Rajasthan Court September 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.
Ramchandra Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)507
M.C. Jain, J.1. These writ petitions involve common questions, so they are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners' case in brief is that the following are the three posts having different grades and authorised scales:(i) Travelling Ticket Examiner (T.T.E)Scale of pay: Rs. 130-5-175-EB-6-205-7-212.(ii) Passenger Guide (P.G.)Scale of pay: Rs. 110-1-150-4-170-5-180 EB-5-200.(iii) Leave Reserve Ticket Collector (L.R.T C.)Scale of pay: Rs. 110-3-131-4-155-EB-4-175-5-180.2. According to the petitioners, they were working as L.R.T.C for T.T.E. in the grade of Rs. 110-180(A8). Thereafter, they were promoted as officiating PGs. in the grade of Rs. 110-200(AS). Ultimatley they were promoted to officiate as T.T.E. in the grade of Rs. 130-212 (AS). The orders of promotion in SB. Civil Writ Petition No. 661/ 1975, Ram Chander Sharma v. Union of India for the post of item no. 2 is Ex. 1 dated 16.1.68 and his name appears at item No. 9. On promotion, his pay was fixed on Rs. 142/-per...
Narendra Singh Shekhawat Vs. S.T.A.T., Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj93
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be called as 'the Tribunal'), by which the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting permit to the petitioner -- Narendra Singh, was quashed. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the petitioners' vehicle was of the year 1967 (1965) model as per application filed by the petitioner, before the Regional Transport Authority but he got permit on the representation that the vehicle was of 1967 model. It was also held that other operators had more experience and the son of Smt. Phoolidevi was unemployed. On a consideration of the comparative merits of the parties and further taking a view of the fact that petitioner failed to produce Registration Certificate before the Tribunal, the permit, according to the petitioner, was cancelled.2. Mr. Mehta, appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Aidan v. The Region...
Ganpatdas Vs. Kanaram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1980
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)451
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14-8-78 of the learned Civil Judge, Churu by petitioner plaintiff whereby the appeal of the non-petitioners defedents was accepted and exparte decree against them was set aside on payment of costs Rs. 50 within 15 days.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision are these. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2200/- in the court of Munsif, Churu who passed an exparte decree against the defendant by his judgment dated 23-5-75. On 25-5-1974 defendants moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, for setting aside the decree. On 28-12-74 the trial court accepted the petition and ordered that exparte decree be set aside on the condition that the defendants deposited the decretal amount in the court and paid Rs. 50/- as costs to the plaintiff within thirty days. The decree shall be considered to be set aside only on the fulfilment of the above conditions. It further appears that the def...
Malsingh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)428
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Appellant Mal Singh had been tried for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, and convicted for that offence and sentenced to imprisonment for life aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the appellant has prefe(sic) the appeal.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the trial and conviction of the appellant are as under : Nihal Singh, deceased, resident of village Karanpur had taken his dinner at about 8 or 9 P M. on 15-5-75 and there after went to sleep on a cot outside his he are on a raised platform. On the next morning when he was not visible his family members tried to trace him c(sic) Vidhya PW 3, his daughter, went towards the house of Mahendra Singh son of the deceased aid found the dead body of her father Nihal Singh in a room. She came to the apartment of the house In which she along with her parents and brothers Amar Singh and Pritamsingh was residing and informed about the dead body of her f...
Kundanlal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)342
M.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Kundanlal for setting the demand raised by the District Excise Officer, Udaipur, for Rs, 31,553.91p. vide notice dated 20-8-1974 (Annexure I), quashed.2. Brit fly, the facts are that the petitioner obtained the licence for retail sale of country liquor for the year 1963-64 under the guarantee system and he Was required to obtain the liquor for the value of Rs. 144,060/- as per its issue price. The petitioner alleged that he received regular supply of contry liquor till June, 1963, according to his requisitions, but from July, 1963, to December, 1963, he was not supplied the country liquor according to his requisitions as the same was not available in the warehouse. In the relevant Year there were no stocks of liquor in the warehouse & the respondents were not in a position to supply and in fact did not supply the liquor as demanded by the petitioner. It was also stated that the supply was ridiculously insignificant dur...
Prem Raj Vs. Jeth Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)424
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Against the judgment and decree dated March 3, 1970 of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, the defendant has filed this appeal which arises out of a suit for possession and injunction.2.The plaintiff-respondents instituted a suit against defendant No. 1 Premraj and defendant No. 2 Shrinathji Maharaj Shri Mohannathji for possession and injunction. Ex. 6 is the map which was appended to the plaint. The plaintiff, have stated that they are owners of plots No. 1,2,3A to 3D and 4A. The plaintiff, have further mentioned that plot No 1 was purchased on December 15,1946 from Rajendra Kumar son of Vishwanath; plot No. 2 was purchased from Ballabhadas son of Jethmal on March 21, 1947. The remaining aforesaid plots are said to have been purchased from defendant No. 2. On the west of plots No 1 and 2, the house of defendant No. 1 is situate. It was alleged that on August 27,1961, defendant No. 1 opened a door in his wall leading to plot No. 2 and he further encroached upon the land mark...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahavir Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN472
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This is a Criminal Reference under Section 395, Cr. P.C. made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer. It has arisen in the following circumstances.2. A report was lodged by Chhotu Singh with the Ajmer Police on March 14, 1978 alleging that Mehavir Singh, Sumer Singh and Prem Singh had abducted his son Udaisingh in order to murder him and that they had actually murdered him. On investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against Mahavir Singh and Sumer Singh in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st class No. 4, Ajmer, on April 22, 1978, praying for proceedings against them for their trial under Sections 302 and 364, I.P.C. The case against the third accused namely, Prem Singh, a child, was filed in the children's court, Ajmer, for proceedings according to law.3. By his order, dated, May 16, 1978, the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Ajmer, committed Mahavir Singh and Sumer Singh to the court of session at Ajmer for trial under Sections 302 and 364, I.P.C.4. The acc...
Pooran S/O Pothiram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN662
ORDERM.L. Shirmal, J.1. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 1973 filed by the accused was decided by me and Hon'ble late Mr. Justice R.L. Gupta. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant was maintained and the appeal was dismissed vide this court's order dated May 29, 1978.2. A typographical error crept in, at page 16, of the typed copy of the judgment. In the judgment reliance was placed on Emperor v. Chintamoni. The stenographer while typing the judgment by a slip typed : 1956CriLJ790 instead of A.I.R. 1930 Calcutta 379 against the word 'Emperor v. Chintamoni. The aforesaid typographical error can be corrected by this court in exercise of its inherent powers. Such a correction is not prohibited by any provision of law under the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. I, therefore, in exercise of inherent powers of this court correct the above noted mistake and order that at page 16 of the typed copy of the judgment following words will be read In Emperor v. Chintamoni A.I.R. 193...
Mangilal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)406
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This Is a State appeal under Section 378 Gr. P.G. against the acquittal of the accused respondent Mangilal, a police constable, of the offence under Section 29, Police Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereafter).2. Briefly stated the facts in brief are these: The accused respondent Mangilal son of Narain constable No. 507 was posted in police lines Jalore on April 27, 1972, The services of one Sub-Inspector, one head constable and four literate constables were required for coping wish the registration of refugers work at Barmer and the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Jodhpur, sent a message Ex. P3 to depute the said police personnel to Barmer immediately. The accused petitioner along with others was directed to proceed to Barmer by night train on April 27, 1972, but it is alleged that after uaving reached the railway station, the accused-respondent slipped away. One more constable could not proceed because of his illness and Head Constable Ridmalsingh PW 5 along with others p...
Jogeshwar Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN444
K.D. Sharma, Acting, C.J.1. In this petition of the nature of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner complains against his detention in C.R. No. 59 of 1980 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 336, 323, 324 and 149, I.P.C. which is pending investigation with the Station House Officer. Police Station Division 'D', Jodhpur.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition for habeas corpus may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner stands involved in a criminal case (CR No. 59 of 1980). In the course of investigation of this cause by the Station House Officer, Division 'D' Jodhpur the petitioner could not be arrested as his where abouts were not traceable. The petitioner, however, moved the court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, for anticipatory bail on August 27, 1980, but the learned Sessions Judge rejected his application and refused to grant anticipatory bail to him. The petitioner thereafter again moved the bail application under Section 439, Cr. P.C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »