Rajasthan Court February 1981 Judgments
Mohammed Hanif and ors. Vs. Prem Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)85
D.P. Gupta, J.1. In this second appeal the only question which arises for consideration is as to whether the plaintiffs-appellants require the suit shop for their reasonable and bonafide personal necessity2. The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment but the first appellate court dismissed the suit holding that the bonafide necessity of the plaintiff for the suit shop was not proved. During the pendency of this appeal an issue relating to comparative hardship was framed and the same was remitted for trial to the Additional District Judge, whose findings dated April 23, 1977 have been received in this Court along with the record and the evidence led by both the parties on the aforesaid additional issue, relating to comparative hardship. The appellants had also filed an application today by a separate order.3. The dispute relates to a small triangular shop which is said to be 5' or 6' at the entrance and according to the plaintiff is 22' deep, situated near railway station Jodhpur, o...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator Vs. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN474
P.D. Kudal, J.1. In S.B. Company Petition No. 15 of 1979 under Section 392 of the Companies Act, 1956, an order was passed on 19th October, 1979. The Official Liquidator feeling aggrieved sought permission of this Court to file an appeal against this order. The application for seeking permission was submitted on 25th October, 1979. The question of granting permission came up before the Court for consideration on 31st October, 1979. The office submitted this application for consideration on 29th October, 1979 before this Court. Before this petition dated 25th October, 1979, could be considered the Official Liquidator had already filed an appeal against the order of this Court dated 19th October, 1979. The permission which was sought was ex-post-facto permission. The Official Liquidator did not obtain sanction from this Court prior to the filing of the appeal.2. On 31st October, 1979, four points were framed for consideration:(a) Whether the Official Liquidator is competent to file an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Pyare Mohan Vs. Smt. Narayani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj43; 1981()WLN616
Mahendra Bhushan, J.1. This Civil Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, arises out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent, Smt. Narayani, against the defendant-appellant, pyare Mohan, for possession of a 'Kotha'' described in para No. 4 of the plaint as well as for mesne profits amounting to Rs. 102/-.2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent, as set out in the plaint, was that the house described in para No, 1 of the plaint of which the suit 'Kotha' is a part belonged to one Gopal Lal, who died on June 15, 1956. The respondent had been living with said Gopal Lal since 10 Or 11 years before the latter's death and in lieu of services rendered by the respondent, the deceased Gopal Lal executed a Rift deed Ex. 1 in respect of the whole house in her favour. It was also the case of the respondent that after the execution of the gift deed Ex. 1 she was put in possession of the gifted house. After the death of Gopal Lal, some time in th...
Tag this Judgment!Nemchand Vs. Bhanwar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)90
D.P. Gupta, J.1. In this defendants's appeal, arising out of a suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent, the only ground argued was that the tenant-appellant was not a defaulter in payment of rent and the decree for ejectment, passed solely on the ground of defaults in payment of rent, was erroneous and deserves to be set aside.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant from the premises in dispute for all possible grounds, viz. The plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably andbonafide for his own use, the defendant had sublet the premises or had parted with possession thereof, the defendant had made material alterations in the premises and he had committed defaults in payment of rent. The plaintiff was unable to prove all 'other grounds for eviction alleged by him except that of defaults and the trial court decreed the suit for ejectment only on the ground of defaults in payment of rent. The first appellate court concurred with the finding recorde...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim Mohammed Ali Vs. Bhanwari Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Raj176; 1981()WLN214
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated November 23, 1979 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, in execution case No. 8/1977, whereby the judgment-debtor petitioner's objection, regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to execute the decree, was rejected.2. The suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed by the trial Court on January 13, 1969 and the said decree was affirmed in the first appeal and second appeal on May 23, 1974 and April 29, 1975 respectively and a compromise was arrived at between the parties in the Supreme Court and a decree in pursuance of compromise was passed on November 17, 1976. Thereafter, the decree-holder submitted an application for execution in the Court of Munsif, City Jodhpur onMarch 18, 1977. In the execution application, the judgment-debtor submitted his objections under Section 47, C. P. C. read with Section 151 C. P. C. on April 5, 1977. The execution application as well a...
Tag this Judgment!Usman Gani Vs. S.T.A.T.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)174
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Both these appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 have been filed against the order dated April, 8, 1980 of a learned single Judge of this Court and as they involve common questions and have been heard together, we consider it convenient and proper to dispose them as by a common order.2. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 68 of 1980 has been filed by Usmangani, who was the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 963 of 1979, in which he questioned the legality and the propriety of the order dated June 26, 1979 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal' hereafter). In that writ petition, M/s. Roshanlal Inderlal were impleaded as respondent No. 4 and in this appeal they are respondents No. 3. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated April 8, 1980, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal and also the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.T.A.'...
Tag this Judgment!Ramswaroop and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN491
S.R. Mal Lodha, J.1. These six writ petitions before us under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India involve common questions and they have been heard together. We consider it proper to dispose them of by a common, order.2. For proper determination of the questions involved in these writ petitions, it Will be useful to notice the facts as stated in Rajendra Prasad v. The Beard, of Revenue and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No, 1455 of 1980).3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh 'decided Case No. 366 of 1971 State v. Laduram by his judgment dated November 8, 1974 and directed for acquisition of some surplus land. Laduram was the grandfather of petitioners No. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10 & was the father of petitioners No.2 and 3 and was also father-in-law of petitioner No. 3 Smt., Hardai. Ah appeal was preferred by the said Laduram. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner by its, judgment dated September 2, 1977 dismissed the appeal and also enhanced, the area of the surplus ...
Tag this Judgment!Chirag Enterprises Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Raj170; 1981()WLN53
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. Petitioner's Tender, State's Pleasure and peoples' treasure, the juxtaposition of these trio postulates are on test and trial. Administrative discretion is to be put to judicial post morterm on the touch-stone of 'rule of law'.2. The new dimensions of scope ofjudicial review in the field of administrative law, by celebrated decisions of the Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (AIR 1979 SC 1628) and Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (AIR 1980 SC 1992), having smashed the VETO power of the administrative wing of the State, proverbially known as the 'BUREAUCRACY' in matters of State Contracts, Tenders, Licences, Quotas and Permits; flood gates have been opened for citizens for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution and claiming the enforcement of 'ubi jus ibi idem remedium'.3. Overt and covert disregard, flagrant violations of the laws, norms and fair play principles, by those who are trustees and ...
Tag this Judgment!Rawat Hardeo Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Raj280; 1981()WLN151
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. Some apartments in the fort of Kurabad belonging to the plaintiff were taken on rent forlocating the office of the Ranger of the Forest Department of the State, on a rent of Rs. 15 per month. A document in this respect was executed on July 1, 1958, by Ratan Lal, Ranger, in favour of the plaintiff. Rent was paid up to 31st March, 1968. But thereafter, rent from 1st April, 1968 fell into arrears. According to the plaintiff, rent was payable month by month on the first day of the next succeeding month and as rent was not paid according to the terms of tenancy, a notice of three months' was given on December 2, 1967, terminating the tenancy on the expiry of the period of three months. The notice purported to terminate the tenancy and was also intended to fulfil the requirements of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As the State Government did not make payment of arrears of re...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Tongia Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)200
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by Shri R.K. Tongia for quashing the charges Under Sections 120B, 420, 467 and 471 I.P.C. framed against him by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (S.P.E.), Jaipur District, Jaipur.2. Shri P.D. Meena, Inspector of Police, C.B.I. Jaipur, filed a charge sheet on April 27, 1979, on the allegation that Shri Bhagwan Bedi, Manager, R.K. Tongia (petitioner) clerk-cum-Assistant Cashier, Shri A.K. Devnani, Clerk-cum-Assistant Cashier, and Shri H.H. Modi, Chief Cashier were working in 1977 in the United Commercial Bank Bhilwara. The aforesaid persons and some unknown persons were party to a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Bank. In pursuance of the said conspiracy Shri H.H. Modi, while officiating as Manager on August 30, 1977, issued a duplicate pass book of a new account No. 715/4 in place of original passbook to Shri Tota Ram Dayal Das of Bhilwara, who deposited Rs. 47,000/- on August 30, 1977. Shri Mod...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »