Rajasthan Court October 1980 Judgments
Baney Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)481
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:(a) that an appropriate writ, direction or order be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing and setting aside the Government order dated November 30, 1973 reverting the petitioner back from the post of Assistant Registrar to the post of Inspector, Co-operative Department;(b) that ah appropriate writ, direction or order be issued directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to prepare a common seniority list of Inspectors in the Co-operative Department in accordance with the date of their substantive appointment as Co-operative Inspector Grade II and to use the same for the purpose of promotion in the department;(c) that by an appropriate writ, direction or order the seniority list issued by the respondent No. 2 dated September 24, 1973 and dated; October 8, 1973 be quashed and set aside;(d) that any other appropriate writ, -direction or order ...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Dayal Girraj Prasad Mahajan Through Its Partner Girraj Prasad ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1980
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)232
D.P. Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. The petitioner is a dealer engaged in the retail sale of cement. He was a stockiest within the meaning of the Rajasthan Cement (Licensing & Control) Order, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1974 Order') and made a deposit of Rs. 1000/- in accordance with the provisions of clause 6 of the 1974 Order. A notice was given by the District Supply Officer on 5.12.75, alleging that the petitioner had wrongfully taken possession of the 220 bags of cement from the Supard-dar which had earlier been seized from the petitioner and had thereby contravened the provisions of the Cement Distribution Order. The petitioner was called upon to show-cause why action should not betaken against him. The District Supply Officer considered the reply filed by the petitioner and directed the forfeiture of the deposit of Rs. 1,000/-. This order was passed on May 12, 1976. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, Sawai Madhopur, which was dismissed on May 3, 1977. The Collec...
Tag this Judgment!Shambu Dayal Girraj Prasad, Mahajan Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1980
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)271
D.P. Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. The petitioner is a dealer engaged in the retail sale of cement. He was a stockist within the meaning of the Rajasthan Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1974-- Order') and made a deposit of Rs. 1000/- in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the 1974 Order. A notice was given by the District Supply Officer on 5-12-75. alleging that the petitioner had wrongfully taken possession of the 220 bags of cement from the Superddar which had earlier been seized from the petitioner and had thereby contravened the provisions of the Cement Distribution Order. The petitioner was called upon to show cause why action should not be taken against him. The District Supply Officer considered the reply filed by the petitioner and directed the forfeiture of the deposit of Rs. 1,000/-. This order was passed on May 12,1976. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, Sawai Madhopur, which was dismissed on May 3, 1977. The Col...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Sharan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1980
Reported in: [1982]133ITR225(Raj)
Shrimal, J.1. The assessee was and is at all material times a HUF of which Govind Sharan is the eldest male member and the 'karta' of the family business. This joint Hindu family consists of Govind Sharan, his widowed grand mother, Smt. Laxmi Devi, his sons, Laxman Prasad, Badri Prasad, Ramesh Chandra, Suresh and Mahesh. The assessment year in question is 1962-63 and the corresponding previous year is the year ending on November 7, 1961.2. Laxman Prasad started a business on November 30, 1960, in the name of M/s. Laxman Prasad Ramesh Chandra. The business was that of commission agent in grains. The initial capital of Rs. 41,000 is said to have been transferred to Laxman Prasad by his grandmother, Smt. Laxmi Devi. In the books of accounts, the amount was credited in the name of Laxman Prasad Ramesh Chandra. Accounts were opened in the same name with three banks, namely, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Punjab National Bank and Central Bank of India. The 'karta' of the joint Hindu famil...
Tag this Judgment!Nemi Chand Singhvi and ors. Vs. D.S. Sandhu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)364
K.D. Sharma, Actg. C.J.1. This is a writ petition filed by Nemi Chand Singhvi, Surendra Chand Singhvi, Shyambehari Chand Singhvi and Omprakash Chand Singhvi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:(a) the proceedings that were taken on 24-4-80 may be quashed, declared void and any order issued in this respect authorising to initiate proceedings of 24th April, 1980 may also be quashed;(b) the subsequent proceedings in furtherance of the proceedings of 21th April, 1980 be quashed and declared void;(c) the authorization letters dated 25th April, 1980 may be declared to have been issued without jurisdiction and be quashed;(d) the proceedings taken against the petitioners on 25th and 26th April, 1980 in consequence of the authorization dated 25th April may be quashed;(e) the proceedings that were taken on subsequent days until late night on 28th April, 1980 be quashed;(f) the notice Anx. 5 dated May 9, 1980 issued by non-petitioner No. 2 Mr. R.K. Chopra unde...
Tag this Judgment!Karpal Singh Vs. Sardar Lakh Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN577
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated July 25, 1980 of the District Judge, Bhilwara passed in Civil Original Suit No. 6 of 1980.2. A few facts leading to this revision may be noted, The plaintiff non-petitioner instituted a suit for Rs. 14,980/- on the basis of two pro-notes, which are said to have been executed by the defendant-petitioner. The suit appears to have been filed under Order XXXVII, Rule 2, C.P.C. The summons dated January 28, 1980 was issued and served on the defendant-petitioner on January 29, 1980. On the to of the summons TARIKH PESHI mentioned was March 7, 1980. The defendant went to engage a counsel for appearing in court for March 7, 1980. After seeing the summons, the counsel told him that he should have appeared with in 10 days of the service of the summons. The defendant appeared in Court on March 7, 1980, and submitted an application under Order XXXVII, Rule 3(7), C.P.C. stati...
Tag this Judgment!Parmanand Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)412
M.C. Jain, J.,1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated March 24, 1971, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bkaner, whereby the decree passed by the Munsif, Bkaner, dated August 30, 1869, was set aside and modified.2. The plaintiff Parmanand was a Record Lifter in the grade of Rs. 40-60 with effect form December 23, 1955, Previously he was working as a peon, but after passing suitability test he was promoted as Record Lifter He was confirmed on that post. From May 18, 1956 to January 1, 1961, he worked as Record Lifter in the Confidential Branch and thereafter up to February 20, 1964 he worked as Record lifter in the Record Section One post of Record Lifter in the Confidential Branch was upgraded in the scale of Rs. 55-85 from retrospective effect. The plaintiff was given pay in this upgraded scale till January 1, 1961 There after the plaintiff was asked to app-tar in a suitability test for promotion in the upgraded post of Record Lifter in the scale of Rs. 55-85 The pla...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj3
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J.1. 'White collar' crimes and there again, 'economic crimes', shocking and rocking the entire society, ever increasing either in the form of 'black marketing' or 'Food adulteration' or 'smuggling', have assumed disastrous dimensions, providing manifold litigation. The snail moving, haulting and faultering speed. with which the administration and prosecution both act rather in-act is not only shocking, but is challenging the very utility of the laws which are fast 'break-ing and cracking' on account of this lethargy, indifference and 'red tapism'. Whether, this tantamounts to moral abetment or acquiescence is a question to be answered by law-makers and not law-interpreters, if not. the decision would be of pauserity (posterity ?) alone and not courts of law.2. With the above preface, let me now come to the brass text of the present case and the controversy raised.3. The stock of cement was confiscated after a 'raid' and on inspection on 18-6-1977, but even after t...
Tag this Judgment!Parulal Etc. Vs. Motilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1980
Reported in: 1980()WLN574
ORDERS.N. Deedwania, J. 1. These writ petitions at the stage of admission are being decided by this order. The facts need not be given except that non-petitioner No. 1 plaintiff filed the two suits alleging a right of pre-emotion on the basis of easement. Petitioner-defendant No 1 is the purchaser of these two properties and non-petitioner No. 2 is the seller. It appears that non-petitioner No. 2 was a dominant owner and non -petitioner No. 1 plaintiff was a servient owner. The writpetitions are filed presumably under Article 228 of the Constitution. The vires of Section 6(1)(iii) is sought to be challenged, which reads as under - 'Section 6. Persons to whom pre-emption accrues- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the right of pre-emption in respect of any immovable property transferred shall accrue to and vest in, the following classes of persons, namelv - (i) and (ii) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (iii) owners of property servient or dominant to the property transferred....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›