Rajasthan Court January 1981 Judgments
Smt. Janki and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)395
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor. On a report lodged by Ali Ram at the Police Station, Patna a case was registered under Section 147, 379, 429 324 and 323 IPC. Station House Officer after investigation found that no offence was made out under Sections 379 and 427 IPC. The Station House Officer therefore, submitted a charge sheet against three accused persons namely Manna Ram, Bichhu Ram, Ramu Ram for offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 14-10-1980 took cognizance against the four petitioners also and issued bailable warrants against them. The four accused petitioners Smt Janki Smt. Shanti, Smt. Sarwan and Smt. Kesar against whom cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate and has issued bailable warrants have riled this petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing the order of the learned Magistrate dated 14-10-80.2. The learned Public Prosecut...
Tag this Judgment!Danmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)397
M.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks to quash the order of the Tehsildar dated February 14, 1974 (Ex. 6) whereby the petitioner's objections dated February 5, 1974 raised against the demand vide Exhibit-7 dated January 14, 1974, were dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition may briefly be stated as under: The petitioner Danmal (since deceased) was a Khatedar tenant. The non-petitioner No. 2, Panchayat Samiti, Jaisalmer (hereinafter referred to as the 'Samiti') started giving loans in the year 1965-66 under the irrigation scheme for digging wells to the Agriculturists. It appears that the petitioner Danmal applied for advancement of loan to him for digging well In connection with that loan, an agreement dated March 29, 1966 was executed by him in favour of the Samiti for advancement of a sum of Rs. 9 CCO/- for construction of well. The petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 6,000/-o'n March 29, 1966 and Rs. 3,000/- were paid to him on August 18, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)496
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Shri Ram Chandra, who is Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chirai, has challenged the validity of the orders of the State Government dated December 12, 1978, passed in exercise of its powers under Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the State Government has decided to hold an enquiry into certain charges against the petitioner and has suspended the petitioner from the office of Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chirai.2. The petitioner had been elected as Panch of Gram Panchayat, Chirai in the year 1965, and in the year 1969, he was elected as Up-Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat and he continued as Up-Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat till 1977 when the Panchayat was dissolved. In the elections which were held in February, 1978, the petitioner was re-elected as Panch of the said Gram Panchayat and there after he was again e...
Tag this Judgment!Gopiram Ramlal, Fruits and Vegetables Merchants, Subzi Mandi Vs. the S ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)1
M.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner-firm by this writ petition has challenged the constitution of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samiti') Respondent No. 2, and has also challenged the amendment of Rule 75 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules) made by Notification of the State Government dated May 11,1973.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition may briefly be stated as under : The petitioner firm carries on the business of purchase and sale of fruits and vegetables as Commission Agent for the last 20 years at Sri Ganganagar. The State Government by its Notification Under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') declared its intention of regulating the purchase and sale of the agricultural produce in the area specified in the notification, but there was no prior consultation with the Municipal Council Sri Ganga...
Tag this Judgment!The Ganganagar Sugar Mills Employees Union Vs. the Management of the G ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)4
M.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court, Rajasthan Jaipur, dated 16-9-1970 on the following disputes referred to by the Government for adjudication (Ex. 8):(1) Whether the termination of services of Shri Chhabildas Goyal on 1-2-65 (represented by Sri Ganganagar Sugar Mills Employees Union) by the management of the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., Sriganganagar is justified? If not, to what relief is he entitled?(2) Whether Shri Chhabildas Goyal is entitled to get his increment of Rs. 6/- in the grade of 100-5-150-10-200 as Cane Inspector from 1-7-58 to 31-10-60? If so, is he entitled to claim bonus for these years, according to the revised pay?(3) Whether Shri Chabildas Goyal is entitled to be fixed on Rs. 167/-per month with effect from 1-11-60, i.e. on introduction of the Wage Board recommendations?(4) Whether the retrenchment of Shri Chhabildas Goyal on 3-4-58 was justified? If not, to what relief, is he entitled?2. The petitioner No. 2 was a...
Tag this Judgment!Bajrang Ram Vs. Motaram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN1
Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated May 25, 1978 of the learned Munsif, Churu passed in civil original suit No. 1 of 1977.2. The plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 instituted a suit against the defendant-petitioner and defendant-non-petitioners No. 3 and 4 for realisation of a sum of Rs. 4,100/- in the Court of Munsif, Churu, on January 3, 1977. Separate written statements were filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner and defendant-non-petitioner No. 3. Issues were framed on January 20, 1978. The plaintiffs were to lead evidence first on February 20, 1978. It may be mentioned here that February 20, 1978 was declared Holiday on account of 'Baravafat' and, therefore, the case was taken upon February 21, 1978. On that day, the statements of Bhera Ram (PW 1) and Hanumana Ram (PW 2) were recorded and the Counsel for the plaintiffs wanted to examine the plaintiffs on the next date. The court ordered that if...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Mahaveer Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN12
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This second appeal by the Union of India arises in the following circumstances: Mahaveer Prasad plaintiff was a temporary employee of the Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur (here after referred to as the Institute'). His services were terminated by the Director of the aforesaid institute after giving him one month's notice on April 10, 1964. Mahveer Prasad filed a suit in the court of Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur challenging the termination of this services on the ground that the same was brought about by way of punishment without complying with the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution. Another ground advanced by the plaintiff was that the termination of his services was in contravention of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The third ground advanced in the alternative was that the Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur was on 'industry' within the meaning of Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disp...
Tag this Judgment!Manmal Shanker Lal Vs. Shah and Co. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)409
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment dated March 30, 1977 of the learned District Judge, Balotra, pased in Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1977, by which the learned District Judge set aside the judgment and decree dated August 23, 1971 of the Civil Judge, Balotra and SIS the suit with a direction that if the defendant-respondents deposit Rs. 200/ within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the record by the trial court then, list of witnesses dated August 5, 1970 may be entertained and the defendants will be entitled to produce evidence in respect of the issues2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be noticed: The plaintiff instituted a suit for Rs. 7700/- alleging that it is a registered firm carrying on business in grain in Balotra and that defendant No. 1 carries the same business of his own as well as on commission at Kota. Defendants No. 2 to 4 are its partners. The plaintiff purchased 110 bags of Jawar on September 9, 1968 and 25 bags o...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Director E.S.i. Corporation Vs. P.C. Kasliwal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN460
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The above numbered two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Jaipur under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (here in after referred to as the Act) against the two judgments of the Employees State Insurance Court, Jaipur (in short court), but as the point of law involved in both the appeals is common, they are being disposed of by a single judgment.2. M/s. Vijay Metal Industries, Jaipur is a partnership firm. One P.C. Kasliwal is an active partner of the partnership firm and draws a monthly allowance of Rs. 400/-. The ESI Corporation, Jaipur taking Shri P.C. Kasliwal is an employee within the meaning of Sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Act required the firm M/s. Vijay Metal Industries to pay employees contribution amounting to Rs. 211.25 P. and employer's special contribution amounting to Rs. 472/- for the period from January 28, 1968 to January 30, 1971, and when the firm did not make the said pay...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›