Rajasthan Court March 1979 Judgments
Devi Singh Vs. Smt. Sushila Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj48; 1979()WLN331
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No. XXV of 1955) (which will hereinafter for the sake of brevity be referred to as 'the Act') by the husband, who was petitioner before the District Judge, Jodhpur, is directed against the judgment dated August 16, 1978 by which his petition, filed under Section 13 of the Act was dismissed. In this judgment, the husband-appellant and the wife-respondent will be referred to as the petitioner and the respondent respectively.2, Petitioner Devisingh and respondent Sushila Devi were married according to Hindu rites in April, 1961. After marriage, both lived together as husband and wife. Out of this wedlock a son was born to them, who attained the age of 14-15 years on Oct. 5, 1977, the date on which the petition was filed. According to the petitioner, the respondent left his house En the year 1964 and started living separately. A long period of 14 years had passed since then. The case of the petitioner Is that the...
Tag this Judgment!Tolaram and Two ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN384
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. This is an unfortunate case in which the appellants Tolaram and Dana Ram are alleged to have murdered their father Nyolaram and brother Noranglal, with the assistance of a third person-Tejaram, brother of Tolaram's wife. The motive behind the murders is alleged to be strained relations between Tolaram and Danaram on the one hand and the deceased Nyolaram and Noranglal on the other.2. Nyolaram had five sons, viz. Tolaram, Danaram, Noranglal (deceased), Banna Ram and Dungar Ram. Except Dungar Ram the other four brothers lived in village Nuvan. Nyola Ram was residing with Tolaram but his relations with Tolaram were not happy. Danaram used to side with Tolaram. On November 19, 1973 Tolaram and Danaram gave beating to Nyolaram. The next day the deceased Nyolaram went to Ratangarh with Noranglal for treatment. The prosecution case is that when froth the deceased were returning in a bullock cart in the evening from Ratangarh to their village Nuvan, situated at a distance of...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Bhat Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN241
1. The appellant Hanuman Bhat has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Teja Singh by intentionally driving a truck over him, and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence Hanuman Bhat has filed this appeal.2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Teja Singh was also a driver of one of the trucks, which used to ply at Sangariya. On November 13, 1971, there was quarrel between PW 2 Hanuman Pandit and one Ram Pratap, who are who drivers of trucks regarding the turn to load goods on their respective trucks. Teja Singh supported Hanuman Pandit & the accused supported Rampratap. This quarrel took place at about 11 A.M. but the heat generated between the parties did not subside. It is said that at about 8.45 pm, that day, Teja Singh (deceased) and P.W. 2 Hanuman Pandit were walking on the road infront of the petrel pump, situated at the truck stand, in village ...
Tag this Judgment!B.D. Charles Vs. Smt. Nora BenjamIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Raj156
Lodha, J.1. F. B. Civil Misc. Reference (Divorce) No. 120 of 1978 has come up before us exercising jurisdiction over matrimonial causes under Sec, 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (No. IV of 1869) (for short, 'the Act' hereafter) for confirmation of a decree nisi passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated January 3, 1978. S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 1978 under Sec. 55 of the Act is directed against the aforesaid order of the learned District Judge by which he awarded Rs. 1,000/- as damages to the petitioner-husband by the appellant-non-petitioner No. 2 (alleged adulterer). The reference and the appeal were heard together. As common questions of law and fact are involved, it is convenient to decide them by a common judgment.2. B. D. Charles is the husband, Smt. Nora Benjamin is his wife and Ravikumar Goswami is the alleged adulterer, who will hereafter be referred to as the 'husband', 'the wife' and 'the adulterer' respectively. In the petition of the husband under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Salam Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN134
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. Both the above appeals have been filed by the convict Abdul Salam from the judgment by the Sessions Judge, Partapgarh dated January 22, 1974 by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Abdul Salam under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for causing the death of Umar and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appellant was also convicted Under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, for attempting to murder PW 12 Aziz Mohmmad and was sentenced it seven years' rigorous imprisonment. In addition to the aforesaid offences the appellant was convicted under Section 452, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to two years' rigorous improsonment and a fine of Rs 50/-; in default of payment of the to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the convictions and sentences awarded to him the appellant has tiled these appeals.2. We may state, here, that along with the appellant three more accused were put up for trial viz. his brother Abdul Rehman, mot...
Tag this Judgment!Bhalle Chand and ors. Vs. Tej Raj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN705
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is a Civil Second Appeal preferred by Bhalle Chand and Ukh Chand against the judgment and decree passed in appeal by the Civil Judge, Jalore, on December 5, 1967, by which the judgment and decree of the Munsiff, Jalore, dismissing the suit of the appellants under Order XXI Rule 63, CPC was upheld and maintained.2. The brief facts giving rise to this second appeal may be briefly stated as follows : Tej Raj and Babu Lal plaintiff-respondents obtained a money decree against Kojiya and Moda respondents Nos. 3 and 4 for Rs. 1681/-, with costs, pendente lite and future interest from the court of the Munsiff, Jalore, and in execution of the decree got attached one house, i.e. 'Nohra' situated at village Balwara The appellants and Sardar Mal preferred a claim in respect of this 'Nohra' under Order XXI Rule 58, CPC on the ground that this 'Nohra' belonged to ownership and possession at the time of attachment Their claim was dismissed by the court of the execution on Augus...
Tag this Judgment!Dhankaur and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR158(Raj); 1979()WLN213
M.L. Joshi, J. 1. The Agricultural ITO assessed the appellants under the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment years 1954-55 to 1959-60 by his separate six assessment orders. The appellants did not prefer any appeal against the said assessment orders before the Assistant Commissioner as provided by Section 48 of the Act. They, however, filed revision applications under Section 52 of the Act whereby they challenged the correctness of the said assessment orders. These revision applications came to be disposed of by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, who dismissed all these revision applications holding that they were barred by time.2. Being aggrieved, the appellants moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the quashing of the assessment orders passed by the Agrl. ITO and also for quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajast...
Tag this Judgment!Gotam and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)114
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Gotam and Babroo against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh, dated October 5, 1974, by which each of them was convicted under Section 304 Part II & 447, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years on the first count and on the second to suffer rigorous imprisonment for tow moths. The sentences on both the counts were, however, ordered to run concurrently in the case of each appellant.2. The prosecution case against both the appellants was as follows: Roopa, deceased, had been in possession of a field known as 'Khajurwala' & situated in village Into-ke-Talab, bearing Khasra No. 194/2 for the last so many years. On July, 1978, he accompanied by his son Narayan, his wife Ninduri and his daughter Timuri went to his field and began to sow maize seeds therein. When the deceased and his family were sowing the seeds of maize in their field, the two appellants along with Kana, Hirji, Dhulki and Kankuri, c...
Tag this Judgment!Sumer Singh Vs. the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class Khetri ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Raj178; 1979()WLN520
ORDERDwarka Prasad, J. 1. The short question raised in this writ petition is as to whether the election petition filed by respondent Rameshwar before the Munsiff, Khetri should have been dismissed on account of the defect that the annexures to the said election petition were not verified in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The respondent Rameshwar filed an election petition against the petitioner Sumer Singh under Rule 78 of the Rules, in the court of the Munsiff Khetri, challenging the election of the petitioner to the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Nagli Saledi Singh. There is no dispute that the election petition was properly verified but the only defect pointed out by the petitioner was that the annexures to the election petition were not verified by the respondent Rameshwar. Rule 80 of the Rules provides that the electionpetition shall c...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Lal and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)221
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. All these writ petitions raise common question for consideration and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioners are the employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) which is an Electricity Board established under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948,. The Government of India by it resolution dated 20th May, 1966, had constituted a General Wage Board for electricity undertakings for evolving a wage structure, standardisation of nomenclatures and job descriptions. The recommendations of the said Wage Board were accepted by the Government of India in July, 1970 and there after, the Prantiya Vidhyut Mandal Mazdoor Federation, which is a recognised trade union of the employees of she respondent Board, presented a demand before the Labour Department of the Government of Rajasthan for the implementation of the recommendations of the Wage Board by the respondent Board While the said industrial dispute b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »