Rajasthan Court March 1978 Judgments
Murlidhar Khunteta Vs. Bhooramal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Raj191
ORDERM.L. Jain, J. 1. This revision petition has arisen in the following circumstances:The respondent-plaintiff is the landlord and the revision petitioner is the defendant-tenant. The plaintiff let out his Nohra situate in the town of Chomu on 25th June, 1945, on rent of Rs. 18/- per year to the defendant. The landlord terminated his tenancy by a notice dated 18th October, 1962. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent on 9th July, 1965, on the grounds of default, personal requirement and repairs. It was eventually withdrawn on 23rd December, 1970 (sic), without leave to file a fresh one. The plaintiff then filed another suit on 7th November, 1969 (sic), on the grounds of default, personal requirement and subletting. This suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiff then filed this third suit on 6th November, 1971, on grounds of (1) default. (2) personal requirement, (3) subletting and (4) repairs as the premises had become unsafe for the neighbours.2. The Issue No...
Tag this Judgment!Ghansu and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)27
M.L. Jain, J.1. On 10th January, 1977, the learned Session Judge Bharatpur, consisted the appellants under Section 147 IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He further convicted Ghansu under Section 307 and the remaining appellants under Section 37/149 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each. Hence this appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are that on the night intervening 20th & 21st April 1974, complainant Rambabu PW 4 and his father Shivliram PW 3 were sleeping in their threshing grounds in village Gurdha Nadi Distt. Bharatpur. At about 3-4 a man unknown person passed by and asked them which was the way leading to Jheel. Both the father and son were awakended Rambabu pointed to the pedestrian the way to Jheel that went by a foot-track. The stranger then enquired Rambabu whether he ha...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. M.R. Mitruka
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1440; 1978(11)WLN96
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. These proceedings arise out of a letter written by the respondent as President of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Association to Hon'ble the Union Home Minister, Central Government, New Delhi in respect of the alleged corruption in judiciary of Rajasthan. The letter appears to have been brought to the notice of Hon'ble the then Chief Justice of this Court, Shri V. P. Tyagi, who on Dec. 20, 1977 sought the opinion of the Advocate-General whether a notice for contempt of Court could be issued on the basis of the allegations made in the letter. The Advocate-General, Rajasthan, relying upon the decision of a Full Bench of the Orissa High Court in Registrar, Orissa High Court v. Barada Kanta Mishra : AIR1973Ori244 gave his opinion that the contents of the letter contain an attack on the judiciary and as such it was a fit case in which a notice of contempt could be issued.Relying upon the opinion of the Advocate-General, the then Chief Justice while passing an administrati...
Tag this Judgment!Bansidhar Rameshwar Dass and Co. Vs. Asraf Ali Ramzan Ali
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)510
D.P. Gupta, J.1. These two revision applications have been filed by the defendant against two orders passed by the learned District Judge, Pali dated November 17, 1977. By the first order the learned District Judge held that the pleas raised by the defendant in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Additional Fleas of his written statement amounted to set off within the meaning of Order VIII, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure & the defendant should pay court fees in respect of the amounts claimed by him in the aforesaid three paragraphs. By the second order passed by the learned District Judge on the same case issue No. 14 was modified and instead of the word 'adjustment', the words 'sat off' were substituted in the issue as originally framed.2. I have heard learned Counsel fir the parties and hive also looked into the pleadings of the parties. So far as the averments made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the additional pleas of the written statement of the defendant are concerned, if is no longer in dis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›