Rajasthan Court July 1978 Judgments
Dhansingh Vs. Takhatsingh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)208
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated August 27, 1977 by which he affirmed the order of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPU, passed by Munsif, Salumbar, on August 31, 1976.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly noticed. Dhan-Singh plaintiff appellant engaged Shri Govind Lal Dangi as his advocate in the trial court. The suit was fir the recovery of Rs, 3250/-. Shri Dangi Advocate presented the above suit in the court of Munsif Salumbar on August 14, 1976 on court-fee stamps of Rs. 200/-. According to the report made by the office of the Munif Court on August 16, 1976, the court-fee was de6cit by Rs. 10/. On August 16, 1976 it was ordered be the Munsif that the counsel for the plaintiff may be asked to mike up the deficiency within a week The advocate of the plaintiff affixed a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 10/- on the plaint on August 23, 1976 and wrote a note in...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Dr. Ganpat Singh Bhandari and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN674
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Respondent Ganpatsingh Bhardari who was Vice Principal of the M.L.V. Government College, Bhilwara was retired under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, hereinafter called as 'the Rules', by the State Government by order dated 13/14th November, 1975 on his attaining the age of fifty years. The respondent challenged this order by an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Tribunal, Jaipur, hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal' under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976, hereinafter called as 'the Act' by memorandum dated 26-8 76 (Annexure B). The petitioner took preliminary objection in its reply Annexure C challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the order of retirement under Rule 244(2) of the Rules.2. The Tribunal heard this objection at length because the same objection was raised in number of other cases pending before the Tribunal and which related to the authority and jurisdiction of the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Kumar Vs. Smt. Sulochana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN299
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal under Sections 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act') against the dismissal of the petition for decrees by the learned District Judge, Banswara dated October 27, 1977. The appellant (husband) submitted a petition under Section 18(1-A) or the Act before the learned District Judge, Banswara against the respondent (wife) on March 4, 1977. It was stated in the petition that a civil suit No. 2 of 1972 was instituted by the respondent against tie appellant for the restitution of conjugal rights. The District Judge, Jhabua (M.P.) granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on December 21, 1974. Aggrieved by the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the appellant preferred an appeal and that appeal was dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur on June 21, 1977. After the expiration of the period of two years, a petition for granting divorce under Section 13(1-A) of the Act was submitted before the...
Tag this Judgment!Heeralal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Raj133; 1978(11)WLN597
ORDERDwarka Prasad, J.1. These 15 writ petitions arise in similar circumstances and as common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, they are disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioner in each one of these writ petitions carries on his business of retail sale of country liquor within the Municipal limits of the City of Udaipur, having obtained the exclusive privilege for retail sale of country liquor from the State Government. The case of the petitioners is that the Rajasthan State Government is bringing rectified spirit within the Municipal limits of Udaipur Municipal Council from outside such limits and the same is kept or deposited by it in the Excise Warehouse situate within the Municipal limits of the Udaipur Municipal Council. According to the petitioners, country liquor of various varieties is prepared at the Excise Warehouse, Udaipur from the rectified spirit which is brought by the State Government within the Municipal limits of Udaipur Municipal Counc...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN290
K.D. Sharma, J.1. Heard earned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the Order of the Sessions Judge, Jalore, dated 17th Much, 1978. whereby the order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Jalore, dated 27th May, 1977, under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to of the Act, misacting the truck alleged to have been carrying essential community, i.e.., rice, was set aside the case se. it back to the Collector and District, Magistrate Jalore for fresh decision according to law after complying with the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act.2. The only contention raised before me by the earned Counsel for the petitioner is that there has been no contravention of the Rajasihan Rice (Export Control) Order, 1977 and the Rajasthan Food grains (Restrictions on Border Movement) Order, 1959, and so the Collector and District Magistrate is not authorized to order the confiscation of the truck canning rice at the time of its seizure by the Enforceme...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gyan Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Raj5
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Collector, Jaipur, dated 25th May, 1976 by which the petitioner Smt. Gyan Devi's application for grant of 'no objection certificate' under the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1959, has been rejected.2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this writ application are, that the petitioner Smt. Gyan Devi purchased two plots of land from Shri Himmat Singh Baid by two registered sale-deeds dated 23-11-70 and 24-11-70 for Rs. 44,999/-and Rs. 48,999/- respectively. These two plots are adjacent to each other and they both together measure 3012.13 Sq. Yds. on Moti Dungri Road, Jaipur City. On 8-12-1970 an application was made by her for grant of 'no objection certificate' for the above site to the Licensing Authority i.e. Collector and District Magistrate, Jaipur. This application was ultimately not accepted and an appeal filed before the Home Commissioner was also rejected. The petitioner then filed Civil Writ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vs. Mahendra Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Raj4
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These are two revision petitions by the defendant directed against the order of Munsif-City, Jodh-pur, dated January 20, 1978 by which he has ordered that the pleas taken in paras Nos. 2 and 3 of the additional written statement put in by the defen-dant in answer to the amended plaint be ignored. The question involved in both the revisions is common. I, therefore, propose to decide them by a common judgment.2. I may state the facts leading to S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 92 of 1978. The plaintiff non-petitioner instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-petitioner in the Court of Munsif-City, Jodhpur, on May 18, 1976. It was stated in para 8 of the plaint that the defendant-petitioner had paid rent up to Posh Sudi Poonam, Samvat 2024. The suit was brought for the recovery of the rent and damages for use and occupation in respect of 36 months. It was also stated that if the defendant-petitioner wants to take benefit of the provisi...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)253
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order of the Collector, Pali, dated 21-4-1971, whereby the allotment of agriculture land made in favour of the petitioners was cancelled The case of the petitioner, as set out in the writ petition, is asunder. Tehsildar, Pali, by his order dated 21st July 1958, had granted permission to the petitioner and ten others to cultivate certain agricultural land in village Neemli Patalan for a period of one year. The said permission was renewed from year to year. Subsequently the possession of the petitioner is respect of 15 Bighas of land of Khasra No. 162 marked as 162/10 was regularized be the Tehsildar, Pali, in terms of notification dated 5th October 1067, issued by the Government of Rajasthan and the formal order of allotment was passed in favour of the petitioner. The said order of allotment passed by the Tehsildar, Pali, was cancelled by the Collector, Pali by impugned order date...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)293
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 in t bas writ petition claim to be transferees of certain agricultural land measuring 30 Bighas 13 Biswas from petitioners Nos. 5 and 6 under registered sale deed 12-1961. Pooran, the father of the petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 was originally recorded as Khatedar tenant in respect of the said land and after the death of Pooran his rights were inherited by petitioners No. 5 and 6 The said land which is claimed to have been purchased by petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 was acquired for the constructions 12 Ghagger Flood scheme in 1965-66 and in exchange there of Murrabba No. 84/349 (12 Bighas) and Murabba Nos. 84/350 19 Bighas in Chak No. 19 S.P.D. were given to petitioners Nos. 5 and 6 and thereafter petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 obtained possession of the said land and began cultivating the same. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 applied for effecting mutation of the aforesaid fields in their names but the by Colonization Commissioner, Rajasthan Canal Project respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!Hazarimal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)282
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is a petition in revision filed by Hazari Mal against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, dated 25th January, 1978, by which the order of discharge passed in his favour by the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, on 5th May, 1977, in Criminal Case No. 167 of 1977 tinder Section 420, I.P.C. was set aside and the case was sent for further inquiry to the learned Magistrate.2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision-petition are enumerated below. The petitioner and his cousin Munnilal obtained a money decree for Rs. 844/-, against Bhanwar Singh alias Unjan complainant and in execution of that decree purchased the house oft he complainant for Rs. 500/-. The sale was confuted and a sale certificate in respect of the house was granted by the court to the petitioner and his cousin on 29th October, 1958. The petitioner and his cousin, however, did not get the actual possession of the house in pursuance of the sale certificate and permitted...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »