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.
Parwati Devi and ors. Vs. Shripal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)92
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment, which has been decreed by both courts below on the ground that the defendant had ' sublet the premises in dispute.2. The plaintiff-landlords filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-tenant from the suit premises, which consists of a shop in which a flour mill has been installed. The claim for ejectment was based on two grounds, viz. firstly, that the landlords had bonafide and reasonable personal necessity for the suit premises and secondly on the ground that the tenant had sublet the premises to one Jagdambalal. So far as the first ground of ejectment is concerned both the courts below have given a finding against the plaintiffs and the said ground has not been relied upon before me in this appeal.3. On the ground of subletting, the plaintiffs asserted in the plaint that the defendant had sublet the premises in dispute to Jagdambalal. However, in his written statement the defendant took the stand that Jagdambalal was ...
Shaktimal Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)94
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimant against the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, dated 30-5-1974 whereby a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was awarded by way of compensation to the claimant, who had suffered injuries in an accident, which took place on 6-5-1971.2.The appellant's case is that on 6-5-1971, at about 2.30 p.m., he was going on a cycle at. Paota 'B' Road. When he was on left side of the road Jeep No. U.B. 28523, driven by Major V.K. Kochar, came from behind and collided against the claimant and his cycle, as a result of which he fell and sustained four injuries, out of which two were grievous. There was a comunited intro inochentric fracture of the right femur and the second fracture was of the neck of the right radius. He was lifted by Kan Singh (P.W. 2) and Sumermal (P.W. 3). The Jeep stopped at some distance when hue and cry was raised. Thereafter, Major Kochar brought his car and took the appellant to the hospital. First the appellant was taken to...
Ratan Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)72
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This is an application under Section 438 Cr. P.C. along with a prayer that in the facts and circumstances of this case if the application is not found maintainable under Section 438 Cr. P.C. then it may be treated as an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. According to the facts mentioned in the application the petitioners were released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 19th March, 1979, under Section 437 Cr.P.C., It is further submitted that the names of the petitioners did not find mention in the F.I.R, and the co-accused whose namas find mention in the F.I.R. were granted anticipatory bail from this Court on 15th April, 1980, and as such the case of the petitioners stands on much better footing than the other accused who have been granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The necessity for filing this application for bail arose as the petitioners apprehend that the learned Magistrate will pass an order cancelling the bail...
Surja Ram and 4 ors. Vs. Mali Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)99
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This petition of revision under Section 115 CPC has arisen in the following circumstances.2. Maliram, the respondent herein,, filed a suit for perpetual injunction against Surjaram and others, the petitioners herein, restraining them from causing any obstruction in the streets leading to his house and in the Rasta in front of his house. On an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC made by the plaintiff, the trial court made an order, dated November 26, 1969 granting an ad-interim injunction in these words:After hearing the counsel for the plaintiff, an ad-interim injunction is hereby issued restraining the defendants from making any obstruction in the streets leading to the house of the plaintiff and in the Rasta infront of his house. The defendants are directed to appear in the Court on December 17, 1969 and show cause as to why this ad interim injunction be not confirmed.On December 17, 1969, the plaintiff made an application under Order 39 Rule 2(3) of the Cod...
Prem Sukh and ors. Vs. Manager, E.S.i. Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN79
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the judgment and decree dated 24.9.1971, passed by the Employees Insurance Court (Civil Judge), Jodhpur, in Insurance Case No. 3 of 1965.2. The Manager, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 787, Chopasani Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), submitted an application under Section 75(2) of the Act for the recovery of employees' contribution amounting to Rs. 1,680/- from the non-applicant-appellants. It was alleged that M/s. Bharat Industries, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur, non-applicant No. 6 is a factory with effect from 1.6.1962 under Section 2(12) of the Act and the other non-applicants are its principal employers under Section 2(17) of the Act. The non-applicants are liable to pay to the applicant employees' contribution under Section 40. The contribution was calculated at Rs. 1,680/- and a decree was prayed fo...
Kewal Vs. Sesmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN45
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal by the defendant-tenant under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950) (which will hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, be referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated January 4, 1978 of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur by which he struck out his defence against eviction. This order was passed by the Additional Civil Judge in Civil First Appeal No. 11 of 1977, which was filed by the plaintiff-landlord under Section 96, C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated November 26, 1974 of the Munsif City, Jodhpur. Reference herein to the provisions of the Act will be to those which existed then during the pendency of the suit and at the time of filing of Civil First Appeal No. 11 of 1977.2. The material facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal, may briefly be noticed: The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in the court of Munsif City, Jodhpur...
Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Reported in: 1981()WLN26
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Om Prakash against the Slate of Rajasthan and Shri Ram Prasad, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jogiwala, District Sri Ganganagar, for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction for quashing the order dated September 21, 1979, by which the suspension order passed against Ram Prasad, Sarpanch, non-petitioner No. 2, was revoked, while keeping intact the inquiry pending against him, and for issuing a writ, order or direction declaring Section 17(4) (A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, ultra vires to the extent of passing orders for reinstatement or revoking suspension order.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition are narrated, in brief, as follows:--Ram Prasad, non-petitioner No. 2, is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jogiwala, District Sri Ganganagar. Criminal cases and enquiries under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act were instituted and made...
Bhanwar Lal and ors. Vs. Firm Mangalji Chhoteylal, Baran Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Raj157; 1981()WLN450
ORDER1. The four petitions of revision, listed above, arise out of four different suits for recovery of money pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Baran. The suits are based on similarly vorded instruments, known in the commercial circles as Shahjog hundis. The hundis are written in dialectal Hindi. One of the hundis may be translated here, as illustrative of others, as follows:--Written at the auspicious place, Shri Baran; please accept salutations from Shri Panna Lalji Birdhi Chandji to Shri Panna Lalji Birdhi Chandji. We have received here from Mahendra Kumar Aggarwal a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in lieu of this hundi. The amount shall be paid to the Shah (a respectable person) on Phagun Badi 10, 2032 BK, at once according to the custom of Shahjog hundis.Signature2. One of the common preliminary objections raised by the respective defendants in these suits is that the hundis in question are chargeable with duty under Schedule I, Article 13, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereafter ca...
Aggrawal Textiles Industries Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)141
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. These three writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, involve common questions with regard to the validity of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') and are, therefore, disposed of by a common order.2. The Act, which came into force in the State of Rajasthan on 23rd March, 1974, was enacted by the Parliament with a view to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water. The Act was enacted in accordance with the provisions of Article 252 of the Constitution of India after resolutions in pursuance of Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution had been passed by the houses of the Legislatures of the various states, including the Legislature of State of Rajasthan, to the effect that the matters aforesaid should be regulated in those States by the Parliament by law. Section 3 of the Act provides for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›