Rajasthan Court March 1981 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.
Kalyan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1472; 1981()WLN479
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. Accused petitioner Kalyan has filed this bail application under Sec- tion 439, Cr.P.C. in FIR 11/81, in which he has been arrested, and charged with offence under Section 376, I.P.C. The prosecution case is that accused committed rape with a girl Mst. Ram Pyari who happens to be 14 years of her age. The girl received injuries and became unconscious. 'Ghaghari' and underwear of the girl were found bloodstained.2. During the course of investigation, a bail application was moved before the Sessions Judge, Kota, who has rejected it on February 6, 1981.3. Shri Ravi Kasliwal, the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that the accused is a boy of 16 years of age and is, therefore, entitled to bail under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1970'.Section 18 of the Act of 1970 reads as under:18. Bail and custody of Children(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence and apparently a chil...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Amendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)101
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This second appeal relates to ejectment of a tenant from a shop situated in the town of Sujangarh on the ground of defaults for payment of rent.2. The suit was filed on December 20, 1967 and the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had not paid rent for a period of over seven months. The tenancy was alleged to be monthly and the rent was said to be Rs. 33.75 paisa per month. The defendant's case was that the tenancy was annual and although the rent earlier was Rs. 201/- per annum it was subsequently raised to Rs. 401/- per annum. The defendant pleaded that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 401/-, towards yearly rent of the premises in dispute, in the trial court on November 28, 1967 under Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after called 'the Act') and that the rent so deposited should be considered to have been paid to the plaintiff landlord. Thus according to the defendant no amount was due towards rent on the date of t...
General Auto Agencies, Bhagat Bhawan Vs. Hazari Singh Gohlot Son of Ra ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)27
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This special appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance filed by the tenant-defendant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26-8-75 has come up again for decision before this Court. Earlier, this Court under its judgment dated 7-3-1977 had dealt with this Special Appeal, and while all the points in controversy were disposed of but in view of Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act) as amended by Ordinance No. 26 of 1975, which was later on replaced by an Act (No. 14 of 1976), an additional issue on the respective comparative hardship of the landlord and tenant was framed and the same was remitted to the trial court for decision in accordance with law. The finding of the trial court on the additional issue was given on November 4, 1980 and hence the matter has again come up before us.2. The disputed premises consisting of ground floor (show rooms) open space and the first fl...
Suresh Chandra Etc. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Raj315; 1981()WLN532
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J. 1. The dispute between the rival claimants for mining leases in Raiasthan have assumed dimensions of a serious legal debate about the jurisdiction of the Additional Director, Mines and Geology (Administration) Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur, respondent No. 2, to hear the appeals under R- 44 of the Raiasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Concession Rules'). 2. Both these writ petitions raise common Question of law and, therefore, I have agreed to the joint prayer for common hearing and common decision by one judgment. Both the petitioners, viz., Hariram and Suresh Chand, were initially granted leases and the respondents, viz., Om Prakash, and Smt. Madhu Agrawal filed appeals against the order of grant of leases to the petitioners. Both these appeals were accepted, and the order was passed to grant the lease to the rival claimants-respondents, Om Prakash and Smt. Madhu Agrawal. 3. Petitioner. Hariram filed appeal before th...
The Government of Rajasthan Vs. the Employees' State Insurance Corpora ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN30
M.C. Jain, J.1. This Is An Appeal By The Government Of Rajasthan Against The judgement and decree dated 1.6.1972, passed by the Employees' Insurance Court (Civil Judge), Jodhpur, whereby the Corporation's claim for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,929.52 was decreed.2. Briefly the facts are that the employees' Insurance Corporation through its Manager submitted an application under Section 75(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the Government of Rajasthan for recovery of employees' contribution amounting to Rs. 2,001/-. The Government of Rajasthan resisted the claim inter alia on the ground that the State Government had issued notifications under Section 87 of tie Act exempting the factories situated within the Jodhpur Municipality and Masuriya Industrial Area. In view of the notifications exempting the factories, the Government of Rajasthan is not liable for the payment of employees' contribution. On this plea of the Govern...
Bhanwar Lal Chandalia Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN551
G.M. Lodha, J.1. 'Substantial Justice for Social Justics' should be the bedrock of writ jurisdiction in contradiction to 'technicalities and hair aplitting or pound of flesh Portia Advocacy.'2. Equitable extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts which are flooded with over mounthing arrears of; should not be allowed to enact 'Merchant of Venice' of Shakespear. It should be utilised speedily and progressively to impart Real, Substantial, Social Justice to the real needy persons who have become victims of injustice.3. This being the pivot of this judgment, let facts be narrated now.4. Bhanwar Lal Chandalia employee of the Mining Department has been suspended by the order dated 9th April, 1980 vide Exhibit-2, which reads as under:^^ pwfd Jh Hkaojyky p.M+kfy;k] rRdkyhu los;j dk;kZy; [kkfu vfHk;Urk ] cqfUnh ds fo:) fopkjk/khu Qkstnkjh eqdnes es ekuuh; fof'k'B U;k;k/kh'k 10 fu0ekZ0 dskVk us vius fu.kZ; fnukad 26&3&80 es nks'kh ik;s x;s gS Avr% fuEu gLrk{kjdrkZ jktLFkku vlSfud lsok, gsS oxhZd...
Miss Kum Kum Jhalani Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN308
Guman Mal Lodha J.1. The prospect of realising social justice is remote unless Articles 38 and 39(b) & (f) go into militant action and unless there is a committed cadre of civil servants. The neutral civil service apathetic to peoples demands, contradicts social justice.'2. The above observations of Mr. Justice V.R. Krishana Iyer Some Half Hidden Aspects of Indian Social Justice: By V.R. Krishna Iyer Page VII 1980 Edition aptly apply to the present tragic tale of a physically handicapped lady, a victim of injustice at the alter of bureaucracy's apathy abhorence for God cursed handicapped.3. According to Justice Iyer 'In the new order there must not be judges who are untroubled by the miseries of the masses' Some Half Hidden Aspects of Indian Social Justice: By V.R. Krishna Iyer Page VII 1980 Edition4. Another eminent judge, Justice Shelat, writing foreword to the above lecture of Justice Iyer, exhibited his independent thinking, when he observed:Consistent with the system of Parliament...
Daleepsingh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)159
S.N. Deedwaniya, J.1. These three writ petitions involving common questions of law and fact are disposed of by this order. Petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 41 belonged to the cadre of Inspectors Gr. II (audit or executive) in the Co-operative Department and are governed by the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. Petitioner Daleepsingh was confirmed on the post of Inspector Cr. II (Executive) in the Co-operative Department with effect from 1-7-1959 vide order No. F(sic)CDR/Estt(B)/65 dated June 3, 1965. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted temporarily as Inspector Gr. I on 23-2-1960 and further promoted as Assistant Registrar from 18-4-1968 on ad hoc basis.3. Petitioner Rampal Borwal was appointed as substantive Inspector (Audit) Gr. 11 in the Co-operative Department on 1-7.1959 and temporily promoted as Inspector Gr. I vide order dated November 13, 1961 and further promoted on ad hoc basis as officiating Assistant Registrar vid...
Nand Lal Vs. Ramjilal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Raj243
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This second appeal by the defendant from the appellate Judgment and decree, dated, January 12, 1978, of the District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, in affirmance of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated.April 4, 1975, was admitted by Kudal, J., in this Court on February 12, 1978, formulating a question of law as under :Whether on the execution of a usufructuary mortgage by the landlord in favour of a tenant, the relationship of landlord and tenant will come to an end or it would be merely put in suspension so that on the redemption of the mortgage, the tenant mortgagee could remain in possession on the basis of the tenancy rights?.2. The material facts which are no longer in dispute may be shortly stated here. Ramji Lal and Murari Lal (hereinafter called the mortgagors), who instituted the suit for redemption, giving rise to this second appeal, are owners of the shop in dispute which has been in possession of Nand Lal the defendant-appellant, herein, since, 1943. T...
Mangat Rai Mitruka Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN127
G.M. Lodha, J.1. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 233 of the Constitution of India, and in pursuance of Rule 8(ii) of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969, the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. is pleased to make appointments of the folowing candidates to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service as Additional District and Sessions Judges with effect from the date of assuming charge of their respective offices by them, on an initial pay of Rs. 900-50-1000-60-1600-80-1800., pending its fina' determination as per Rule 29 of the R.H.J.S. Rules.1. Shri Shivcharan Lal Singhal2. Shri Mangat Rai Mitruka2. The appointments will be on probation for a period of two years.3. The senioritv of the aforesaid newly appointed candidates in relation to officers appointed by promotion would be determined later on in consultation with the High Court.Copy forwarded to:1. Secretary to Governor.2. Secretary to Chief Minister.3....