Rajasthan Court January 1980 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.
Gokul Chand Vs. Bhonri Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN164
D.P. Gupta, J.1. In this appeal, the only question, which requires determination, is as to whether the defendant No. 3, who is the appellant before us, had taken any other step in the proceedings within the meaning of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. We have carefully looked into the record of the case The order-sheet of the Additional District Judge, No. 1. Jaipur City in the suit dated December 16 1977, shows that copies of the plaint were delivered to the defendants Nos 3 and 4 on that day and both the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 sought a long adjournment for filing their written statement son the ground that the valuation of the suit wag more than Rs. 1,00,000/ and they wanted to look into the documents. The court, therefore, with the consent of the counsel for the plaintiff, adjourned the case 4o February 4, 1978 on the last mentioned date, defendant No. 3 filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, praying that the proceedings in the suit be stayed, on the...
Sangram Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)30
M.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order of the Board of Revenue dated 9-1-1973 whereby the petitioner's restoration application in Jagir Appeal No. 21 of 1970 was dismissed in default and he also challenged the order dated 30-4-1973 whereby the review application against the order dated 19-1-1973 was also dismissed.2. The facts of the case material for the disposal of this writ petition lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner's appeal before the Board of Revenue was fixed for hearing on 19-9-1972. On that date the petitioner or his counsel were absent and so his appeal was dismissed in default. An application for restoration was presented on the ground that the petitioner's counsel Shri Sheo Narain Singh Chaudhary was present before the Board of Revenue up to 11.30, a.m., but he was called in Sessions Court and The D. B. before which his appeal was listed, was busy in State appeals so the petition...
Sambhu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN324
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the order (Ex. 4) dated June 26, 1979 of the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan Jaipur which will hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, be referred to as 'the Tribunal').2. A few facts, mentioned in the writ petition may be noticed. The petitioner was appointed as Ameen in a temporary capacity on December 18, 1950 vide order (Ex. 4). The service of the petitioner was counted from December 7, 1950 as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and the pension has been calculated on the basis of 22 1/2 years qualifying service. Copy of the statement of pension has been submitted and marked as Ex. 2. Certain adverse entitles were made from 1960 to 1973 which were communicated to him in 1974. He was dismissed from service on August 28, 1975. The dismissal continued upto March 24, 1977, when he was suspended and charge-sheeted Soon after exoneration from t...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. S.B. Chatterjee
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN259
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Lifting the veil v/s Finality of Form, Mere Motive v/s very foundation-'Causa Casans', are the twin pivots of the instant juristic debate.2. Are we competent to unmask or we have to surrender to 'veto' of words? Unearthing, unveiling and unmarking the 'causa casans' of foundation of action based on misconduct, by scrapping the label of innocus window dressing of verbal haberdashery ingenuity of putting a veil of reversion simpliciter, to protect civil servant by constitutional umbrella of Article 311(an umbrella much more valuable & important than neuclear one), whether is permissible for us, who are proverbially to act, as 'watchdog' of Constitution?.3. This Is the unending judicial controversy from Shyamlal's case of fifties, assuming three dimensions in Magna Carta Dhengra's case to Gujrat Steel Tubes judgment of late seventies, in which majority of the to one refused to be 'put off the track of truth' and which has reached new horizons in early Kighty's when two ju...
Udaipur Sahkari Upbhogats Thok Bhandar Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN332
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Messrs Udaipur Sahkari Upbhogta Thok Bhandar Ltd. has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer that the order (Ex. 2) dated August 29, 1979 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short the Commissioner, hereafter) under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 thereinafter referred to as the 'Act) may be quashed.2. The petitioner, as alleged, is a registered Cooperative Society under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. On November 15, 1978, a notice was issued to it mentioning, amongst others, the following:Whereas information has been laid before me and on consideration there of. I have reason to believe that in respect of your establishment namely, M/s Udaipur Sahkari Upbhokta Thok Bhandar Ltd. which was covered with effect from March, 1969 under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 you have failed to remit:(i) The Employees' and Employe...
Ram Ratan and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)9
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. Appellants Ra Ratan and Ramnarain have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated April 15, 1975 of learned Additional Session? Judge, Bikaner, convicting and sentencing the en as under:(1) Ram Ratan Under Section 324, IPC 3 months R.I. and afine of Rs. 200/-,in default ofpayment of finefurther 15 days RI(2) Ram Narain Under Section 323, IPC Released onprobations2. Facts according to the prosecution were these. The two appellants and two co-accused Hetram and kishanaram were coming with a camel cart on 25.5.73 in the morning at about 7 a m, Ramkumar and Ramlal were grazing zing their she camels in their field. Appellant Ram Ratan and Hetram (who died during the pendency of the trial) were aimed with Barchhis, Ramnarain had a lathi and Kishanaram had a gun with him Hetram resorted to attack and Ram Ratan inflicted a Barchhi blow on the fore head of Ramkumar. Ramlal raised an alarm and his brothers Hansraj and Banshilal came there. The accused ran away and conc...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Krishna Dev and 3 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN17
P.D. Kudal, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Alwar dated 5th August, 1972.2. Kirshna Dev, Radhey Shyam and Baldev Singh were tried for the offerees punishable under Sections 120B, 409 and 330, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Kirshna Dev and Baldev Singh, were acquitted of the charges framed against them Radhey Shyam was convicted for an offence under Section 409, I.P.C., and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.3. The State feeling aggrieved against the judgment, of the learned Special Judge, Alwar has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 769 of 1972. 4. Radhey Shyam feeling aggrieved against his conviction under Section 409, I.P.C. has filed S.B.Cr. Appeal No. 535 of 1972. As both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of by this sing...
Jagan Nath Vs. Smt. Kamla Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN178
D.P. Gupta, J.1. In a suit for declaration of dissolution of partnership and for taking of accounts filed by Kundanmal on January 6, 1955, a preliminary decree was passed by the learned District Judge, 'jaipur District on June 6, 1956. In the aforesaid preliminary decree, the share of the plaintiffs, Kundan-mal and Ors., in the assests and liabilities of the partnership firm Gaurilal Bhonrilal was declared to be 9 annas in a rupee, while the share of the defendants, Roodmal and Ors., was found to be 7 annas in a rupee. It was also held that the aforesaid firm stood dissolved with effect from Kartik vadl 15, Samvat, 2010 We may also mention here that an appeal preferred by the defendants against the preliminary decree was dismissed by this Court on August 10, 1962.2. Thereafter, a Commissioner was appointed to go into the accounts of the dissolved firm. The Commissioner submitted his report on April 17, 1964. Objections to the report were submitted by both the parties and on the basis o...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mehta Chetan Das Kishandass
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj36; 1978(11)WLN321; 1980()WLN13
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an application for review under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C. P. C. against the order dated July 10, 1978 passed in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 594 of 1974 by which the revision filed by the State of Rajasthan was dismissed.2. A few facts may be recounted: The non-applicant (Contractor) submitted an application under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act (No. X of 1040) (for short 'the . Act' hereafter) on July 27, 1973 against the State of Rajasthan. The State of Rajasthan resisted the application on various grounds by filing a reply. The learned District Judge framed seven issues inclusive of tre relief Issues Nos. 3, 4 and 6 are as under:'(3) Whether the petitioner has waived his right to refer the matter to arbitration as alleged in para 11 of the reply and if so, what is its effect?(4) Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged in paras 13 and 14 of the reply?(6) Whether the petitioner is entitled under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act to g...
Gokulchand Vs. Bhonrilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj86
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. In this appeal, the only question, which requires determination, is as to whether the defendant No. 3, who is the appellant before us, had taken any other step in the proceedings within the meaning of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. We have carefully looked into the record of the case. The order-sheet of the Court of the Additional District Judge, No. 1, Jaipur City in the suit dated December 16, 1977, shows that copies of the plaint were delivered to the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 on that day and both the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 sought a long adjournment for filing their written-statements on the ground that the valuation of the suit was more than Rs. l,00,000/- and they wanted to look into the documents. The Court, therefore, with the consent of the counsel for the plaintiff, adjourned the case to February 4, 1978. On the last mentioned date, defendant No. 3 filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act praying that the proceedings in the su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »