Rajasthan Court December 1981 Judgments
Kailash NaraIn and ors. Vs. Bhairoon Dutta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Raj27
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1) instituted a suit for redemption of mortgage dated April 14. 1954. The suit was filed against the legal representatives of the deceased mortgagee Ratanlal. The appellants (defendant-petitioners) are sons of Ratanlal. The suit was contested by the defendants (petitioners). Their case was that they had undertaken the repairs with the concurrence of the plaintiff-mortgagor in the years 1958-1961, 1965 and .1971. They obtained receipts for the amounts spent by them on repairs from the plaintiff-non-peti-tioner No. 1. These receipts were filed along with the written statement and the amount involved is Rs. 5,500. The receipts produced by the defendant-petitioners were unstamped. The learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur, by his order dated Nov. 12, 1980, held that by virtue of Section 35 of the Stamp Act as existed then. these receipts cannot be admitted in evidence. The defendant petitioners filed a writ petition under Articles...
Tag this Judgment!Devilal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)322
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The lands of the petitioner are situated in Chak 1 NGD. An outlet for the aforesaid Chak is situated at stone No. 216. In this writ petition the grievance of the petitioners is that the land of cultivators of Chak No. 2 has keen transferred to the cultivators of Chak Nos. 1 and 3. It was so done by the Divisional Irrigation Officer, Bhakhra Irrigation Circle, Hanumangarh Junction, in pursuance of a general notice. - Because the notice did not contain individual names, the Divisional Irrigation Officer lacks inherent jurisdiction to pass any order.2. That apart, the basis on which the order of the Divisional Officer was passed, was not disclosed to the petitioners and they could not meet the reasons.3. A look at the notice which was issued by the Divisional Irrigation Officer under Rule 11(3) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, will show that the rrasohs are not contained therein and it is mentioned in the notice ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Manorma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)372
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the award dated October 9, 1980, given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal'), in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 64 of 1979, filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred as to ''the claimants') against the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, the appellant herein, and Shri Hari Rain Driver Respondent No. 3 under Section 110-A of the Act. In the said claim petition the claimants had claimed for Rs. 17,05,000/- as compensation. The claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,17,600/- as compensation to the claimants.2. The claim for compensation relates to a motor accidents which took place on the Banswara Partapur road, near village Talwara on January 29, 1979 at about 8.30 P.M. In the said accident, a jeep bearing No. RJY 3891 and a Bus bearing No. RRM 3885 owned by the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagmalaram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2314; 1981WLN(UC)487
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. As the point involved in all the three revision petitions are common they are being disposed of by a common order.2. First I come to the facts of the three cases under which the three revision petitions arise and thereafter after narrating the points involved will proceed to discuss and decide them.3. S.B. Criminal Revn. No. 233 of 1980 arises out of Criminal Original Case No. 579 of 1979 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Roadways), Jodhpur. The petitioner Jagmala Ram was a bus conductor in the employment of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation' hereinafter) and at the relevant time, was posted at Jodhpur depot. The petitioner was conductor of Bus No. RRG 3905 of the Corporation which was going from Jodhpur to Luni on Aug. 16, 1979 in the afternoon. The said bus was checked by Shri Sardar Ali, Assistant Traffic Inspector of the Corporation, who is non-petitioner No. 2, at village Kankani. The Mobile Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!Kantichand Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)308
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated February 1, 1971 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bikaner, whereby he reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, Bikaner dated August 31, 1968.2. This appeal raises a very short question as to whether the plaintiff -appellant's repatriation to the Ferozapur-Delhi Division is justified.3. The necessary facts relevant for the decision of the appeal may briefly be stated as under : The Railway Service Commission selected the candidates for appointment to the posts of Guard Gr.C, The appellant's name is contained in the list 'B' appended to the Railway Service Commission's letter dated September 8, 1954 (Ex. A/4) addressed to the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi. List 'B' consisted of 73 names for the Delhi & Ferozpur Division, in which the appellant's name appeared at Section No. 69, After selection, the appellant was sent for training to the Training School, Saharanpur. The Gener...
Tag this Judgment!Rawta Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)324
M.C. Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his land situated in Chak 2 NGD has been transferred to Chak 1 NGD without notice to him and the notice did not give the reasons thereof. As a result of such transfer the petitioner's right of irrigation has been seriously prejudiced. It maybe stated that the notices were issued to the cultivators of Chak 2 NGD. The petitioner has produced notice Ex. 2 and notice Ex. 3. The petitioner has no where averred in the petition that the petitioner had no knowledge of notice Ex.2. In the absence of such on averment it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge of the proceedings of the transfer of the tend of Chak 2 NGD to Chak 1 NGD snd 3 NGD. In pursuance of the notice an order was ultimately passed by the XEN on 13-6-1980. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the order of the XEN Ex. 5. If the petitioner acquired knowledge of the order, he ought to have preferred an appeal w...
Tag this Judgment!Pyare Lal Vs. Banwari Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj181
G.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a tenant's second appeal in a suit for eviction. The premises are situated in the town of Shahjahanpur in district Alwar. Admittedly at present the provisions of Rajas-than Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 are not applicable. Both the lower courts have decreed the suit of plaintiff.2. In this appeal, Shri Rastogi has raised a twofold objection. Firstly, he has submitted that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is a beneficial legislation enacted for the purpose of providing protection to the tenants from the exploitation of the landlords and it has been applied to much smaller places than the town of Shahjahanpur. On these premises, Shri Rastogi argued that his client has been discriminated under Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, this Court should issue a Mandamus directing the State to apply the above act by extending it to the town in Shahjahanpur. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgme...
Tag this Judgment!D.K. Goyal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)327
ORDERGovernment has been pleased to order that the Diploma awarded under the Craftsmen/Displaced Persons Training Scheme to the successful trainees by the Director General of Resettlement and Employment, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, under the aegis of the National Council for Training in Vocational Trades may be recognised as equivalent to Diploma/Certificate under the Craftmen Training Scheme for appointment in all Trades in the State of Rajasthan in Subordinate Services.BY ...
Tag this Judgment!Asharaf Vs. Rta Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)347
D.P. Gupta Actg, C.J.1. Learned conusel for the parties have agreed that the orde of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, dated August 10, 1981 in so far as it proceeds to reject the application of the petitioner for grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit may be set aside. It has also seen brought to my notice that the same application of the petitioner has subsequently been published in the Rejasthan Raj Patra dated November 3, 1981 and objections have also been invited in respect thereof, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. In view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in J.N. Wahal v. Sheikh Mahfooz : [1970]2SCR243 , I am of the view that the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, should not have proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner after the increase in the limit of permits on the route was made by the order dated August 10, 1981. As the learned Counsel for the parties have agr...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Bhanwar Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)364
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. By judgment dated April 29, 1971, the learned Civil Judge, Bikaner, confirmed the judgment and decree dated May 30, 1970, of the Munsif, Bikaner, who decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit for declaration etc. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board questions the correctness of the aforesaid judgment.3. The plaintiff applied for a post of Technician in Electrical Engineering, to the Jodhpur Polytechnic. He was selected. He was relieved from the State Services on April 19, 1960. He joined the new assignment with the Jodhpur Polytechnic from November 20, 1960. It appears that the post of Technician in the Jodhpur Polytechnic was aboslished. After the abolition of the post of technician in the Polytechnic, the plaintiff was absorbed by the Board by issuing a fresh appointment on February 28, 1962, in the scale of 60-4-80-EB-5-100.4. The plaintiff has stated that after the abolition of the post, he should have been reverted to his parent Department i.e. Rajasthan State;...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »