Rajasthan Court September 1979 Judgments
Chota Lal Mehta Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj123
Lodha, C. J.1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance from the order dated July 13, 1979, passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 699 of 1979, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.2. The appellant is an existing operator on Doongarpur-Sabla route via Kheda Punali, Vankoda, Baroda, Bodigama, Pindawa) route extending up to Vijawamata via Lodwal. A draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act No. 4 of 1938 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), was published in the Rajas-than Raj Patra dated July 26, 1976, with regard to the following four routes:--(i) Doongarpur-Aspur via Ganeshpur, (ii) Doongarpur-Aspur via Bankoda, (iii) Aspur-Sagwada via Punjpur, and (iv) Doongarpur-Nithawa via Bankoda Punjpur, Aspur, Sabla. As the petitioner-appellant's route was affected by the proposed scheme, he preferred objections before the Home Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan, Transport Department, J...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Vs. Mukhtyar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj21
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This is a defendant's revision against the order of the learned Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 1, Bharat-pur dated 15-11-1977, whereby he allowed the application of the non-petitioner No. 4 Shri Satya Sahib Birajman Mandir Shri Satya Sahib Kumbher under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C.2. Brief facts leading to this revision are that the plaintiff non-petitioner Himmat Singh filed a suit for declaration that the suit property mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint belonged to him and a sale-deed made by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 be declared null and void against the plaintiff. It has further been prayed that the possession of the suit property be delivered to the plaintiff from the defendants. One Shri Mohanlal alleging himself to be a Pujari of Shri Satya Sahib Birajman Mandir Shri Satya Sahib Kumbher filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. G, for impleading Shri Satya Sahib Biraj-man Mandir Shri Satya Sahib Kumbher as a party in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kr. Nirmal Chand Soni and ors. Vs. Thakurji Saligramji Maharaj and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj22
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This litigation has a long chequered history but I shall narrate only the relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for redemption in respect of an agricultural land situate at Hathibata Ajmer and a residential house situate at Pushkar. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 12th January 1949 but was decreed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer on 28th July, 1953 and a preliminary mortgage decree was passed. An appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 14th December, 1961. After the decision of the case by Hon'ble the Supreme Court a Commissioner was appointed to go through the accounts. The plaintiffs objected to the taking of accounts and the parties came in appeal to this Court. In second appeal No. 71/ 1970 Hon'ble Justice J. P. Jain passed a order for taking all the accounts by his judgment dated 26th March, 1972. On remand of the case from ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas Vs. Sardar Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj49
ORDERP.D. Kudal, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff Behro, District Alwar, dated 18-8-1979.2. The brief facts which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that elections for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Doongroli were held on 5-2-1978. Ram Niwas, the present petitioner, was declared elected having secured 72l votes as against Sardar Singh who secured 718 votes, Sardar Singh feeling aggrieved filed an election petition before the Munsiff. The contention of Sardar Singh was that 5 ballot papers which were cast in his favour were wrongly counted in the ballot papers cast in favour of Ram Niwas. His other contention was that 7 ballot papers which were liable to be rejected were wrongly counted in favour of Ram Niwas. He also contended 15 ballot papers which were cast in his favour were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer. Under 1he.se circumstances, Sardar Singh pleaded that Ram Niwas has been wrongly declared to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ganeshram K. Verma and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1979
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)387
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In this writ application Mr. J.K. Mathur, appearing for the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Labour Court on the principal ground that the finding that the automtatic termination of a workman on account of his absence from duty for more than 8 days cannot be termed as retrenchment. Mr. Sharma appearing for the workman submits that the contention of Mr. Mathur on this point is not correct, but it is not necessary to decide this point in this case as the finding of the Labour Court is that the workman was not absent and his leave from 26th March, 1975 to 19th April, 1975 was sanctioned by the Management.2. Mr. Mathur has challenged this finding of the Labour Court also preliminarily on the ground that the workman has failed to discharge the burden of proof on this point and the document produced by him Ex. W. 6 has not been properly proved. It was also argued that the workman has admitted in Annexure 17 that he has rema...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Thakur Laxman Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(Raj)346; [1984]150ITR421(Raj)
Lodha C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(3) of the W.T. Act, 1957by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', and the question referred to us reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'Tribunal was right in holding that all the wealth of the assessee including the compensation received by him under the Rajasthan Land Reformsand Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, and assessed in the year 1957-58 belonged to him in the capacity of the karta of a Hindu undivided family or it belonged to him as an individual 2. The assessee, Thakur Laxman Singh, was a jagirdar in the formerState of Jodhpur. His jagir was resumed under the Rajasthan Land, Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The succession to the jagirwas governed by the law of primogeniture. While making assessment of his wealth for the assessment year 1957-58, the WTO estimated the amount of compensation payable to the assessee on account of the resumption of his jagir at Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)313
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by Maniram and Hajari Ram under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or restraining the respondents from causing any interference with the cultivatory possession of the petitioners over squares Nos. 240 and 241 situated in village Thakri Tehsil Raisinghnagar & from dispossessing there from, and for causing the allotment of this land, if any, made in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The writ petition arises out of the following facts _ and circumstances: The petitioners were temporary tenants of 42 Bighas of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 240 and 241 of village Thakri since year 1951. They applied for permanent allotment of this land in the year 1959. Their application for permanent allotment was allowed in October, 1961 and the petitioners were directed to pay the price of the land in instalments. The petitioners paid the first instalment vide receipt Ex 1 and thereafter paid she second...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Babu Ram Ram Lal, Sangariya Mandi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj126; 1979()WLN630
ORDER1. This is a plaintiff's revision petition against the order dated August 10, 1977, by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, whereby the learned Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the defendants No. 1, M/s, Hawrah Insurance Company Ltd., and No. 3, M/s. Liberty Insurance Company Ltd., and the suit could proceed in his court only against defendant No. 2, M/s. General Insurance Society Ltd,2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 28,000, against the three insurance companies, namely, defendant No. 1, Hawrah Insurance Company Ltd., defendant No. 2, General Insurance Company, and defendant No. 3, Liberty Insurance Company Ltd., on the ground that all the three insurance companies had insured cotton seeds lying in the premises of the plaintiff at Sangariya, against fire etc., and the plaintiff had regularly deposited the premiums. However, unfortunately, on October 5, 1971, the cotton seeds caught fire and were damaged, on account ...
Tag this Judgment!Hazari Mal Vs. Mutha Kan Ram and 46 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN632
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. This revision petition by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated December 13, 1976, by the Additional District Judge, Jalore, by which the learned Judge held that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff on the plaint on a valuation of Rs. 7,000/-, was, insufficient and that he Was liable to pay court fee on Rs. 25,000/-. The main allegation cantained in the plaint is that the defendants had unlawfully taken possession of the land in dispute and had raised unauthorised construction, on it. It was prayed that the! defendants may be directed to remove the unauthorised construction and hand over possession of the land to the plaintiff. The market value of the land was fixed at Rs. 4,000/-, on which the plaintiff paid the court-fee. Besides the relief for possession of the land, plaintiff also prayed for award of mesne profits which he assessed at Rs. 7,000/-. I am not concerned here regarding the relief for mesne profits.2. The defendants raised an objection that ...
Tag this Judgment!Hamir Singh Vs. Bhawani Shankar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj134
1. In this appeal, the principal questions raised by Mr. Dalip Singh, appearing for the appellant judgment-debtor are twofold as under:--1. that without obtaining a certificate of transfer, the execution application was filed in the court of the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and since the decree was not passed by that court, it could not have been executed by the said court.2. that the certificate required under the Court of Wards Act was not filed arid therefore the decree could not have been executed.2. It would be necessary to mention facts in order to appreciate the above points.3. Bhawani Shankar filed an execution application against the Collector, Jaipur as manager of Court of Wards and Nahar Singh, Ganga Singh and Hamir Singh for the recovery of Rupees 25,813/8/6 under a decree dated June 9, 1939 granted by the District Judge, Jaipur (Mahakma Appeal). This execution application was filed on April 17, 1961. Earlier to it the execution was dismissed on 25th February, 19...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »