Rajasthan Court November 1980 Judgments
Nathmal Vs. Mahesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj89
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Brief facts leading to this petition are that Mahesh Kumar, RameshKumar, Rajesh Kumar and Umesh Kumar, sons of Keshav Deo filed a suit on March 26, 1962, for declaration that the mortgage by conditional sale made by Keshav Deo on 8th November, 1946, does not affect the plaintiff's interest in the properties mentioned in Schedule 'A' and the decree for partition obtained by the defendants Onkar Mal, Banwari Lal and Bhoora Mal on March 29, 1961, does not affect the plaintiffs' right, title, and interest in the said properties. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu by his judgment dated March 31, 1967. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree Shri Onkar Mal and Banwari Lal defendants filed an appeal in this Court in, which the above named plaintiffs were impleaded as respondents and Shri Bhoora Mal one of the defendants was also impleaded as respondent No. 5. This court vide its judgment dated 20th Feb...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN567
Kalyan Dutta Sharma, J.1. This revision-petition filed by Smt. Suraj, Smt. Hari Bai and Smt. Satti is directed against an order dated March 30, 1977 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer, under Section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, here-in-after referred to as the Act. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer, directed the petitioners to remove themselves from the municipal limits of Jaisalmer town and further prohibited their re-entry in the aforesaid area without the permission in writing of the Magistrate having jurisdiction over such place.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision-petition may be briefly stated as follows: On September 27, 1977, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer, received an information that four girls, namely, Mumal, Suraj, Hari Bai and Satti residing in Jagri Pada in the town of Jaisalmer within the local limits of his jurisdiction were prostitutes and were offering their bodies for pro...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rukmani and ors. Vs. Ramanlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)496
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. This civil execution second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated March 14, 1979 in the following circumstances:--A decree for rent and ejectment was obtained by respondent No 1 Ramanlal against respondent No. 2 Harish Chandra on 14-10-68. In the suit, the stand of Harishchandra was that he was not the tenant of Ramanlal. Some time after, this decree has been passed, Harishchandra handed over the possession of the suit-property to the appellants. Ramanlal made an application for execution of the decree against Harishchandra and obstruction was made by Dhurilal. On 29-5-69, Ramanlal moved an application under Order XXI, Ruel 97, CPC in the executing court that Dhuri Lal and Harjeemal and other appellants had obstructed the delivery of possession and notices were issued to them. Objections were filed by Dhurilal, wherein it was stated that Ramanlal, decree-holder is the son of Dhurilal and they are the members of undivided joint Hindu family. Dhurila...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Narayan Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN571
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated November 3, 1980 (Annexure 2). Briefly the facts may be now narrated. On March 15, 1980 the Regional Transport Appellate Authority by resolution No. 29, item No. 26 dated March 6, 1980 rejected the application of Pritam Singh and Shiv Kumar for grant of non-temporary permit on the Sangaria Indipura route. It was granted to Satyanarayan. Both Pritam Singh and Shiv Kumar filed an appeal before the S.T.A.T. The S.T.A.T. accepted the appeal and by rejecting the application of Satyanarayan, ordered that the permit be granted to Pritam Singh.2. Mr. Maheshwari, learned Counsel for Satyanarayan has challenged the order of this Tribunal on various grounds. Firstly, it was submitted that his client was a displaced operator and no fraud was committed by him in getting the permit. That the R.R.T.A. granted the permit to his client on second import tant consideration that his vehicle wa...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Singh Vs. Smt. Swaran Kanta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj266
Mahendra Bhushan, J. 1. Against an order of the learned District Judge, Alwar ordering a permanent alimony at Rs. 85/-p.m. under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) while dismissing the application of the appellant moved under Section 13 of the Act, an appeal has been preferred in this Court. In this appeal, two applications under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act were filed. These applications are to be disposed of.2. The respondent, who is the wife of the appellant, has claimed Rs. 770/- as Advocate's fee and Rs. 200/- towards the expenses of the appeal. Thus, in all, she has claimed Rs. 970/-. The case of the respondent is, that she has no independent income of her own to meet the expenses of the proceedings, and the appellant is an Upper Division Clerk with the Food Corporation of India and getting not less than Rs. 800/- p.m. He has none to support except the respondent whom he has neglected to support. In reply to this application, the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Singhvi and Co. Vs. Dharmilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)466
D.P. Gupta, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for recovery of money filed by M/s Singhvi & Company against Shri Dharmi Lal The suit was decreed by the Additional District Jude, Udaipur on March 22,1980 for a sum of Rs. 10,746.04. The plaintiff was also awarded interest on the decretal amount, from January 30, 1974 upto the date of the decree and until realisation of the said amount, at the rate of 6% per annum. As these appeals raise very short questions relating to interest and grant of instalments, they were taken together to day for hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The case of the plaintiff as put in the plaint filed on July 8, 1970 was that the defendant had purchased silver ornaments from the plaintiff's shop on various dates for a total sum of Rs. 56,211 55 and also made payment of a sum of Rs. 44,996.16 on different dates leaving a balance of Rs. 11,215.39. The aforesaid amount was claimed by the plaintiff in the suit along with Rs. 19...
Tag this Judgment!Pyarelal Baluram Agarwal, Stone Quarry Owners Vs. the Administrator Mu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)556
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India presented by Pyarelal Baluram Agarwal against the non-petitioners with the allegations that the petitioner has stone quarry from the Mining Department situated outside the limits of Municipal Board, Abu Road (hereinafter referred to 'as the Board'), According to the petitioner the Board started charging certain type at tax or levy known as supervision charges over the material exported by the petitioner to the other parts of the country beyond the limits of the Board and similarly supervision charges are collected over the raw material, which the petitioner brings from other parts of the country to the petitioner's stone quarry. The petitioner averred that the National highway and the State highway pass through the limits of the Board through which material belonging to the petitioner is exported and imported and at the transit point the supervision charges are collected by the Board. The petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra and Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj217
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. The Cinema house known as 'Shri Ganga Theatre' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cinema Theatre'), situated in the city of Bikaner, belongs to the State of Rajasthan. The cinema theatre was given on lease for a period of five years to M/s. Balabux Anand Raj, a partnership firm, from 1st August, 1958. During the pendency of the said lease, the firm M/s. Balabux Anandraj was dissolved on 12th June, 1961 and thereafter, the lease was continued in the name of Shri Anandraj on the same terms. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1962, Shri Anandraj sub-leased the cinema theatre to the petitioner and since then the petitioner has been in possession of the cinema theatre. The lease of Shri Anandraj was extended by a period of one year from August 1, 1963 on the same terms and conditions. The extension was given in the name of M/s. Anandraj and Company, whose sole-proprietor was Shri Anandraj. After the expiry of the period of the lease, proceedings were initia...
Tag this Judgment!Himalayan Rasayan Private Limited Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj239; 1980()WLN622
ORDERS.N. Deedwania, J.1. The revision petition is preferred against the order, dated November 26, 1979 of learned Additional District Judge, Udaipur, whereby, Issue No. 7 with regard to the sufficiency of the court-fee was decided against the petitioner-plaintiff.2. Briefly stated the facts are these. The petitioner filed a suit against the non-petitioner and it was averred in the plaint that the petitioner submitted atender for supply of 5,88,000 metres Galvanised Iron (Mild Steel) pipes light class 20 mm. diameter. The petitioner received a letter, dated May 5, 1973 by the non-petitioner for confirmation of various conditions with regard to the said offer. The petitioner, by its letter, dated May 9, 1973 made certain counter offer regarding the supply of the said G. J. Pipes and accepted the non-petitioner standard penalty clause subject to force majure. By its letter, dated July 9, 1973 the tender was accepted but all the terms and conditions of the petitioner's counter offer, date...
Tag this Judgment!Shri N.D. Mantri Vs. Smt. Kamla Mantri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN584
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No. XXV of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the decree dated February 12, 1979 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 5-A/76, by which, he dismissed the petition for divorce filed by the appellant under Section 13 read with Section 10 of the Act.2. The husband-appellant filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 read with Section 10 of the Act before the District Judge, Jodhpur on July 11, 1974. The wife-respondent filed her reply on October 9, 1977. Thereafter, the petition was amended by the husband and the amended petition was filed on May 15, 1978. The reply to the amended petition was filed on July 5, 1978. The petition was, however, transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur for disposal. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal as stated hereinunder will be those as are borne out from the amended ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »