., a cooperative society was formed for the district of Chura and the area of the Cooperative Bank. Bikaner was reduced to the district of Bikaner. The assests and liabilities of the district of Churu were transferred to the Churu Bank by a deed of transfer executed on 15-7-1961, whereby an amount of Rs. 7,71,577.10 paise were to be paid by the Churu Bank to the Bikaner Bank. In pursuance of this settlement, the Churu Bank made payment upto 30-5-64 bit thereafter refused to pay the balance of Rs. 42,736.48 paise on 23-4-1966. The Manager of Churu Bank addressed a letter to the Manager, Central Cooperative Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN544
R.L. Gupta, J.1. Both these revision petitions arise out of the judgment dated 1.9.73 of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, passed in criminal appeal No. 56 of 1971 affirming the conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge, Merta, vide judgment dated 29-5-71 in Sessions case No. 5 of 1970. Both these revisions are, therefore, disposed of together by this single judgment. In revision No. 405 of 1973 the petitioners Gigaram and Magharam and in revision No. 413 of 1973 the petitioners are Surajaram and Ramuram sons of Kanaram. All the four petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 51/ each, in default to undergo 15 days, rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 31 or Section 149 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/ in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Ramuram an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »