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.
Smt. Parwati Devi Vs. Harbindra Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Raj249; 1980()WLN66
N.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order of the Additional District Judge, Bharatpur, dated 6th August, 1979, whereby the appellant Smt. Parwati Devi had been restrained through an interim injunction from contracting a marriage with any other person during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights.2. The respondent Harbindra Singh filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant Smt. Parwati Devi. According to the husband Harbindra Singh, the marriage was solemnised between the parties on 29th July, 1978 at Bharatpur and the same was registered on 24th August, 1978, by the Registrar of Marriages. Smt. Parwati Devi wife of the respondent refused to perform marital obligations without any reason under the influence of her parents and as such a petition was filed un...
Sukh Ram and National Insurance Co. Vs. Tara @ Tariya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)247
G.M. Lodha, J.1. These are two Misc Appeals: one by Sukhram being S.B. Civil Misc Appeal No. 16 of 1977 and the second one by National Insurance Company being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 1977 against the claimant Taru arising out of the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, dated 5-11 76.2. Respondent Taru made a claim of Rs. 15,000/- against the appellants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, on 5-11-73 on the allegation that on 5-5-73, at about 12 30 p.m, there was an accident on the Nagaur-Mandore road near the agricultural farm. In this accident, truck No. RSQ, 3217 being full of calcium stones (Choona), hit Taru and Taru sustained injuries. The injuries are said to have been caused by the truck in his right leg.3. The appellant Sukhram's case was that the vehicle was being driven by Dhannaram driver and not by him. A written-statement was filed by Sukhram on 12-7-74 and the Insurance Company filed a written statement on 28-2-75. Adjournmen...
Jagdish Kumar Sinha Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN1
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. In these two writ petitions, two Judicial Officers have separately questioned the validity of the separate orders passed against them, by which, the orders exonerating them of all the charges were recalled.2. The writ petitions were heard together and as common questions are involved, it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 839 of 1979Jagdish Kumar Sinha v. The State of Rajasthan3. The petitioner worked as Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Banswara during 1977. He was served with Memorandum No Est B 2 (iii) 3/77/1477 dated March 1, 1977 along with statement of charges and statement of allegations for the Departmental Enquiry against him, for some undesirable temper, which is un becoming of a Judicial Officer. In pursuance of the aforesaid memorandum, he filed reply and claimed regular hearing during the Departmental Enquiry. During the pendency of the Departmental Enquiry, he met the then Chief Justice Shri C. Honnia...
Shankardutt Vs. Vidyadevi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)198
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Sri gaganagar dated 8-12-78 dismissing the petition of the appellant Shankardutt (husband) for annulment of marriage by a decree of nullity against his wife Smt. Vidyadevi on the ground of her impotency.2. It is not in dispute that there was a marriage according to the Hindu religious rites and ceremonies between the parties on 4-2-76 and then the husband and wife lived together atleast till May, 19773. The husband's case is that he could not consummate the marriage because of the physical impotency of his wife as her vagina was only 1 1/2' deep which created structural difficulty in the sexual intercourse.4. In the lower court, after framing an issue on the point of impotency of the wife, evidence was led by both the parties and on a comprehensive discussion of the entire evidence, the lower court has come to the conclusion that the appellant has faile...
JamaluddIn Vs. Bhinyaram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)236
G.M. Lodha, J.In connection with the accident of one Salauddin an award was given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, for the amount of Rs. 5680.15 p. in favour of Salauddin through natural guardian Jamadluddin and against non applicant No. 2 Kansingh, non-applicant No.3 Vanguard Insurance Company and non applicant No.4 BakhtawarSingh. The Insurance Company has filed the appeal being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 31 of 1974 against the award. Jamaluddin has filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 1974 for increase and enhancement of the amount awarded and Kansingh Las filed cross objection in this appeal of Jamaluddin praying that the award given by the aforesaid tribunal, so far as it relates to him, should be set acids.2. It Is not in dispute that on 25-1-69, an accident happened on the road which runs between Stadium and Public Park of jodhpur. Salauddin, need about 10 years, was standing about 2' away from the foot path and a truck No. BJQ, 7893, which was alleged to be ...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Tiwari Jhumarlal Saruplal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-1980
Reported in: [1981]130ITR449(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. These two references have been made to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', and the following two questions have been referred at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued under Section 271 read with Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was valid and the order imposing penalty is unassailable ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the notice issued under Section 271 read with Section 274 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was not valid and was hit by the provisions of Section 297(2)(d)(i) of the said Act?'2. Further, the under mentioned question has been referred at the instance of the assessee ;'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in taking the view that the notices in the case which were addressed to the firm after its dissolution by the death of one of its partne...
Nagji and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)100
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. Appellants Nagji and Dudji have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 2-9-1975 by the Sessions Judge, Banawara convicting and sentencing them under Sections 147 and 366 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for three months and one year respectively.2. Briefly stated the facts were these. Mst. Fattl pw.7 daughter of Mehji Bhil was working at Sukhnadi on 17.2.74. The appellants alongwith two three other persons came there and took her away by force. When Fatti did not return to her house in the evening, her brother Motia P.W.6 lodged F.I.R Ex p 4 on 18,2 1974 in police station Kalinjara It is further alleged that the appellants Nagji and Dadji took Fatti to various places and also committed rape upon her. Fatti managed to escape from the appellants at village Fajne on 21.2 1974. P.W. 1 Kalu took her to police station Fajoa (Ratlam).At 11 a.m. on 22.2.1974, Fatti also lodged the F I R Esc. P 6. after necessary investigation a challan was filed against the two appel...
Devi Singh Vs. Smt. Sushila Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-01-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)31
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 28-3-1979 whereby the appellant's Civil Misc. Appeal No 118 of 1973 was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, dated 16-f-1978 was maintained whereby The appellant's petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, i955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',), for the grant of decree of divorce, was dismissed.2. The material facts may briefly be stated as under: The appellant Devisingh presented a petition under Section 13 of the Act with the allegations that the parties to the petition were married in April 1961 and a son was born out of the wedlock According to the petitioner the non-petitioner-respondent deserted the petitioner for the last 14 years. The relations between the parties had become strained. Civil and criminal litigations had en(sic)ued. thus, on the ground of deser...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›