Rajasthan Court July 1978 Judgments
State and ors. Vs. Vinay Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)223
M.L. Joshi, J.1. This is a group of seventeen special appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. All these: appeals involve common question of law in regard to the interpretation of Sections 25B, 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Article, 19I7 hereinafter called the Act. They are therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment.2. In order to appreciate the questions of law involved in these various writ petitions it will be sufficient to give facts from the D.B. Civil special appeal No. 16 of 1968 State and Ors. v. Vinnay Kumar as the facts in ail the appeals are almost similar.3. The material facts relevant for disposal of these appeals stated in brief are as under: The respondent Vinaykumar is an Engineering graduate. Ha came to be appointed as Junior Engineer in Public Works Department Project Organization under the order of the Chief Engineer P.W.D dated 25-7-66. He, however, joined the service on 23-10-66. Later on he was retrenched by the impugned orde...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Jeet Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)280
C. Honniah, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The case against the accused was that they beat Ram Kishan P.W. 1 and his wife and took away Rs. 40/- and thereby committed offences under Sections 394, 458, 342 and 323 Indian Penal Code.3. Ram Kishan and his wife did not identify the accused as the persons who committed the offences. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused. Hence this appeal fails and is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Khivsingh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)316
C. Honniah, C.J.1. In this revision, petition, from the facts stated, it is clear that two distinct offences were committed by sets of accused persons. Learned Public Prosecutor concedes that there should be two trials. Accordingly, I direct that two cases be tried separately. The revision is accordingly allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Veera Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN387
C. Honiah, C.J.1. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition briefly stated are these : On April 14, 1978 an incident happened at the house of Mahadeo (deceased) at village Jajusar in which Mahadeo was murdered. Mahadeo was cremeted on that night. On April 16, 1978 a report was lodged in the Police station, Sanchore by one Goa implicating 14 persons including Veera (petitioner). After due investigation a charge sheet was filed against 13 persons but not against Veera. A perusal of the material placed before me shows that the wife and other members of the family of Mahadeo did not implicate Veera. On the other hand, they appear to have stated that he was not concerned with the crime. That is the reason why the investigating agency did not challan him. At the time of trial the Public Prosecutor made an application to the Court to take cognizance of the offence of murder against Veera also. The learned Sessions Judge accordingly took cognizance and issued warrant of arrest. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bachan Kaur and anr. Vs. Executive Engineer, Rcp and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)211
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are displaced persons from Peshawar in Pakistan. In lieu of the agricultural lards possessed by them in Pakistan the pet rioters were jointly allotted 35 bighas of land in Khasra No. 99 situated in village Jeewan Desar, Tehsil Anupgarh by the Managing Officer of the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of India by allotment Older dated 10.4.1963. The aforesaid land was allotted out of the land in the Khattedari of Captain Prince Amar Singh of Chhatargarh (sic) in the erstwhile State of Bikaner. The said Captain Prince Amar Singh had given the said land to one Gulam Rasul for cultivation and the said Gulam Rasul had field to Pakistan in 1947 & so the land measuring 72 bighas became vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. In parsuance of the allotment order passed by the Managing Officer the petitioners were put into possession of the land allotted to them on 17.4.1963. Since th...
Tag this Judgment!Khem Singh and 11 ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)534
C. Honniah, C.J.1. Fourteen persons were prosecuted for various offences, the main officer being under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, by his judgment dated January 4, 1975, acquitted two accused persons not named in the First Information Report and convicted the twelve accused, who are appellants before us, and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ in default to undergo 3 months, rigorous imprisonment They were also convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo to 3 years' rigorous, imprisonment, and directed the substantive sentences to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution was that there was enmity between the Rajputs of Nare village and Minas of Sanwaipura. On June 12, 1973 in the morning, Cbhotu (deceased) belonging to the community of Mina, went to a quarry outside the village m order to extract stones. When he was so working 15 persons of Rajput community, consisting o...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Palkhivala Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)257
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Mining lease of the petitioner could not have been cancelled by the State Government on account of discontinuance in the working of the mining operations by him for a period of one year or more and that the order passed by the State Government in this respect is without jurisdiction Learned Additional Government Advocate contends that the mining lease of the petitioner has been determined in accordance with the provisions of law and the petitioner has an alternative remedy open to him of approaching the Central Government by way of revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Rules').2. Rule 27 of the Rules prescribes certain conditions to which every mining lease shall be subjected to and which shall be deemed to have been incorporated in ...
Tag this Judgment!Murli Alias Mool Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)536
C. Honniah, C.J.1. The appellants were charged with having committed offences under Sections 447, 147, 379, 323, 325, 302, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code.2. The case against them was that on June 14, 1973 at about 7.30 A M they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in the field bearing Khasra No. 302, situated near the village Vaidhya-ki-Dhani, armed with deadly weapons, assaulted Jamna. Mangalchand (PW. 3), Kaluram (PW. 4) Ram Sahai (PW. 7), Shivpal (PW. 11), Durga (PW. 12) and one Anilal. Jamna died and the other persons sustained injuries.3. In regard to this incident a complaint is stated to have been lodged on the same day in the evening by Onkarmal (PW. 18), son of the deceased. The investigation was taken up on the basis of this complaint, and the appellants were arrested, and recoveries of some weapons were made.4. The case of the prosecution was that the eastern portion of Khasra No. 302 was in possession of Jamna & Anilal & others, & that Jamna, on the date of...
Tag this Judgment!Maharama and anr. Vs. Ram Bux
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN667
N.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order of the Additional District Judge, Tonk, dated 4th Nov. 1976, by which he set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif. Tonk, dated 20th Oct. 1975, and has remanded the case with a direction to record evidence and then to decide the case afresh.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Ram Bux filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant appellants on the ground inter alia that the plaintiff had a Nohra in the village Pahadi Tehsil Newai in which he had a right of passage through the land described in the plaint. The defendants be restrained by issuing a permanent injunction not to interfere with the right of way of the plaintiff and not to make any construction. It was further prayed that whatever construction the defendants have made, may be demolished by issue of a mandatory injunction. The defendants' main contention was that the plaintiff had no right of way and the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Khamma Devi Vs. Doli Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)242
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision application has been filed by Smt. Khamma Dew, widow of Lalchand in her own capacity as well as in the capacity as a natural guardian of defendants Nos. 3 to 7 against the order of the Munsif, Balotra, dated March 2, 1977 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 35 of 1975.2. A few facts deserve to be recalled lied here. Smt. Doli Devi widow of Hiralal (plaintiff-non petitioner No. 1 instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,000/- against Maghraj son of Jethmal (defendant No 1. non-petitioner No. 2) and the petitioners in the court of Munsif, Balotra on May 20, 1975. It was alleged that the plaintiff, at the request of Lalchand (husband of petitioner No. 1 defendant No. 2) and father of defendants Nos. 3 to 7 (petitioners No. 2 to 6) deposited a sum of Rs. 100/- on January 24, 1973 and Rs. 2000/- on January 25, 1973. To these two sums, an amount of Rs. 1000/- was added as interest and the present suit was instituted as aforesaid. The defendants Nos. 2 to 7 wer...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »