Rajasthan Court July 1980 Judgments
Ram Kumari Sharma Vs. Ram Kishan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1980
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC497
P.K. Banerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kot rejecting the application of the appellant claiming Rs. 30,000/- as damages for death of Geeta Rani, daughter of the appellant, Geeta Rani aged 7 years, when she was crossing the road, was run over by the truck and died on the spot. The learned Judge held that Geeta Ram was negligent for her death and not the river and therefore, the application was rejected. In my opinion, the finding of the learned Judge is wrong. When a child is involved in the accident it is no answer to say that the child was negligent. I can understand an adult contributing to the negligence causing death or accident, but to say a child aged 7 years was negligent and therefore, the driver cannot be blamed is to say the least preposterous. It is always the duty of the driver to be vigilant whether on the road there is a child crossing the road and that is why the road signs are always there when the children of the...
Tag this Judgment!Chandu Vs. Hardayal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)445
S.M. Lodha, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant Chandu instituted a suit for declaration against Hardayal, Moti, Moman and Birbal (respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively) on September 26, 1961 in respect of certain agricultural land. It was prayed that declaration may be made to the effect that plaintiff is the Khatedar of the agricultural land in dispute and that transfer order No. 10 dated May 1, 1961 is null and void. It was further prayed that the defendants be restrained from transferring the lands in suit. Respondent No. 4 (Birbal) admitted the claim of the plaintiff in his written statement dated July 18, 1962. Respondents No. 1 to 3 contested the suit on various grounds. After recording the evidence, the suit was decided in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment dated July 15, 1963 and an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. The Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner, vide judgment dated December 22, 1964 set aside the judgment and decree and remanded ...
Tag this Judgment!John Stephen Parbhunath Vs. Doris Rose Bela and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN390
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur dated June 3, 1980.2. The brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the non-petitioner No. 1 Shrimati Doris Rose Bela along with her two daughters Kumari Susmith and Kumari Suniti and her son Sandeep filed an application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure against the present petitioner. This petition was submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate' on November 16, 1979.3. An application was moved on behalf of the present petitioner that the application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by Shrimati DORIS Rosa Be1a is not maintainable as she is an earning member and it cannot be said by any stretch of, imagination that she is unable to maintain herself. It was contended that even according to the statement of Shrimati Dares Rose Bela she is drawing salary of Rs. 480/-.4. It was...
Tag this Judgment!Hariram Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN530
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Petitioner, Hariram Chaudhary Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Dadia under Panchayat Samiti, Arain, District Ajmer has filed this writ petition challenging the order of suspension dt. January 12, 1979. According to the order of suspension, petitioner has been convicted under Section 366 and Section 343 I.P.C. and sentenced to the various tedms of imprisonment and fine. This results in disqualification under Section 11(g) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to be as the Act, 1953). Since the proceedings under Section 17 of the Act 1953 for declaring his seat vacant are pending against him, he has been placed under suspension pending completion of these proceedings.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that against the judgment of conviction an appeal was filed before the High Court and the High Court confirmed the conviction. Further, it is alleged that judgment of the High Court is sub judice before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, where the se...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Lal and Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1980
Reported in: [1982]49STC127(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. The short question, which arises for determination in this case, is whether 'durries', in which the assessee deals, fall within the expression 'textiles' occurring in the notification issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The circumstances in which this question arises may be briefly stated :2. M/s. Moti Lal & Co., Jodhpur (hereinafter called 'the assessee'), is a dealer registered under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, and deals in various commodities including durries. He was assessed to sales tax under Section 10 of the Act for the period from 13th July, 1957, to 10th November, 1958, by the Sales Tax Officer, Jodhpur. The turnover of the assessee in respect of the sale of durries during the aforesaid period amounted to Rs. 77,290 and sales tax was imposed upon the assessee in respect thereof. The assessee contended before the Sales Tax Officer that by virtue of the notifications issue...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Lalukhan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)441
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a batch of five Civil Regular First Appeals before me. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, they were heared together. As these appeals involve common questions it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.2. It will be sufficient to notice the facts giving rise to S.B. Civil First Appeal No 148 of. 1972; State of Rajasthan and Lalu Khan and others. The plaintiff-respondents instituted a suit for Rs. 25,000/- against the defendant-appellant alleging that they took a cont-ract for supplying country liquor at Ratangarh that the period of the contract was from April' 1; 1967 to march 3l, 1968 and that according to the terms of the contract they deposited Rs. 25,000/- as security in the Excise Department of (State of Rajasthan) at Bikaner. It was further averred that the defendant agreed to refund the amount after the termination of the contract. The term of the contract expired on March 31, 1968. Their case was that in terms ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Nath and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)349
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. Appellants Shiva nth and Ramratan have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated February 28, 1979 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar whereby, the appellants were convicted under Sections 304 read with 34 and 304, I.P.C. respectively and each of them was (sic)enced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years.2. A case as alleged in the first information report was this. That on 25th of March, 1978 i e. on the day of Holi at about 2 p.m. appellant Shivanath and one Ramratan were insisting to throw colour on the wife of Satyanarain Ram Badhas intervened a ad asked the parties not to quarrels Shivnath, then exhorted Ramratan to beat. Ramratan gave lathi blow on the head of Ram Badhas, who fell down on the ground and thereafter, Shivnath also gave a lathi blow on his hand. Many persons witnessed the incident. Ram Badhas who was taken to the hospital where he was given ordinary treatment. The injury was not considered to be serious and, thereafter, no report ...
Tag this Judgment!Shobha Lal Vs. Laxmi Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj20
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This second appeal by the judgment-debtor is directed against the order dated October 6. 1976 of the learned Additional Civil Judge. Udaipur, by which he set aside the order of the Munsif, Udaipur dated April 26, 1976.2. A few facts may be recounted here; The decree-holder-respondent obtained a decree for possession of the shop situate in Mochi Vada, Udaipur on May 11, 1971. The decree, passed by the Munsif, Udaipur reads as under;'The plaintiff's suit No. 150/69 is therefore decreed with cost who shall be entitled to the vacant possession of the shop and the rent due Rs. 612/- and damages @ Rs. 17/- per month for the use and occupation till a vacant possession is delivered to him has already paid (?). The defendant is however allowed 6 months time to vacate the shop and deliver its possession to the plaintiff',On appeal, the learned Civil Judge modified the decree in so far as the plaintiff-landlord was held not entitled to recover Rs. 612 from the defendant-tenan...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad Chechani Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)287
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Ram Prasad Chechani praying therein that the order (Annexure-1) dated September 9,1977 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan and the order (Annexure-2) dated February 13,1979 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal' hereafter may be quashed and that it may be declared that the pay drawn by the petitioner on the post of Accounts Clerk for the purposes of his fixation under Rule 26-A(2) of the Rajasthan Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') was Rs. 180/- only and not Rs. 172/- and as such, the pay fixed on the post of Accountant does not exceed by an amount equal to the amount of next increment in the lower post plus the first amount of increment in the higger post, and, so the petitioner is entitled to have his next increment on the date he would have drawn had he continued in the lower post.2. A few facts leading ...
Tag this Judgment!G.D. Mehta Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)301
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, G. D. Mehta has challenged the validity of the notification dated 12th May 1979, issued by the Government of Rajasthan, where by the revenue village Rawat Bhata in District Chittorgarh has been declared a notified area and a notified area committee has been constituted for the said notified area.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are, as under. The petitioner is employed as Upper Division Clerk in the Rajasthan of the Atomic Power Project at Rawatbhata in District Chittorgarh. Section 313 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act') empowers the State Government to declare a specified area or any part thereof to be a notified area. Section 314 empowers the State Government to constitute a notified area. committee for the notified area Section 315 empowers the Sate Government or the notified area committee with the sanction of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »