Rajasthan Court September 1980 Judgments
Dhan Raj and ors. Vs. Kishni Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)542
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated January 24, 1980, passed by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, It arises in the following circumstances : An application under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was filed by non-petitioner No. 1, Mst. Kishni Devi for grant of maintenance to her, and her minor daughter Vidya Devi and minor son, Kundanlal. That application was allowed on September, 1975. The petitioner husband filed a revision in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Sri Ganganagar which was disposed of on May 30, 1977, and there was some modifications in the: amount of maintenance. But, instead of deciding himself as to from which date the maintenance should be payable, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the Magistrate to consider the matter and order as to from which date the amount of maintenance s...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj133
Shrimal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated January 11, 1980, of learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he dismissed the injunction application, filed under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in civil original suit No. 16 of 1979. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts, for the decision of this appeal are that the appellant is a public limited company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The predecessor-in-interest of the Company obtained a mining lease on December 1, 1913, for a period of 30 years in the erstwhile State of Bundi with a provision for further renewal. It established a factory and commenced production of cement in the year 1917. The predecessor-in-title transferred its right, title and interest to the appellant in the year 1937. The lease was renewed for a period of 30 years on August 1, 1943. On March 17. 1969, the Controller of Mines and Leases modified the terms of the le...
Tag this Judgment!Delux Roadways Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN635
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. These two writ petitions raise common questions of law and fact and are, therefore, disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioners are bus operators and they were plying their vehicles on two non-temporary stage carriage permits on the Hanumangarh Sirsa via Sangaria inter-statal route (hereinafter called 'the route'). There was a limit of two permits fixed on the route and both the petitioners were providing stage carriage service on the route. Within the statutory period, before the date of expiry of their nontemporary stage carriage permits, both the petitioners applied for renewal of their permit The substance of the renewal applications of both the petitioners was published by the notification dated April 23, 1979 in the Rajasthan Gazette dated May 10, 1979 inviting objections in respect of the renewal of the permits of the petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of the publication of such notification. By another notification dated May 24, 1979 w...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Karan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)592
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of an offence under Section 494 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused-petitioner and others. A revision petition was filed in this Court, by the same was dismissed as the same was time barred, and hence, the present petition has been filed.2. Smt. Nathi alias Krishna Kumari is the first wife of one Bhagirath. Bhagirath during the subsistence of the first marriage, is said to have contracted a second marriage with Guddi, who, at the time of the marriage is said to be 12 years of age. A complaint was filed by Smt. Nathi against the accused-petitioner and 13 others in the court of learned Magistrate, who, after recording the evidence of the complaint and her witnesses, vide his order dated August 14, 1973, took cognizance of the offence Under Section 494, 494/109, or 495/114 of the India Penal Code against the accused-petitioner and seven others.3. It is contained by the learned advocate that there is n...
Tag this Judgment!Gheesa Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj65
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. The respondent No. 2 has filed this application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. It has been prayed that ad interim stay order dated 15th July, 1980 passed by this Court be vacated. The aforesaid order dated 15-7-1980 was in the following terms:Hon'ble Agrawal J., Mr. G.L. Pareek for the petitioner. Issue notice of the stay application. In the meanwhile, the respondents are restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the land of the petitioner in Khasra No. 539, if he has not already been dispossessed till today'. 2. This order was passed ex parte without service of notice or giving of copies of the petition to the respondents.3. Respondent No. 2 filed this application for vacation of the stay order and furnished a copy of it to the petitioner. Copy was furnished on 8th September, 1980. Application was filed in the court on 9th September, 1980. According to the computation two weeks time has expired on 23rd September, 1980.4. Mr. Pareek's s...
Tag this Judgment!Motiyan and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj284
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J. 1. These writ petitions, seven in number, have been filed against the land acquisition proceedings, taken by the respondents in respect of land covered by the following Khasra Nos. situated in Village Bhadana Teh. Ladpura, District Kota. Khasra No. including measurment.Name of Khatedar tenant/petitioner,1.494/133, 230. 392/238 measuring 12 Bigba 23 Bigba In Biswa & 15 Biswasrespectively:Laxmichand S/O Madholal Meena R/O Vil-Deh, Tah. Ladpura (Kota)2.156 418/156 421/156 & 157 measuring 35 Bigha 5 Biswa 1 Bigha, 15 Biswa 1 Bigha 11 Biswa respectively;Ramnath S/O Shri, Chhoga Lodha R/O VII. Dab Tah. Ladpura (Kota)3.326, 136, 158 measuring 17 Bighas & 18 Biswas, 29 Bighas & 2 Biswas res-pectively ;Bajrang S/O Chaturbhuj Ramlal S/O Chaturbhuj4.147 measuring 26 Bighas 3 BiswasChhitarlal S/O Narain5.153 measuring 5 Bighas 18 BiswasRam Kishan. Rambai Ram Nathi Soorajmal & Laxmi Narain;6.148 Area 12 Biawas 495/133 13 Bighas 15 Biswas 496/257 25 Bighas 16 Biswas Total 40...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Gulam HussaIn Vs. Rta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)500
M.B. Sharma, J.1. In all the three petitions the same points are involved and, therefore, it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common order.2. First of all, I will narrate the facts of the cases and then take up the common points and thereafter any other point which may be involved in any of the writ petitions.3. The two writ petitions No. 919/80 and 923/80 relate to Dungarpur-Sarthuna via Vak Geji Dhambola Simalwara, Peeth. Syed Gulam Hussain in Writ petition No. 919 of 1980 is holder of two non-temporary stage carriage permits for this route being permits Nos. PSTP 573 and PSTP 335. Permit No. 573 stood validly renewed upto 25-12-77 and permit No. 335 stood validly renewed upto 30-9-78. In respect of the two permits, two renewal applications, well in time, were filed and the renewal application with regard to permit No. 335 was published in Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 3-8-78 whereas the renewal application relating to permit No. 573 had been published in Rajasthan Rajpatra date...
Tag this Judgment!Heera Lal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1980
Reported in: 1981WLN260
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the Code), is directed against the order, dated, June 10, 1980, of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, thereby affirming, in revision, the order of injunction dated, November 6, 1979, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambhar, under Section 142(1) of the Code, directing the petitioners herein to remove the bushes created by them from a way and refrain from causing any obstruction there pending inquiry in the matter under Section 133 of the Code.2. A few facts relevant for the disposal of this application may be stated here. On April 18, 1979, Gopal, respondent 2 herein filed an application under Section 133 of the Code, in the court of the Sub Divisional Magist rate, Sambhar, complaining that the petitioners herein and one Bhoora, had caused obstruction in the public way running through the land comprised in Khasra numbers, 818 and 179, belonging to them. On Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Vs. the State Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)562
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. These eight writ petitions under Article 226 at the Constitution raise common questions of law and, therefore, it will be convenient to dispose them by this order.2. The relevant facts as stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 916 of 1979 are these. Petitioner Babulal took Kyari Forests on contract for extracting gum during the working seasons 1975-76 and 1976-77. For some alleged breach of contract, the security deposit and gum of the petitioner have been forfeited, the non-petitioners are about to auction the gum. The impugned order is contained in Ex. 1 dated May 24, 1979. Before passing this order, no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner to give him an opportunity to explain the dispute. Non-Petitioner No. 2 Divisional Forest Officer, Udaipur passed further order on 8-6-79 (Ex. 2) imposing a heavy penalty and directed forteiture of the security and auction of the gum toward relization of the penalty. These actions of non-petitioner No. 2 are illegal, ...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. the Regional Transport Officer a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)375
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner company is the owner of eight dumo(sic)rs and a tractor cum trolly. The Regional Transport Officer & Taxation Officer, Udaipur, gave notice to the petitioner, as owner of the aforesaid vehicle, demanding delivers of a declaration and also payment of tax under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 in respect of the said vehicles. Toe petitioner objected to payment of tax on the ground that the dumpers, and tractor-trolly were not 'motor vehicles' within the definition continued in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act and were not liable to payment of tax under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Taxation Act') In the case of Birla Cement Works, the Regional Transport Officer-cum Taxation Officer, Udaipur by has order dated January 4, 1972, held that dumpers as well as tractor trolly came within the definition of 'motor vehicles' and were compulsorily registerable under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act M...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »