Rajasthan Court January 1980 Judgments
Jetha Ram Vs. Lakh Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)18
Kanta BhatnagarAt the con mentement of arguments for admission Mr. J.R. Talia learned Counsel for the non petitioners raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition. According to him this is an order passed under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after to be referred as the Code), hence is an appealable order under Order 43 Rule 1(s) of the Code.2. It has been strenuously argued by him that the impugned order is specific on the point that the learned Magistrate has given a finding that receiver should be appointed in the case and the order for attachment of the tractor is an order cot sequential to the order for appointment of receiver. It has been urged that merely because certain person was not nominated by that order it will rot amount an interlocutory order rather it denotes that a final order about the appointment of receiver hid been parsed and only the nomination of the the receiver was to be made after the property wa...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Khayali and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)244
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. In the proceeding initiated on the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 Smt. Khayali, the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Partabgarh (Camp Chittorgarh) had passed an award for an amount of Re. 9000/- with costs and interest of Rs. 6% p.a. from the date of the petition to the date of realisation, on account of the accident met by Smt Khayali on 30.5 72 near Sainik School, Chittorgarh. On that day she had left her village Gilund at about 7.30-8.00 a.m. in a bus in order to attend the marriage of Mangilal at village--Irani. When the bus stopped near Sainik School, Chittorgarh she got down from it and was trying to take out her children when Truck No. DSL 6175 coming from towards Chittorgarh struck against her. She sustained grievious injury in her leg and was immediately taken to the hospital where she hid to remain for about two months for treatment. She had claimed Rs. 26000/- in all on various counts by way of damages on account of the Inj...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Prakash Mittal Etc. Vs. Abdul Haq Ansari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj123
Kasliwal, J.1. These two special appeals are directed against the order of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 23rd April 1969, in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 729/1967.2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Abdul Haq Ansari (hereinafter called 'the petitioner') was holding a prospecting licence for mining of Gar-nett in village Khatwar Tehsil Phagi District Aimer from 27th February 1963 to 26th February 1964. On 26th November 1963, he applied for renewal of the licence but the same was reiected by the State Government on 25th Feb. 1064 but the petitioner was informed about it on 27th February 1964, after the period Against Judgment of Single Judge of this Court in C.W.P. No. 729 of 1967, D/- 23-4-1969. of prospecting licence had expired. On 29th February 1964. he applied for the grant of fresh mining lease but this was rejected by the Director of Mines and Geology as time barred. On a representation made by the petitioner the Government of Raiasthan forwarded the application f...
Tag this Judgment!Ghisalal LaxminaraIn Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN170
D.P. Gupta, J.1. In this writ petition the validity of the establishment of a sub-market yard in the cantonment area of Nasirabad has been challenged. The petitioner who is said to be carrying on business of purchase and sale of food-grains and chillis in the Nasirabad Cantonment area, has approached this court with the submission that Nasirabad cantonment area is not included in the market area of the Ajmer Market Committee, established under section '6' of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act') as such a sub-yard under Section 7 of the Act could not have, been established in respect of the territory comprised within the cantonment area of Nasirabad.2. It is not in dispute that Nasirabad town is included in the area of Nasirabad cantonment, established under the Cantonment Act, 1924 and is administered by the cantonment Board in accordance with the provision of the aforesaid Act of 1924. The Rajasthan State Government issued a notification on...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Ground Water Board and anr. Vs. the Indu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)26
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (the Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Ground Water Board, Jodhpur and State of Rajasthan) have prayed that the award of the Industrial Tribunal, II, Rajasthan. Jaipur (for short' the Tribunal') dated June, 29, 1976 may be quashed and it may be declared that respondent No. 2 Budhasingh Choudhary is not entitled to get the difference between the pay of Blaster and Borer from April 30,1958 to April 20,1961.2. The material facts leading to this writ petition are as follows: The State Government vide its notification No. F. 1 (1)(342)L/72 dated March 6,1973 made reference to the Industrial Tribunal-I for adjudication of the dispute. The dispute referred was whether the action of the Chief Engineer' Rajasthan Ground Water Board, Jodhpur in not treating its workman Shri Budhasingh, who is being represented by the Rajasthan Ground Board Karamchari Union, Jodhpur, not to have been appointed o...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. G.P. Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)252
G.M. Lodha J.1. Dr. G.P. Sharma has filed this writ petition being aggrieved from the order of the stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect, imposed upon him by the Government by letter dated 3-1-70. He filed review application under Section 33 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules) (hereinafter called, `the CCA Rules') and after the same was rejected, he invoked the powers of the Government under rule 34 of these very rules and with that end in view, filed second review application.2. The facts in brief giving rise to this case centers round an incident of the alleged illegal gratification of Rs. 20/- demanded by Dr. Sharma for which a trap was done by the Anti-corruption Department on 10-10-61. The case of Ajit Singh, who filed complaint before the Anti-corruption Department was that Dr. Sharma was working as Medical Jurist at the Civil Hospital, Sriganganagar. Ajit Singh approached for examination of injuries which be received at th...
Tag this Judgment!D.C. JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)241
G.M. Mal Lodha, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division clerk under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service, Rules, 1960. He was confirmed on 15-10-60 on this post.2. The petitioner was directed to discharge the service of Cashier after he was promoted as an Upper Division Clerk.3. In September, 1966, an incident happened which was alleged as a case of theft on account of which, an amount of Rs. 4139,59 was found missing from the Panchayat Samitis where the petitioner was in-charge of it. A report was made by the Chowkidar on 5-9-66 that the lock of the cashier room and almirah in the room was brokeon and Iron chest was missing. A case was registered but ultimately a final report was given.4. Thereafter, on 29-9-70, an order dated 30-7-70 was served on the petitioner in which direction was given to Vikas Adhikari to recover Rs.425 1.98 P. from the petitioner. This order is Anx. and reads as under:fo'k; % iapk;r lfefr lywEcj es pksjh gq...
Tag this Judgment!Devendra Raj Mehta Vs. Kanwar Sen and Two ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)65
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 110(D) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been filed by claimant Shri Devendra Raj, against the judgment and award dated 25th August, 1972 of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 14A/1969. The Tribunal has given an award of Rs. 10,000/- as general damages and compensation and in this appeal, the appellant has peaved that the compensation as prated in the original application should be awaded by increasing the amount from 10,000/- to 1,00,000/-.2. Shri Kin war Sen owner of the truck, Satyanarain driver and Venguard Insurance Co. respondents have neither filed any appeal against this judgment nor they have filed any cross-objection in this appeal. Hence, they are satisfied with the judgment of the Tribunal In view of this, it is not necessary to mention facts in details However, the facts in nut shell are as under:3. Appellant Shri Devendra Raj Mehta is an IAS officer in the State of Rajasthan On 7-1-69, the date ...
Tag this Judgment!The Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur Vs. Padmanand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Raj176
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. The controversy in this appeal is as to whether an Urban Improvement Trust, created under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 thereinafter called 'the 1959 Act'), is competent to demand a reference under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. '1953, in such matters where the acquisition is made at the behest of the Urban Improvement Trust.2. The facts, which have given rise to this appeal, shortly put, are that land commonly known as 'Madhusudan Ka Bagh' situated in village Bhojpura on Jaipur-Tonk Road, was acquired by the State Government for the planned development of the city of Jaipur. It is not in dispute that the acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Town Planning Department of the State Government for the purposes of and at the behest of the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust'). The Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur passed an Award on March 25, 1969 for the sum of Rs. 84,430/- for the acquisition of ...
Tag this Judgment!Hans Raj Bahl Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN119
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, thereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the claimant, Hans Raj against the award and decree dated October 31, 1969, In Land Acquisition Reference No. 3 of 1968 by the Civil Judge, Jaipur City.2. Proceedings for acquisition of land in village Bhojpura and Chak Sudershanpura for planned development of Jaipur City were initiated at the Instance of Secretary, Urban Improvement Board, Jaipur, and the Government of Rajasthan issued notification dated May 13, 1960, under Section 4 of the Act, published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated June 9, 1960, After taking further steps as prescribed under the Act, notification under Section 6 dated May 3, 1961, was also published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated May 11, 1961. The total area of the land notified under Sections 4 and 6 was 552 Bighas and 8 Biswas. Notice under Section 9(3) of the Act was duly served on the claimant Hans Raj on July ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »