Rajasthan Court February 1981 Judgments
Dinesh Kumar Vs. Ram Sahai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Raj248; 1981()WLN63
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. This petition of revision by the plaintiff under Section 115, C. P. C. has arisen in the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff, Dinesh Kumar, brought a suit against the defendant. Ram Sahai, for a declaration that he is the adopted son of Ram Sahai and as such entitled to an equal share with the defendant in the coparcenary property described in detail in para 4 of the plaint. He stated the value of the said property to be Rs. 2,70,000/- and paid a court-fee of Rs. 500/- in all. The value of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction was stated to be Rs. 2,70,000/-.3. The defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement in answer to it. One of the preliminary objections raised by the defendant is that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is not sufficient.4. By its order, dated March 23, 1979, the trial Court upheld this objection, and directed the plaintiff to pay court-fee, ad valorem on the value of his share in the coparcenary property,...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhan Vs. Ali Bux
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Raj206; 1981()WLN156
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This is a second appeal in a suit for ejectment and for recovery at arrears of rent which was decreed by the trial Court but was dismissed by the first appellate Court.2. The plaintiff came to the Court with the allegation and that premises in dispute, which are situated at Marwar-Mundwa, were given on rent by the plaintiff to the defendant Ali Bux under an oral lease for one year on March 2, 1966 and Rs. 300/- per year was the rent fixed between the parties. It was alleged that the Tenancy came to an end on the expiry of the period of one year but the defendant did not vacate the premises. A notice was given by the plaintiff on Match 16, 1967 asking the defendant-tenant to vacate the premises up to March 31, 1967.3. The defendant's case was that the property in dispute belonged to Hindustan Iron and Steel Works and the defendant was the owner of the aforesaid firm as also of the property in dispute. According to the defendant, he was m occupation of the disputed pr...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Shri Gaj Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)73
K.D. Sharma, C.J.1. This is a writ petition filed by Maharaja Shri Gaj Singh of Jodhpur, Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order to the non-petitioners declaring (1) that Section 7A(i) and (ii) and Section 33 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate (Amendment) Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as Act No. 15 of 1975, are invalid and ultra-vires the Constitution; (2) for quashing the impugned notice dated April 5, 1975 and (3) for restraining the non-petitioners from taking possession of any part of the petitioner's land in exercise of the powers Under Section 9A without giving an adequate notice to him to show cause against such action2. The relevant facts giving rise to writ petition may be briefly stated as follows : The petitioner's father Maharaja Shri Hanwant Singh Ruled the former State of Jodhpur. After the formation of the Union of India on August 15, 1947, Maharaja Hanwant Singh, father ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlal and ors. Vs. Regional Manager, F.C.i. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN74
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the claimants of the deceased workman.2. The deceased Bhagirath Ram was a workman employed by the Food Corporation of India. He sustained injuries by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in his death on 17.4.1979. On that date he was working on his duty in Food Storage Depot, Pipar City. At about 12.45 p.m., while he was working, stood of full load gunny bags suddenly fell on him and he died instantaneously on the spot. The father, mother and sister, being the dependents of the deceased workman, submitted an application for ordering deposit of compensation and award of compensation on 4.9.1979 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,000/-, penalty upto 50% of the amount of award with interest 6% from the date of accident till the date of payment. It was stated in the application that the monthly wages of the decease...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Smt. Vimla Chouhan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Raj169
ORDERM.C. Jain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.2. The petitioner was granted Succession Certificate with respect to certain debts and securities on Nov. 27, 1979, though the order was passed on April 30, 1979. In the Succession Certificate, State Insurance money was shown as Rs. 4.000/-and amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 3,500/- was shown to be due from Inspector of Schools, Nagour. Subsequently it transpired that in fact the insurance money payable is Rs. 8,991.15 p. and further it was found that the amount of gratuity has been transferred to the Deputy Inspector of Girls School, Nagour,3. The petitioner submitted an application for extension of the certificate in respect of insurance money and for correction of the name of the debtor in respect to the gratuity amount which stood transferred to the Deputy Inspector of Girls School. The learned District Judge rejected this application stating that in the original application there is...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)40
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 31-10-80. lie was to appear on 7th February, 1981 in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 15, Jaipur City.2 The petitioner's contention is that he could not appear on 7th February, 1981 on account of his illness The learned Magistrate, confiscated the bail bonds and issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter moved an application on 23rd February, 1981 for cancellation of the warrant of arrest and prayed that fresh bail may be granted to him. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 23-2-81 dismissed the aforesaid application taking the view that when the bail bonds had been forfeited he had no jurisdiction to cancel the warrant of arrest.3. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. had been filed against the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: in Appl. for Succession Certificate of Smt. Vimla Chouhan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN72
M.C. Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and persued the impugned order.2. The petitioner was granted Succession Certificate with respect to certain debts and securities on November 27, 1979, though the order was passed on April 30, 1979. In the Sucession Certificate State Insurance money was shown as Rs. 4,000/- and amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 3,500/- was shown to be due from Inspector of Schools, Nagour. Subsequently it transpired that in fact the insurance money payable is Rs. 8,891.15 P. and further it was found that the amount of gratuity has been transferred to the Deputy Inspector of Girls School, Nagour.3. The petitioner submitted an application for extension of the certificate in respect of insurance money and for correction of the name of the debtor in respect to the gratuity amount which stood transferred to the Deputy Inspector of Girls School. The learned District Judge rejected this application stating that in the original application there is no...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN481
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. Accused-appellants, Ram Chandra and Kishan Das, were tried along with Ramotar and Smt. Ladi under Sections 307, 326, 147, 149 and 323, IPC, for causing, on 24-3-1971, simple injuries on the person of Sita Ram and simple and grievous huts to Guljari (P.W. 3). Learned Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted accused Ramotar and Mst. Ladi of the charges framed against them. Accused-appellant Ram Chandra was acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 307, and 147, IPC. He was convicted under 326, IPC. and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of which to suffer imprisonment for 15 days. Kishan Das has convicted under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 280/- in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence the accused-appellants have come up in appeal before this Court.3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are th...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ36
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. Acciused appellants, Ram Chandra and Kishan Das, were tried along with Ramotar and Smt. Ladi Under Sections 307, 326, 147, 149 and 323, IPC, for causing, on 24/8/1971, simple injuries on the person of Sita Ram and simple and grievous hurts to Guljari (PW/3). Learned Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted accused Ramotar and Mst. Ladi of the charges framed against them. Accused-appellant Ram Chandra was acquitted of the charges punishable Under Sections 307 and 147, I.P.C. He was convicted Under Section 326, I.P.C. and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 100/- and in default of payment of which to suffer imprisonment for 15 days. Kishan Das was convicted Under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for two months,2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence the accused-appellants have come up in appeal before this Court.3. Facts giving rise to t...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN61
G.M. LODHA, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan and the Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan Jaipur against the order dated 29th August, 1979 rejecting the application of the petitioners for setting aside the ex-parte award. It is not in dispute that the date of appearance was 8.3.1979. On this date the State or respondent No. 2 Assistant Engineer or its authorised representative did not appear. The case was then adjourned on 3.5.1979 for 19.6.1979 and on that date also the authorised representative of the petitioner did not appear, although on 3.5.1979 an un-authorised person was present according to the application of the petitioner for setting aside ex-parte order, the order for proceeding ex-parte was, therefore, passed on 3.5.1979. No efforts were made by the petitioners to move application for setting aside ex-parte order after this upto 19.6.1979 when the case was fixed up for further proceedings.2. On 19.6.1979 none ap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »