Rajasthan Court March 1979 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Abdul Rehman Vs. Dhere Bai and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN162
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This a defendant's first appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District fudge, Sirohi dated April 24, 1978 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 9 of 1977.2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is the wife of plaintiff respondent No. 2. The plaintiff-respondents instituted a suit for Rs. 21,488.50 paise against the defendant-appellant on May 20, 1977 in the court of the Additional District Judge, Sirohi. The suit was based on a promissory note dated September 1, 1972, which is alleged to have been executed by the defendant against the outstanding amount of Rs. 14,001/- stipulating to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 1/- per cent per mensem. It was averred that Rs. 13,501/- were due from the defendant to plaintiff No. 1 on account of principal after deducting Rs. 500/-, which was paid by the defendant on June 27, 1974. According to the plaintiff's a sum of Rs. 7980/- was outstanding on account of interest and Rs. 750 were claimed on account of notice expens...
Atmaram Vs. Smt. Narbada Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj35; 1979()WLN184
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (No. XXV of 1955) by the husband who was non-petitioner before the District Judge against the judgment dated Aug. 13, 1978 by which a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the wife-respondent and against him in a petition filed under Section 9 of the Act on July 12, 1977. In this appeal, the appellant and the respondent shall be referred to as 'the husband' and 'the wife' respectively. The mother of the husband was also impleaded as non-petitioner No. 2 but her name was deleted by the learned District Judge vide his order dated November 24, 1977.2. It was alleged by the wife in her petition under Section 9 of the Act that her marriage with the husband was held according to Hindu rites on April 29, 1967 in Bhilwara; that the mother of the husband is a greedy lady and she often used to tell the wife that her father has not given anything at the time of marriage, and that t...
Jailal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ523; 1979()WLN478
ORDERP.D. Kudal, J.1. This is the fourth bail application on behalf of the accused-petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the disposal of this bail petition are, that Ram Chandra lodged a First Information Report on 1-4-1977, alleging that his brother Bhikam was assaulted by Shiv Charan, Angana, Shiv Lal and Jailal. Bhikam succumbed to the injuries. The police registered a case under Section 302, IPC against the accused-petitioners. Shiv Charan and Angana have already been released on bail. The present bail petition is on behalf of Jailal and Shiv Lal.3. Jailal was arrested on 3-4-1977 and Shiv Lal was arrested on 5-4-1977. The challan was submitted on 27-5-1977 in the Court. The concerned Magistrate had been transferred and so the Reader of the Court made an endorsement on 28-5-1977 that the challan be put up on 10-6-1977. That day being a holday, the challan was put up on 13-6-'1977, on which date i...
Mangilal Vs. Gheesukhan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj14; 1979()WLN194
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the Judgment and decree dated Oct. 21, 1967 passed by the learned District Judge, Partabgarh by which he maintained the dismissal of the suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts.2. The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint dated July 17, 1963 that defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are sons of defendant No. 5, who died during the pendency of the suit and in his place, defendants Nos. 5/5 and 5/5 were impleaded as parties to the suit; that the defendants and the plaintiff jointly purchased truck No. RJY 1497 on May 23, 1962 for Rs. 6011/- from one Baldevsingh son of Govindsingh, resident of Kankroli and that it was agreed to ply this truck jointly (in partnership) and the following terms wore orally agreed, -1. That the aforesaid truck will be jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendants and 1/2 of its costs will be paid by the plaintiff and the other 1/2 by the defendants. 2. That as the defendants did not ha...
Hajari Ram Vs. the Mantri, Khadi Mandir, Bikaner
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Raj76; 1979()WLN282
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These are two connected revisions and as they have been heard together, it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.2. The petitioner submitted an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (No. IV of 1936) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Authority under the Act (for short 'the Authority' hereafter) at Bikaner, on July 21, 1972 against the non-petitioner. The petitioner and the non-petitioner will hereafter be referred to as 'the employee' and 'the employer1 respectively-It was stated in the application by the employee that the employer had not paid wages from August 23, 1970 to May 31, 1972 @ Rs. 200/- per month. The total amount of wages payable to the employee on account of the aforesaid period was assessed at Rupees 4253.34 p. Along with this application, a separate application for condoning delay was submitted as the claim for wages for the period from August 23, 1970 to June 30, 1971 was not with...
Kajodmal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN803
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur dated 23-3-1978 on the ground that the same was passed without jurisdiction Previously also, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against that order was presented to this Court, which was registered as SB Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 56/78, but the same was dismissed being premature on September 15, 1978, and it was observed fiat if the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta is inverse to the accused, petitioner, be shall be at liberty to move a fresh application under Section 482 CrPC.2. After the decision of this Court, the report of the Director, Central Feed Laboratory, Calcutta dated 27-5-1978 was received in the trial court, and the same being adverse to the accused-petitioner, he has moved afresh under Section 482 Cr.P.C., To dispose of this application, brief facts may be stated, which are these.3. The Food Inspector, Gangapur City, took a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›