Rajasthan Court February 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.
State Vs. Ganpat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN174
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This State appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment, dated February 14, 1979, of learned Sessions Judge Tonk.2. The prosecution story in nut-shell is that on November 27, 1976, PW 1 Kutubuddin, the Food Inspector, law the accused-respondent carrying milk for sale After having disclosed his identity, he checked the accused respondent The Food Inspector then served him a notice and purchased 660 ml. of milk (or Rs. 1/12 paise. The milk was divided into three parts. Each part was then filled in a dry and clean bottle. After having added 18 drops of for maline to each of the three bottles containing milk in the presence of the accused respondent, the three bottles were cocked and sealed. A men orandum, containing the details of the proceeding conducted by the Food Inspector, was prepared and the same was marked Ex. P/4 It bears the signatures of the Food Inspector as also of the two attesting witnesses, Devkinandan and Azizuddin. It also bears th...
Dheeraj Mal Vs. Ajeet Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)52
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant-tenant against the judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Chittorgarh (Camp Pratapgarh) dated 11-9-1979 upholding the decree for eviction passed by the Munsif, Pratapgarh, in Civil Suit No. 85 of 1974.2. The controversy in the present appeal is quite narrow. The appellant was a tenant in the suit shop and the plaintiffs landlords instituted the suit for eviction inter alia on the ground of subletting. There was issue No. 2 relating to the ground of sub letting. The learned Munsif decided this issue in favour of the plaintiffs and held that the defendant-appellant has sublet the suit shop to Shantilal son of Hiralal without the consent of the plaintiffs. There was also the ground of reasonable and bonafide need for eviction of the defendant, but the issue No. 1 relating to reasonable and bonafide need was decided against the plaintiffs by the trial court. The defendant-tenant preferred an appeal against the decree for eviction The learned ...
Yashwant Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)114
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Shri (sic)Yashwant Kumar, has challenged the validity of the order dated October 14, 1974, passed by the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, whereby the petitioner had been reverted from the post of Excise Inspector, Grade II to the post of Lower Division Clerk.2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk In the Department of Excise of the Government of Rajasthan on February 21, 1956 By order dated March 1, 1968, he was promoted to the post of Prosecuting Inspector (Excise) for a period of three months He continued to hold the said post till January 3, 1972, when by order dated January 1, 1972 he was transferred to the post of Excise Inspector, Jahajpur. The petitioner was thereafter posted at various places either as Prosecuting Inspector (Excise) or as Excise Inspector. On June 6, 1974, the Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules ...
Sher Khan Vs. Bambhu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN465
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge (2), Alwar accepting his appeal in part and modifying the order of the trial Court dated 21-2-77. The learned Advocate submits that this Miscellaneous Appeal is not maintainable, as it only challenges the order of the appellate court and it should be treated as a revision. The learned trial Court had ordered the return of the plaint to the appellant and be preferred an appeal against that order to the Additional District Judge (2), Alwar which was disposed of. Therefore the order is revisable. The prayer of the appellant is accepted and this Civil Misc. Appeal is created as a revision and shall be disposed of as such.2. The disputes relates to agricultural land Khasra No. 803 measuring 2 Bighas and 4 Bigwas situated in village Chandoli, Tehsil Alwar. The petitioner claims himself to be the Khatedar of the land in dispute and he filed a suit in the Court of the learned Munsif, Al...
The State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Bhanwarlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)44
M.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan and the three officers of the State challenging the validity of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, dated January 9, 1979, whereby the Tribunal set aside the order of compulsory retirement dated March 30, 1977, of respondent No. 1 and further directed the petitioners to take over the charge of the valuable jewellery itemwise in the presence of the Special Committee formed for that purpose without avoidable delay.2. Respondent No. 1 Bhanwarlal Shreemali was an employee of the erstwhile Bikaner State and on formation of Rajasthan his services were taken over by the Rajasthan Government. He was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as an Assistant Inspector, Devasthan in 1956 and was promoted in 1957 as Inspector Grade I. In 1972 he was promoted as Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jodhpur and Bikaner Division and was thereafter selected in the cadre of the R. A.S. and continued...
Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)71
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. Appellants Ramkumar and Ramjvan have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated August 20, 19/5 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, convicting and sentencing them as under:Ramkumar Under Section 147 IPC 1 yr. R.I.342 IPC 2 yrs. R.I.323 IPC 1 yr. R.I.395 IPC 4 years R.I. and a fine ofRs.500/ in default 6 months R.I.Ramjyan 147 TPC 1 yr. R I.332/151 1 yr. R.I.323/149 6 months R.I.395 IPC 4 yrs. R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/.in default 6 months R.I.The substantive sentences of both the appellants were directed to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case was this. On the night intervened 8-7-1973 bus No. RSM 72 0 left Bikaner at 10 p.m. for Jaipur. The driver ano the conductor of the bus were Chhutan Khan and Devi Singh respectively. The bus arrived at Dungargarh bus stand at about 11.20 p.m. About 35 persons including PW10 Subhash, PW12 Gopal Chaudhari also boarded the bus. It then proceeded further. However, as soon as the bus stand app...
Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1980
Reported in: [1981]48STC188(Raj); 1980()WLN307
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan dated 14th July, 1970 (annexure 5), and the show cause notice dated 15th May, 1972 (annexure 6), issued in pursuance thereto by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle Jodhpur, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why penalty be not levied upon it.2. The petitioner is a joint-stock company, registered under the Indian Companies Act and owns ginning and pressing factory at Kesrisinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar. During the assessment year 1st April, 1961, to 31st March, 1962, the assessee purchased cotton within Rajasthan giving a declaration in form S. T. 17 under Rule 25C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules that it would be resold within the State of Rajasthan. However, in contravention of the declaration, the assessee transferred part of the cotton to their godowns outside Rajasthan and also sold it outside Raj...
Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC141(Raj); 1980()WLN393
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. These are four connected writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the petitioner'). The points arising for decision in all the writ petitions are the same and, therefore, we propose to dispose them of by a single order.2. The petitioner is a joint stock public limited company registered under the Companies Act and its business is to purchase cotton and other fibres and manufacture yarn out of the same. It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchases cotton in the State of Rajasthan and also from outside the State of Rajasthan and in the same way it sells its manufactured product, i.e., yarn, inside the State of Rajasthan as well as in the course of inter-State trade and business. It has also its branches and other agencies outside Rajasthan, where yarn is sent from Rajasthan for sale to the consumers.3. Writ Petition No. 2031 of 1971 pertains to the period from...
Heeralal Vs. Mahavir Prasad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)55
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Appellant Heeralal was the defendant in the suit filed against him by the respondent plaintiffs for ejectment of a shop on the ground of default in payment of rent. The defendant in his written statement defied the allegation of his being a defaulter in payment of rent on the ground that the tenancy was yearly and not monthly and he had deposited the amount of sent in the Court under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Munsif framed five issues which translated into English read as under:1. Whether the defendant had been held defaulter by the judgment dated 10-12-76 in Civil Suit No. 32/74 and had again committed default and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the decree for eviction against the defendant.2. Whether the tenancy is yearly and not monthly and what is its effect on the suit.3. What is the effect of decisi...
Satnam Transport Company and anr. Vs. Prakash Mal Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj75; 1980()WLN380
ORDERM.C. Jain, J. 1. This revision raises an important question of law as to the interpretation of Order 16, Rule 1 and Rule 1A, C. P. C. It arises under the following circumstances: 2. The plaintiff Prakashmal Surana instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment and also for the recovery of house-tax, electricity charges etc., against the defendant Satnam Transport Company, through the Managing Partner Smt. Satnam Malik, Delhi Gate, Udaipur and Beharilal, Manager, Satnam Transport Co. The suit for eviction was based on personal necessity of the disputed premises. The defendant resisted the suit and submitted the written statement on 23-3-1979. Necessary issues arising from the pleadings, were framed. The plaintiff closed his evidence reserving right to adduce evidence in rebuttal on 10-9-1979 and the case was posted for defendant's evidence on 27-10-1979. On that very day, that is, on 10-9-1979, the plaintiff submitted an application that the defendant has not filed any list of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »