Rajasthan Court September 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.
Bhikam Chand and anr. Vs. Tara Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Raj14; 1977()WLN630
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 14th January, 1976, whereby the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Beawar dated 19th March, 1974 were set aside.2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this appealare that Tara Chand and Om Prakash filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against Bhikam Chand and M/s. Bhikam Chand & Sons, Beawar. The eviction was sought on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises by the plaintiffs and on the ground of default. The learned trial Court decided the issue regarding reasonable and bona fide need of the suit premises against the plaintiffs. It was also held that the defendants have not committed any default. The suit for eviction was therefore, dismissed. The plaintiffs feeling aggrieved filed an appeal which was decided by the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer on 14th January, 1'976. The judgment and...
Dargah Committee Vs. Abdul Gafoor and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Raj129; 1977()WLN638
ORDERP.D. Kudal, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 115. CPC is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer City (West), dated 17th April, 1976.2. The facts of the case, in brief, which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the Dargah Committee, Ajmer obtained a decree of ejectment against Abdul Gafoor, judgment-debtor. When the decree of ejectment was sought to be executed Ghosh Mohammad obstructed the execution of the decree by way of resisting the delivery of possession. Ghosh Mohammad moved an application under Section 151, CPC on 28th Nov. 1975, praying that he is not bound by the decree which has been passed in favour of the plaintiff decree-holder against his father Abdul Gafoor. It was further contended by him that he has been in possession of the shop in question in his own right and has made substantial constructions within the premises. The application under Section 151. CPC by Ghosh Mohammad was resisted ...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Bankatlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN491
D.P. Gupta, J.1. An interesting question of law arises in this case. The non-applicant instituted a suit for ejectment and for damages against the applicants in the Court of the Munsif, Jodhpur District. On the first date of hearing the defendants submitted at application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. hereinafter referred to as the Act', praying that the proceedings in the suit be stayed and the parties be directed to take recourse to arbitration, since the defendant-applicants were and are always ready and willing to get the dispute between the parties settled in accordance with the provisions contained in the arbitration agreement. The trial court allowed the application and directed that the proceedings in the suit be stayed pending arbitration. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-landlord against the aforesaid order which was accepted by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, by his order dated May13, 1977, and the application under Section 34 of the Act was rejected....
Bhanwar Singh and anr. Vs. Gir Raj Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Raj20; 1977()WLN618
ORDERP.D. Kudal, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 30th April, 1977, of the learned Additional Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bharatpur, whereby the defendant's application dated 20th January, 1977 under Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed.The brief feels which are relevant for the disposal of this revision application are that Gir Raj Praead, plaintiff, filed a suit against Gulab Singh and Bhanwar Singh defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The suit was presented before the trial Court on 17th July, 1972. On 14th October, 1974, issues were framed. The plaintiff filed a list of witnesses on 19th November, 1974. Defendant No. 1 Gulab Singh died on 24th February, 1976. An application for bringing his legal representatives on record was filed on 6th May, 1975 praying tha...
Alladeen and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN504
K.D. Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned order passed in this case by the Sessions Judge. Partabgarh, on August 3, 1977, under Section 438, Cr. P.C. Learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to Alladeen and Peer Mohammad petitioners in a criminal case pending against them under Sections 323, 341 and 379, I.P.C. While granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners, the Sessions Judge laid down certain conditions, presumably in the light of the facts in this case. One of the conditions objected to by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the petitioners in the event of their arrest shall be released on bail, provided they produced the watch and the sum of Rs. 250/-, before the Investigating Officer. It will not be out of place to mention that the watch and the sum of Rs. 250/-, are alleged to have been the stolen properties. Imposition of such a condition Under Section 438, Cr. P....
Prem Lata Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)413
M.L. Jain, J.1. The facts of this writ petition are that M/s Bikaner Clays & Chemicals, Bikaner respondent No 3 made an application on 8-1-1970 for mining lease for red ochre and fire clay in an area of 412 hectares near village Indokabala, District Bikaner. Since in the same land, one Shri A M Bengani had applied on 14-8-68 for mining lease for Fuller's earth in an area of 412 79 hectares, the Assistant Mining Fighter, Bikarer, by his letter dated 30.1.70 in formed the respondent No 3 that the area applied for by them conflicts with some sanctioned and applied for area and as such the fire area is only 342-35 hectares He enclosed a report in 5 copies for signatures of the respondent No 3 and return within 3 days Ore more letter was issued by the Assistant Mining Engineer Bilarer on 19- 11-1970 saying that as a matter of fact, the free an a was only 252 52 acres Ir reply to this letter, the respondent No 3 wrote to the Astistant Marirg Frgireer Rlaner that they had accepted and desinge...
Jiya Ram and ors. Vs. Judge Debt Relief Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)368
M.L. Jain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated February 4, 1972, in a revision petition against the order of the Debt Relief Court, Sri Ganganagar dated January 17, 1969.2. The only point canvassed before me was that under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957, it is only the Dist. Judge who is empowered to hear revisions against the orders of a Debt Relief Court while the impugned order has been made by an Additional District Judge and is, therefore, without jurisdiction.3. I have considered. Section 17 provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Debt Relief Court may apply to the District Court for revision of the said order. The explanation to Section 17 further provides that the Court of the District Judge within whose civil jurisdiction the Debt Relief Court it situated shall be the District Court for the purposes of Section 17. According to Section 10 of ...
Anil Kumar Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)380
M.L. Jain, J.1. The petitioner Gautam is a U.D.C. in the employment of the respondents Rajasthan State Electricity Board Upon a complaint of misbehaviour with his Assistant Engineer, he was suspend d on 20-5-1968 There after by an order dated February 11, 1970, of the Additional Chief Engineer, he was visited with the penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect. He was reinstated and it was also directed that he shall be paid full pa and allowances as he was drawing prior to his suspension for the period he remained under suspension and this period will be considered as on' duty. The Superintending Engineer, however, referred 1 he matter back as he thought that the order regarding payment of full wages was in violation, of Regulation 41 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Regulations, 1964. However, on 16.11.70 the Superintending Engineer intimated the, petitioner at he was not entitled to more than what has been paid during his suspension period as...
Smt. Priti Parihar Vs. Kailash Singh Parihar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN482
M.L. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated January 4, 19/7, by which he dissolved the marriage of the appellant Priti Parihar with respondent Kailash Singh. It comes today for decision of a preliminary point raised on behalf of the respondent Kailash Singh that the appeal was incompetent as a copy of the decree sheet had not been filed with the appeal within the period of limitation.2. The dates which are material for consideration in this connection are as follows:(1) The judgment under appeal was delivered on 4-1-1977.(2) The appellant applied for a copy of the judgment only on 5-1-1977.(3) Copy was to be given on 6-1-1977. It was was ready on 7-1-1977.(4) It was received by the appellant on 7-1-1977.(5) The decree was signed on 18-1-1977.(6) Appeal was filed only with a copy of the judgment but without a copy of the decree on 27-1-1977.(7) The appeal was listed for admission in the High Court OH 2-2-1977.(8) Caveat ...
Bejomal Alias Bajmal Godha Vs. Ramesh Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)329
M.L. Jain, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Aimer, dated 13-2-1970. The plaintiff respondents filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent inter alia on the allegation that the defendant appellant was their tenant with rent at the rate of Rs. 23/- per month, but failed to male payment of the rent right from 7.10.60 and had thus committed default. The trial Court decreed only a sum Rs 345.77.- The decree for ejectment was also passed. The decree of the learned Munsif is dated 27-2-1969 an appeal against which was also dismissed the learned Addl. District Judge, Ajmer by his aforesaid order.2. While the present appeal was pending the law was amended and Section 13A was interested in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. In pursuance of this provision, the respondent applied for determination of the arrears of rent and interest and costs of the suit so that upon payment thereof the ground of defa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »