Rajasthan Court December 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.
Hari NaraIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)546
M.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks to quash the enquiry proceedings Exhibit 29, Enquiry officer's report Exhibit-28, show cause notice, Exhibit 27, order of removal dated January 9, 1975 (Ex. 31) and the order passed in appeal dated March 19, 1975 (Ex. 33).2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition may be stated as under: The petitioner was a Khalasi, posted at shop No. 23, A, Northern Railway Workshop, Jodhpur He was served with a memorandum dated January 25, 1974 along with charge-sheet, statement of allegations, list of documents and the list of witnesses. The petitioner filed a reply to the charge-sheet. By the order dated March 9,1974, Shri R.K. Kapoor, shop Superintendent, Wagon Construction, Northern Railway Workshop, Jodhpur, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner objected to the appointment of Shri Kapoor but his objection was turned down both by the Assistant Personnel Officer (W), and thereafter by the Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer (W)...
Shri Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)536
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. Petitioner Shrinath has filed these three criminal revisions against the judgments of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, whereby conviction and sentence awarded to him by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in these cases were affirmed as described below:Particulars of cases Sentence affirmed by the Addl. SessionsJudge1. S.B. Cr. Rev No. 452/75 Under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 & 472 IPC 6 mon-Shrinath v. State ths R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/* on eachcount and in default of payment offine further 6 months R.I. vide judg-ment dated 12-12-1975 in Cr. AppealNo. 6/1972.2. S.B. Cr. Rev. No. 453/75 Under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 & 472 IPC 6Shrinath v. State months R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- oneach count and in default of paymentof fine further 6 months R.I. videjudgment dated 12-12-75 in Cr. AppealNo. 7/1972.3. S.B. Cr. Rev. No. 451/75 Under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 & 472 IPC 6Shrinath v. State months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-on each count a...
Mangilal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1980
Reported in: 1981WLN622
Lodha, J.1. These six writ petitions have been filed by the Railway empolyees. Since common questions of law have been raised in the writ petition's and argued, all these cases are being decided by one judgment, as prayed.2. It would be necessary first to mention facts from one writ petition in order to appreciate the controversy. The petitioner was appointed as the Trains Cleric in the Railway. The appointment was made after selection by Railway Service Commission which included written, interview and departmental training.3. The next promotion post of a Trains Clerk is a Senior Trains Clerk. Both these posts are selection posts and promotions are made on seniority cum merit basis. Quota for direct recuitment are fixed. The petitioners along with eight persons was given promotion to the post of Senior Trains Clerk. He was posted in Northern Railway, Jodhpur. The vacancies were lying since June 1980 and the they were filled inon 24-9-1980. The order of promotion of the petitioner dated...
Smt. Pushpa Vs. Kishan Lal Prajapat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)471
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. Mst. Pushpa appellant non-petitioner, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree, elated April 15, 1980 of learned District Judge, Jodhpur.2. Briefly stated the facts are these. Respondent Kishanlal filed a petition in the court of District Judge, Jodhpur with a prayer that his marriage with- Mst. Pushpa be dissolved: by a decree of divorce. It is alleged in the petition that the parties were married; at Jodhpur according to the Hindu rites. On 7-9-74, Mst. Smt. Pushpa deserted the respondent and since then, they were living separately. Though, it is not stated clearly in, the petition but it appears that Mst. Pushpa filed an application for Restitution, pf conjugal rights and after some proceedings, the respondent agreed that the petition be decreed. The court, therefore, by its judgment, dated August 26, 1977 passed a decree in favour of Mst. Pushpa for restitution of conjugal rights. It is further alleged in the petition that after passing this de...
Champa Lal Vs. Mst. Gulabi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj130
Mahendra Bhushan, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by respondent Mst. Gulabi under Order 21, Rule 103. C. P. C.2. The suit property is situated in village Srinagar, District Ajmer and more fully described in Schedule 'A', annexed to the plaint. One Codu was the owner of the suit property. Mst, Gulabi is his widow, and one Ramlal is alleged to be his adopted son. Under the registered mortgage deed dated 13-5-1958 of the suit property, a usufructuary mortgage was created by Mst. Gulabi and Ramlal in favour of one Chandan Mal for a consideration of Rs. 350/-. Thereafter, Mst. Gulabi was inducted as a tenant by the mortgagee Chandanmal in the suit property. Ramlal, the adopted son of Codu, sold the suit property to Champalal defendant-appellant for a consideration of Rs. 2500/- under the registered sale deed in August. 1959. Out of the sale consideration, a sum of Rupees 400/- was left with the appellant for redemption of the property, which, as stated e...
Shrilal Janva Vs. Udai Ram Dhakad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj251; 1980()WLN601; 1980()WLN615
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. By this order, I propose to decide issue No. 2, which was framed on October 10, 1980. It reads as under:'Whether the Returning Officer is a necessary party to the present election petition?'In this petition under Sections 80 and 31 of the Representation of the People Act(No. XLIII of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the election-petitioner has prayed that the election of the respondent Shri Udai Ram Dhakad as member of the Legislative Assembly may be declared void. It may be stated here that in the petition, Shri Udai Ram Dhakad has only been impleaded as a respondent. The case of the election-petitioner is that the nomination paper filed by him was wrongly rejected, bythe Returning Officer. Only three persons remained in contest. The petitioner has called m question the election of the returned candidate Shri Udai Ram Dhakad (respondent) on the ground that the Returning Officer has wrongly rejected his nomination paper as it was complete in all ...
Chandan Mal Vs. Mst. Gulabi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN666
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by respondent Mst. Gulabi under Order 21, Rule 103, CPC2. The suit property is situated in village Srinagar; District Ajmer, and more fully described in Schedule 'A' annexed to the plaint. One Godu was the owner of the suit property. Mst. Gulabi is his widow, and one Ramlal is alleged to be his adopted son. Under the registered mortgage deed dated 13-5-58 of the suit property, a usufructuory mortgage was created by Mst. Gulabi and Ramlal in favour of one Chandan Mal for a consideration of Rs. 350/-. Thereafter, Mst. Gulabi was inducted as a tenant by the mortgagee Chandanmal in the suit property. Ramlal, the adopted son of Godu, sold the suit property to Champalal defendant-appellant for a consideration of Rs. 2500/-under the registered sale deed in August, 1959. Out of the sale consideration, a sum of Rs. 400/- was left with the appellant for redemption of the property, which, as stated earli...
Parasmal and ors. Vs. Balehraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)527
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This is a second appeal by, the plaintiff Parasmal and his sons and grandson for partition of an ancestral property described as a 'nohra'.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the 'nohra' in dispute was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 1 to 5, 6, 9 and 10 and was in their joint possession. The plaintiffs produced a pedigree table and claimed 1/4th share in the 'nohra' in dispute and prayed for partition by metes and bounds and separate possession of the portion of the 'nohra' falling to their share. The contesting defendants admitted that the disputed 'nohra' was ancestral property of the parties and had not been partitioned so far however, they denied the pedigree set up by the plaintiffs and claimed that the contesting defendants had got 1/7th share each in the property in dispute. The trial court accepted the plaintiffs' contention and held that the plaintiffs had 1/4th share in the disputed property arid passed a preliminary decree ...
Norang Lal Vs. Mst. Kesar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)582
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No. XXV of 1955) (for short the Act hereafter) by the husband, who was the petitioner, against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sriganganagar dated March 22, 1979, by which he dismissed the husband's petition under Section 13 of the Act.2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised according to the Hindu rites 12 years before the date of the presentation of the petition which was filed on January 13, 1977. The parties lived together as husband and wife for 10 years. Out of this wedlock, five children were born, four sons and one daughter. Two of the sons died. The remaining sons we are living with the wife while the daughter is living with the husband. It has been stated that in the months of November December, 1974, when the wife was to deliver 5th child, the wife's brother Maniram came and told him to send her. The wife was sent with him and since then, she has not returne...
Prakash Chandra Agarwal Vs. Amar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1980
Reported in: 1982CriLJ40
P.G. Kudal, J.1. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Bedi has moved this application Under Section 15(2) of the. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying that proceedings for Contempt of Court be initiated against Amar Singh Parmar, Advocate.2. The facts giving rise to this complaint are that on 27th June, 1980, a bail application was moved on behalf of the accused, Maharaj Singh. The matter was Under Section 366, IPC. According to the order-sheet dated 27th June, 1980, the accused, Maharaj Singh, was present along with his counsel and on behalf of the prosecution, the Assistant Public Prosecutor was present. The learned Magistrate for the reasons given in the order-sheet rejected the application for bail. On the proceedings of the Court, the counsel for the accused made an endorsement that the petitioner has not been heard. The learned Magistrate is of the opinion that the learned Advocate Shri Amar Singh Parmar for the accused, Maharaj Singh, had no authority to make such an endorsement on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›