Rajasthan Court February 1979 Judgments
Satya NaraIn Agrawal Vs. Radha Mohan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Raj126; 1979()WLN624
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. This petition of revision under Section 115, C. P. C. is directed against the order dated December 14, 1978, passed by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, thereby refusing to delete issue No. 3, which he had framed on April 7, 1978. The issue which the learned Judge has refused to delete reads as under:3. In the event of a decree for eviction not being passed in the suit, whether 'the plaintiff would suffer greater hardship than the defendant? The petitioner's grievance is that this issue does not arise out of the pleadings of the parties and still the learned Munsiff is not agreeable to delete it. It is true that so far as Order XIV, Rule 1 of the Civil P. C. is concerned, issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. The said rule, however, does not lay down the negative that an issue cannot arise otherwise than from the formal pleadings of the parties. Any lawyer f...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sushila JaIn Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Raj215; 1979()WLN620
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J. 1. This petition under Section 115 of the Civil p. C. is directed against the order, dated, Aug. 7, 1978, made by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaipur City, whereby the learned Judge forfeited the defendant's right to present a written statement of her defence. 2. The facts material to the decision of this petition may be shortly stated. The Rajasthan Financial Corporation, the respondent herein, brought a suit against Sushila Jain, the petitioner herein, for recovery of Rs. 6,00,089.94 P. on the basis of a contract of guarantee, on Oct. 13, 1976. The defendant who is a resident of New Delhi could not be served with the summons of the court in spite of repeated efforts made by the process serving agency of the court over a period of nearly 1 year. This led the court to believe that the respondent was keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service. The court had therefore to take resort to substituted service by advertisement in a daily newspaper...
Tag this Judgment!Bikaner Cold Storage Company Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN156
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This writ petition wan referred for decision to a large Bench, as the learned Single Judge win heard the same felt that there was divergence of judicial opinion regarding the interpretation of Section 19A of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act'), as two Division Benches of this Court have apparently expressed two divergent views on the question as to whether the provisions of Section 19-A could be invoked only by the authorities administering the provisions of the Act or even private parties could take renounce to the proceedings under the aforesaid provisions. In Reshtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bijainagar ILR (1966) 16 Raj. P. 130 a Division Bench of this Court held that the provisions of Section 19-A of the Act were designed to clothe the Central Government with the power of issuing directions, of a general nature and it was never inended to deal with any individual controversy between the parties. According to the aforesaid decision, t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Raj203
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J. 1. In this writ petition the principal contention of the petitioner isthat he cannot be transferred from one Municipal Board in Rajasthan to the other Municipal Board, as is sought to be done by the order dated 10th Aug. 1978, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner has been transferred from the post of L D C Todarai Singh to the post of L D C Nathdwara Municipal Board. 2. Notice was issued to the State Government. Mr. J. S. Rastogi, Government Advocate, pointed out that the transfers of the Municipal employees can be made under Section 304(3) read with Rules framed under Section 297 and Section 88 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. On 8th Jan., 1979, Mr. Dave appeared and he prayed for time to study the law on this point. 3. Today, Mr. Jain appearing for Mr. Dave submits that the appointing authority of the petitioner was the Municipal Board and, therefore, the State Government or its functionaries have got no powers to eithe...
Tag this Judgment!Nawal Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)93
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Nawal Kishore jaju, the petitioner in this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is the proprietor of M/s Jajoo Brothers Medical Stores, and carries on business in purchase and sale of drugs and medicines at Barmer. He obtained two licences (Nos. 102R and 102 R-CC (1) on 5th March, 1976 from the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Barmer, who is the Drug Licensing Authority under the Drug and Cosmetics Acts 1950 (hereinafter referred so as the 'Act) and the Drugs and Come-tics Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Licence No. 102 R. authorises the petitioner to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute by retail, drugs other than those specified in schedules C and C (1) to the Rules. Licence No. 102R-CC (1) authorises the petitioner to sell, stock or exhibit for sale, or distribute by retail, drugs specified in Schedules C & C (1) to the Rules. Both the licences were valid up to 31st December, 1977 but before the expiry of the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Pyare Mohan Vs. Rameshwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj116
N.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the respondents Rameshwar and Radhey Shyam along with their father Kalyan Bux (since deceased) filed a suit for pre-emption against Ram Sukh and Abdul Shakoor (since deceased) (His legal representatives have been brought on record). According to the allegations as set up in the plaint Ram Kumar Suraj Bux purchased a shop in a court sale in Samvat year 1976. Mangi Lal father of Kalyan Bux (one of the plaintiffs now deceased) was a partner in firm Ram Kumar Suraj Bux. Mangi Lal died in Samvat year 1992 and the partnership dissolved. On dissolution of the partnership, the shop which was purchased in a court sale by Ram Kumar Suraj Bux came to the share of plaintiff Kalyan Bux. Thereafter the plaintiffs had been using the shop as its owner and had been in its possession. On the west of this shop is another shop, the roof of which belonged to Ram Sukh defendant (since deceased) and to the west of this shop there is a common st...
Tag this Judgment!Bhonrilal Hiralal and ors. Vs. Prabhu Dayal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj9
N.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, Alwar, dated 1st May, 1978, whereby he rejected the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and refused to stay the proceedings of the Civil Suit.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 29th March, 1976, Pra-bhu Dayal s/o Bhonrey Lal and Raghu-nandan s/o Prabhu Dayal filed a suit for the dissolution of the firm Bhonri Lal Hiralal and for rendition of accounts of the firm and for partition of the movable and immovable properties and for separate possession. The plaintiffs also moved an application for appointment of receiver under Order 40, Rule 1, C.P.C. On 30th March, 1976, one of the defendants Om Prakash appeared in the trial Court suo motu and requested that he should be heard before passing any order on the application under Order 40, Rule 1. The copy of the application and the plaint was given to the defendant Om Prakash and the summo...
Tag this Judgment!Lad Kanwar Vs. Jagdish
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Raj197
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. Respondent Jagdish had filed a petition No. 92 of 1973 against appellant Mst. Lad Kanwar, daughter of Ram Kalyan for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of District Judge, Kota. The learned Judge had called the parties. He made every endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties. Thereafter appellant Lad Kanwar made an application before the Court mentioning therein that Jagdish had treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful for her to live with him. On this ground of cruelty a decree for judicial separation had been prayed to be passed. In support of her application affidavits had also been filed.Though the evidence in that case had been given through affidavits, the other party had not opposed it. Accordingly the learned Judge reached the conclusion that Jagdish had maltreated his wife, and eventually held that Mst. Lad Kanwar wa...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Prakash Vs. the Rajasthan Housing Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)100
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. The Rajasthan Housing; Board Act, 1970 was enacted by the Rajasthan State Legislature to provide for measure to be taken to deal with and satisfy the need of housing accommodation in the State of Rajasthan The Rajasthan Homing Board, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') respondent herein, is a Board established under Section 4 of the said Act, In exercise of powers conferred on it, under the aforesaid Act, the Board constructs houses of various types which are allotted to applicants who are divided into various categories on the basis of their annual income. In 1977 the Board issued a scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'Registration Scheme') whereby it invited applications for registration for allotment of houses. Under the Registration Scheme, the applicants were divided on the basis of income In the following categories and different registration fees were prescribed for registration of applications falling in the various categories:Income Group Annual Inco...
Tag this Judgment!Randhir Singh Vs. Gurbux Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN170
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Sriganganagar dated September 13, 1967 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part for a sum of Rs. 8500/- only against defendent-respondent No. 1.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these: The plaintiff instituted a suit against Gurbux Singh (defendant No. 1 respondent No. 1), Mukhtiarsingh (Defendant No. 2 respondent No. 2) and Chandra Finance Limited (defendant No. 3 respondeot No. 3) for return of truck No. RJF 1276 or in the alternative for Rs. 27,000/- consisting of Rs. 8500/- as the price of truck, Rs. 10,880.30/- as repair charges & Rs. 8500/- as compensation, total Rs. 27880.30 p out of which the plaintiff relinquished Rs. 880.30 p. out of the compensation amount.3. Defendant No. 1 filed a separate written.4. The case of the plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint is that truck Not, PJF 1276 was registered in the name of Mukhtiarsingh defendant No. 2 in the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »