Rajasthan Court May 1978 Judgments
Pooran Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN413
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, dated October 24, 1973, where by the accused-appellant Pooran was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. He was also convicted under Section 404 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of the Rs. 200/- in default or payment of fine accused was ordered to suffer further two months' rigorous imprisonment under each count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.2. Tersely speaking, shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that Ranjan, cousin-brother of accused Pooran was suspected to have been murdered by Nawab Shiga alias Nabbe (since deceased). The members of the family of Ranjan in including Pooran, bore a grudge against Nawab Singh. On October 31, 1972, Nawab Singh (since deceased) went to one Chandra bhan's shop situated in...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Goods Transport Co. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Raj181
ORDERP.D. Kudal, J.1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, by Vijay Goods Transport Company through its partner Gopi Chand, praying for issuance of a direction not to take into consideration the tender submitted by respondent No. 4 and to accept the tender of the petitioner authorising him to transport stationery goods from one place to the other.2. From the petition it appears that tenders relating to transportation of stationery articles by respondent No. 3, were invited. The petitioner as well as other persons including respondent No. 4 submitted their respective tenders for the above purpose which were to be opened by respondent No. 3 on Jan. 13, 1978 at 11 a. m. in the presence of the interested parties. All the conditions under which tenders were to be accepted need not be mentioned except those having a bearing for the decision of this petition. One of the conditions was that no tender which was not accompanied by a deposit of earnest money of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Mohd Ramzan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)156
D.P. Gupta, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has contended that the amount of money sought to be recovered from him as a licensee and vendor of liquor is nothing else but excise-duty on the quantity of unlisted liquor which could not have been charged from the petitioner. It is admitted that the petitioner failed to fulfil the contract and could not lift the liquor as provided for in the contract. All the questions which have been raised in this writ petition stand finally concluded by the decision of this Court in Bal Mukund v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 430 of 1971 decided on May 9, 1974. The aforesaid decision of this Court has been up held and confirmed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pannalal and Ors. etc. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : [1976]1SCR219 .2. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pannalal's case (supra) that the contractual obligation of the liquor contractor to pay the stipulated amount is dep...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)176
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner is the ex-ruler of the Mewar State in the State of Rajasthan. In this writ petition he has challenged the notice of the Collector, Udaipur in case No. 51 of 1975 issued on 7-11-75 under the provisions of the Rajansthan land Reforms and Acquisition of land-owner's Estate Act, 1963 therein after referred to as 'the Act' (sic) with Amendment Ordinance, 1975. In this case, the Collector, udaipur directed the petitioner to deliver possession of the estates; description of which was annesed with it by 5th of November, 1975. The notice purports to have been given Under Section 9A of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Rajasthan land Reforms and Acquisition of landowners Estate Rules, 1964 (thereinafter called 'the Rules') as amended by notification dated May 1, 1975. Te list attached to it contained 10 properties which are gardens and plots appertaining to the various palaces of the petitioner item No. 11 is in relation to the various forests where the petitioner h...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Mukund Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Raj170
ORDERDwarka Prasad, J.1. There is a bus route from Bhilwara to Deoli via Mandal, Shahpura and Jahajpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the route'). The petitioner is an existing operator of the route. The portion of the route from Bhilwara to Shahpura-Chauraya is part of the notified routes from Ajmer to Bhilwara and Ajmer to Udaipur via Bhilwara, while a draft scheme of nationalisation in respect of Bhilwara-Deoli route has been published under Section 68 C of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated April 3, 1976 and the same is still under consideration of the State Government. According to the petitioner, the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan vide its resolution dated 6/7th Aug. 1970 fixed a limit of 20 permits on the route and according to him 21 vehicles are operating on the route at present, including that of the petitioner.2. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corooration (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Sikandar Khan Vs. Actg. C.J. Rajasthan High Court
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)154
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging an order of transfer. The petitioner is an LDC in the Rajasthan High Court and he was formerly employed at the main seat of the High Court, but by the order dated September 22, 1977 he was transferred to the High Court Bench at Jaipur, in the same capacity.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was transferred by way of punishment and further that the transfer order was passed malafide. In my view, the mere transfer of an employee without anything more cannot be considered as a punishment In the present case, neither the order of transfer of the petitioner nor the circumstances attendant there to show that it was intended that the petitioner should be penalised and the transfer does not appear to have been effected by way of punishment.3. As regards malafides, the allegations made by the petitioner are quite vague. The only two allegations which appear to have been made by the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)164
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The case of the petitioners' is that they are the Khatedar tenants of Murabba No. 125/338 in Chak No. 22 NDR, in Tehsil Hanumangarh of District Sri Ganganagar and their grievance is that the non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 divided Chak No. 22 NDR into two and included the petitioners' land (square No. 125/338) in the newly formed Chak No. 3 AWSM (B) without any notice to the petitioners and without affording them an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The writ petition was initially filed by Shri. Ram petitioner No. 1 alone, but later on, on the objections of the respondents, other co-sharers of Murabba No. 125/338 were added as petitioners to the writ petition.2. The respondents' case is that the petitioner Shri. Ram representing all the petitioners had consented to the transfer of the land comprised in Murbba No. 125/338 n the newly formed Chak No. 3 AWSM (B) and as such they cannot now object to the division of Chak No. 22 MDR into two and the transfer of their l...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Lal and ors. Vs. Shri Krishna
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)172
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is a civil revision Under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by Moti Lal and his sons, owners of M/s. Moti Lal Mangal Chand, against the Judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Pali, dated 29th January, 1974, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Sojat, in Civil Original Suit No. 165 of 1968 Moti Lal and Ors. v. Shri Krishna.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision-petition may be briefly stated as follows : Moti Lal & his sons, owners of firm M/s. Moti Lal Mangat Chand, had money dealings with Shri Krishna, defendant, who, after going through the accounts, executed a pro note and a receipt for the balance of Rs. 300/-, on 21st July, 1975 in favour of plaintiff and agreed to pay interest thereupon at the rate of 12% per annum. After execution of the pro-note the defendant could not make any payment either towards the principal or towards the interest. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of the principal sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!Manakchand and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)199
D.P. Gupta, J.1. These two writ petitions raise common question and as such it would be proper to dispose them by a common order.2. The petitioner Manakchand Jain came to be appointed as Naib Tehsildar by promotion, on the basis of the recommendation of the Depart mental Promotion Committee. How ever the petitioner Umraosingh came to be appointed as Naib Tehsildar by direct recruitment, after he was duly selected by the Rajastan public Service Commission for the said post and was appointed on probation by the order of the Board of Revenue (hereinafter called 'the Board') dated December 5, 1959. Thus, both the petitioners came to be appointed on the posts of Naib Tehsildars in a substantive capacity and were duly confirmed on the said posts on the expiry of the period of probation.3. The appointment and promotion to and from the posts of Naib Tehsildars are governed by the Rajasthan Tehsildars Service Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). On their substantive appointment...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Kantilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN282
C. Honniah, C.J.1. The appellant Kantilal has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. The learned Sessions Judge Jalore has made a reference to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant briefly stated are these : Kantilal appellant married Bhuri (deceased) 6 or 7 years prior to May 29, 1977. After the marriage he went to Palanpur where he was doing some business. A few days prior to May 29, 1977, he closed his business and came along with Bhuri and his three children to Bargain, where he was staving in a rented house belonging to Ukhaji A few days after he came to Badgaon village, Bhuri went to Ratanpur to her mother's place Eight davs prior to the murder the appellant went to her mother-in-law's house to fetch he On may 21, 977 he came back to his house along with his wife and children. On that day, it appears, he did not give her any food on the ground that he suspected her character. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »