Rajasthan Court April 1978 Judgments
Devendra Singh Vs. Kalyan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Raj134; 1978(11)WLN113
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J.1. This is a defendant's revision application directed against the order dated 11th of August, 1976 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur whereby he dismissed the application of the defendant-petitioner for declaring the award passed in Civil Original Suit No. 125/1976 as nullity.2. The material facts relevant for the disposal of this revision application, briefly stated, are as follows:--An application was moved by one Shri Kalusingh son of Shri Mukan Singh Bhati claiming to be the Arbitrator under Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing the award given by him on 20th of May, 1973 in a dispute between the defendant-petitioner and the plaintiff-non-petitioner, praying therein for making the award the rule of the court. The notices were issued to the concerned parties in regard to the filing of the award which were duly served upon the concerned parties for the date of hearing on 2-9-1973. Thereupon, the defendant-petitioner moved an appli...
Tag this Judgment!Jiwan S/O Fateram Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)126
C. Honniah, C.J.1. This petition is filed against the order of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Deeg dated February 23, 1973, by which the Magistrate forfeited the bond executed by the petitioner.2. The facts are these. The petitioner stood a surety to one Nivisingh, who was accused of an offence punishable Under Section 380/457 I.P.C. On June 8, 1972. Nivisingh was absent. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him why his surety bond should not be forfeited. On February 23, 1973, he petitioner was produced before the court in pursuance of a bailable warrant. On that day, he was asked to file a reply for the show cause notice, but he did not file any reply. Thereafter the Magistrate forfeited the bond.3. We find in the records that the notice was in fact not served on the petitioner but on one of his nephews. Whether the nephew, on whom the notice was served, was an adult member of the family of the petitioner is not known No evidence ha...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Narayan Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)123
C. Honniah, C.J.1. This is a case in which the courts below mechanically appreciated the evidence without subjecting the evidence to judicious scrutiny; the result being that injustice has been done to the acused.2. The facts that gavee rise to the prosecution of the accused, briefly stated, are these : On July 10,1971, Stephen (P.W. 8), a Drilling Officer, left for Singhana to go to a picture house at Singhana. On the way, the accused was picked up to accompany him. After reaching Singhana, Stephen went to the picture house leaving the Jeep bearing No. MHN 2984 in charge of the accused. According to the prosecution, thereafter the accused took the vehicle on his own and met with an accident near about Khetri, as a result of which one person died & two sustained injuries. The case was put up against the accused alleging that he drove the vehicle rashly and negligently.3. The defence of the accused was that Stephen, at the relevant point of time, was driving the vehicle and that the acc...
Tag this Judgment!Hemraj Vs. Income-tax Recovery Officer, Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Raj184; [1979]118ITR698(Raj); 1978(11)WLN130
M.L. Joshi, Actg. C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Hemraj under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order, prohibiting the respondents from recovering the amount of annuity deposit in the sum of Rs. 1,885/-in relation to the assessment year 1964-65 and also for quashing any certificate issued by the Income-tax Officer in that behalf. The petition was filed on 8-1-1976. The petition came up before the then Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble M. L. Jain J. on 27th of January 1976, on which date the Court ordered to issue notice to show cause as to why this writ petition be not admitted. On 18-8-1977 the matter again came in the Court. On that date, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the petitioner has died and he asked for granting time to bring the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner on the record. On 3-12-1977 an application was filed by Mr. B. L. Purohit on behalf of ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivdayal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)127
C. Honniah, C.J.1. The accused was charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 380 and 454, Indian Penal Cede, on the allegation that he committed house trespass by breaking the lock of house of Girraj (P.W 2) and committed theft of a 'Borla' and some articles worth about Rs. 250/- on December 7, 1970.2. The prosecution, in support of its case, relied on circumstantial evidence. The courts below accepted the recovery evidence and on that basis convicted the accused under Section 380, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-.3. In this revision petition, it is contended that there was enmity between the accused and the prosecution witness Girraj (P.W. 2) and that is why a false case was foisted against him. It is admitted on behalf on the prosecution that there was enmity between Girraj (P.W 2) and the accused. The 'Borla' concerned in the case was got recovered at the instance of the accused on Decem...
Tag this Judgment!Balu S/O Navla Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)125
C. Honniah, C.J.1. The facts leading to the prosecution of the accused-petitioner lie in a narrow compass : On August 16, 1971, according to the prosecution, the accused-petitioner trespassed into the land bearing Khasra No. 275, situated in village Banki, which was in possession of Stat. Malia.2. In support of its case the prosecution mainly relied upon the testmony of Malia PW 1. The trial court accepted her evidence and convicted the accused-petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, for the offence under Section 325 Indian Penal Code. On appeal the sentence was reduced.3. In this revision petition, it is contended that on the finding of the courts below since the land, where the incident took place, was in possession of the accused, the case of the prosecution must fail. The courts below have held that the land, where the incident took place, was in possession of the accused. If that were to be so, the story of Smt....
Tag this Judgment!Darshansingh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN156
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This is an application under Section 439 CrPC, 1973, praying for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail.2. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the disposal of this application are that on 27 0 1977, at about 2 a.m. Darshan Singh lodged a report with the police stating that he has three more brothers and all the four brothers are living jointly. It was further contended that they have two trucks RJR 6167 & RJR 6667. RJR 6167 is registered in the name of Darshan Singh and Major Singh while the truck No RJR 6667 is registered in his own name. It was further alleged that Major Singh and Khelihigh's wife along with seven children died in an accident about a year back. Out of the our brothers, he alone had a wife who had also come in 'nata'. His brother Major Singh had started keeping his wife as his own wife. The petitioner, it was contended, wanted to be compensated for the loss of his wife by getting the truck transferred in his name which was in the name...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Ismail Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN286
M.L. Jain, J.1.the petitioner Mohammed Ismail Khan joined service as an Assistant Jailor on list February, 1952. He came to be confirmed on that post with effect from the sane date. He applied to the Director, Social welfare for some job in the Social Welfare D apartment in view of his high qualifications suited most to that Department. The proposal was initiated by the Director to transfer him from the fails Department to his department and to appoint him on the post of Welfare Officer (Prisons) in Scale No. 19 that is 200 450. The proposal was approved by the Minister and accordingly, an order was issued on 16th October, 1968 appointing him as officiating Social Well after Officer (Prisons for a period of six tenths He was then appointed as Social Welfare Officer with effect from 15th September, 1969 in scale No. 15 of 225 525. He then came to be appointed as the Superintendent, Observation Home, Jarpur on 19th August, 1971. in the scale 250-625. On 28 6-1972, he was transferred on a...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Lal Vs. Multan Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)52
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is a civil miscellaneous appeal by Sohan Lal under Order 43 Rule 1(u), CPC against the order of the Civil Judge, Bikaner, dated 29th April, 1977, where by Multan Chand respondent was impleaded legal representative of Mst. Magli deceased plaintiff and the suit was remanded to the court of the Munsiff Bikaner, for trial after reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff dated 13th April, 1976.2. The relevant facts out of which this miscellaneous appeal are briefly stated as follows : Mst. Magli deceased instituted a suit against Sohan Lal appellant in the court of the Munsiff. Bikaner, for a declaration that the gift-deed executed by her and got registered on 21st May, 1973 in favour of the appellant being ab initio null and void may be revoked It was alleged in the plaint that Mst. Magli was not keeping good health after the death of her husband. Sohan Lal appellant was sympathetic towards her and zradually succeeded in exerting undue Influence on her ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabchand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN227
M.L. Jain, J.1. The initial of the petitioner was in dentition the rues. It was invoked after repentant on and counter representation were considered. The tribunals was sati filed that the petitioner of the petitioner was revoked. An appeal was filed in the Rajasthan Civil service accused on right on accent of the promotion obtamed by him in the aforesaid manner2. It appears that in the relevant Rules there was no provision for promotion of a lower division clerk as an upper division clerk in the basis of merit. The rules simply provided for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit .Representations were filed against the promotion of the petitioner and a member of the board of Revenue while inspecting the office of the collector on 24th April 1977 also noticed that the promotion was irregular. The petitioner came to know of the representation and the also filed a representation on 17th October 1977 which were considered and of was thereafter that he was demoted as an LDC. The tubu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »