Rajasthan Court February 1978 Judgments
Bhikha Bhai Vs. Lalshanker and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Raj193; 1978(11)WLN45
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J. 1. This is a defeated candidate's election petition filed under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act (briefly 'the Act') challenging the election of respondent No. 1 Shri Lal Shanker to the Sagwara Legislative Assembly Constituency in the election held in June 1977. The main ground upon which the election is sought to be challenged is the commission of corrupt practices alleged in the election petition by respondent No. 1.2. The respondent was served with summons along with the copy of the election petition including annexures and affidavit. The respondent No. 1 submitted his written statement and along with his written statement produced the copy of the election petition sent to him along with the summons. In his written statement respondent No. 1 traversed all the allegations in regard to the commission of corrupt practices and inter alia contended that the copy of the election petition along with the annexures served on him, do not contain t...
Tag this Judgment!Nania Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)213
R.L. Gupta, J.1. Mania his preferred the appeal through jail against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, passed on 26th May, 1972, by which he convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the murder of his own wife Mst. Khimi on 7-2-1971.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 7-2-1971 Mst. Khimi (wife, of the accused) along with Mst. Jumli and Mst. Panchli had gone to the jungle of Magra for collecting the fuel-wood. Mst. Jumli is Khimi's brother's wife and Mst. Panchli is Khimi's sister. The deceased Mst. Khimi was the wife of the accused appellant. After collecting the fuel Khimi, Jumli and Panchli were returning home with bundles of fuel wood on their heads. When they reached near the temple of Asha Puri Mata, the appellant Mania reached there. He threw the bundle of fuel from Mst. Khimi's head and Ruled her to some distance and then gave a severe blow with an axe on her bead, as a result of which Mst. K...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Roadways Sangaria Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raja ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Raj156; 1978(11)WLN36
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. The Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, issued a notification inviting applications for one vacancy from the stage carriage operators within 30 days from the date of the notification. The notification was published in the Government Gazette dated 9th Dec. 1976. It is not disputed that the application of the appellant was not within the time prescribed i.e., within 30 days, as mentioned in the said notification. In the said notification it was specifically stated that applications received beyond the appointed day, shall not be considered at all. 3. In response to the said notification three applications were received by the R. T. A. within the prescribed time, whereas two applications, including that of the appellant, were received beyond the appointed day. When these applications came before the R. T. A. on 14th April, 1977, the R. T. A. dealt with the cases of the three applicants whose applications were within time, but the remaining...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal and anr. Vs. the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Raj201; 1978(11)WLN38
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J. 1. The facts out of which these petitions arise, may be stated in brief as under :2. According to facts averred in the petitions, both the petitioners purchased one plot each situate in Ratanada, Jodh-pur, out of a big plot of land belonging to Man Singh, from Man Singh. The site plan of the whole land out of which these petitioners have purchased the plots is annexed with the petitions. The site plan in S. B. Writ Petition No. 8 of 1978, is Annexure 4, whereas the site plan in S. B. Writ Petition No. 14 of 1978 is Annexure I. The petitioner Mohan Lal purchased plot No. 1 shown in the site plan and the petitioner Krishna Ram purchased plot No. 2. Both these plots are adjacent to each other. Both the petitioners after the purchase of the plots obtained permission for construction over them in the year 1969, The permissions in both the cases were accorded on 6-9-1969. After obtaining permissions from Municipal Council, Jodhpur, both petitioners raised constructions ov...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Sharma Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1276; 1978(11)WLN169
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This special appeal, under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed against the judgment, dated December 2, 1977, of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition, filed by Rahul Sharma, challenging the validity of the order, dated October 4, 1977, passed by the then Administrative Judge, making over Sessions Case No. 19 of 1977, State v. Anil Punjwani and Ors., to the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City.2. The facts, giving rise to the present special appeal, are that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, was facing trial in the Court of Shri Amar Singh Godara, Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, in Sessions Case No. 19 of 1977, under Sections 307 and 120B, I.P.C. for attempting to commit the murder of Aswani Sethi, The learned Judge recorded the statements of 14 prosecution witnesses, out of 47, to be examined by ...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN272
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. These two special appeals Nos. 47 and 49 of 1977, preferred by Nand Lal and Ganesh Lal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949 are directed against the order, delivered in Civil wont petitions Nos. 1507 of 1976 and 1508 of 1976 on October 26, 1977; rejecting the writ petitions challenging the validity of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, dated August 27, 1976, hiding that the transfers of the surplus land, transfer of 'which Was made after December 31, 1969, had had no right of hearing and consequently the appeals filed by them were not maintainable,2. The facts giving rise to these special appeals are that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kota, (vide his order, dated July 12, 1976) refused to recognize the transfer of land made in favour of the appellants as the sale-deeds were executed after December 31, 19 9, and the Sub-Divisional Officer further hold that Bakhtawar Singh was liable to surrender 339 76 standard acres of land, being surp...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Maheshwari and anr. Vs. the Municipal Council Alwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1594; 1978(11)WLN471
ORDERM.L. Shrimal, J.1. The petitioners, P R. Maheshwari and Jagannath Jaju through these three petitions filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 1973, which have been registered as S. B. Criminal Applications Nos. 1403 of 1975, 23 of 1976 and 25 of 1976, have prayed for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Cases Nos. 18/379 of 1974, 18/381 of 1974 and 18/380 of 1974, under Section 7/16 read with Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), pending against them in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar. As common, questions of fact and law arise in all these three petitions, they are being disposed of together by this common order.2. The petitioners are Directors of Premier Vegetable Products Ltd., Jaipur. The Food Inspector, Alwar, inspected the shop of Mahendra Kumar, Madan Lal and Prakash Chandra on 9-10-1973 at Alwar. After disclosing his identity and serving notices in the prescribed Form No. IV, he purchased some Cheta...
Tag this Judgment!Deepa Ram Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)37
D.P. Gupta, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Baran Khurd in the year 1962-63. On March 11, 1969, a copy of the charge sheet was given to the petitioner under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner submitted a statement of his defence and after making an enquiry, the State Government by its order dated March 22, 1973 recorded a finding against the petitioner in respect of his term of office as a Sarpanch. As the enquiry was initiated after the term of office of the petitioner had expired, the State Government recorded a Ending in 'accordance' with the proviso to Sub-section 4 of Section 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the effect that the charges levelled against the 'petitioner' were pound proved. The petitioner preferred a review application under the provisions of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Satya NaraIn Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Raj116; 1978(11)WLN55
P.D. Kudal, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2nd November, 1977, whereby the Civil Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the disposal of this special appeal, are that the appellant was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Pahel. He was removed from the office of the Sarpanch by the State Government vide order dated 26th February, 1977, under the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. Certain complaints were made against the appellant on the basis of which the following charges were framed against him:--1- Jh lR; ukjk;.k ljiap xzkeiapk;r igys iapk;r lfefr eq.Mkoj dk tcjnLrh ls efUnj Jh ujflag th egkjkt dks cUndj fn;k gS A iqtkjh dh ek tks efUnj esa jgrh Fkh mldks ckgj fudky fn;k rFkk ufdlh xzke oklh dks n'kZu djus tkrs nsrk gS vkSj efZUnj ds vUnj ds tkus ij xkyhnsrk gS A 2- Jh lR; ukjk;.k ljiap xz...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›