Rajasthan Court April 1981 Judgments
Rameshwar Vs. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)130
K.D. Sharma, C.J.1. This is a writ petition filed by Rameshwar under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or in any other appropriate form for quashing the impugned judgment of the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Nokha, District Bikaner, by which the election of the returned candidate, i.e the petitioner to the office of Panch from Ward No. 4 of Gram Panchayat Kuchore Athuni was declared void and set aside with immediate effect and Ramchandra non-petitioner No. 2 was declared elected to that office from the same ward.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner contested the election to the office of Panch of Gram Panchayat Kuchore Athuni, which was held on February 5,1978. The petitioner secured 114 valid votes while Ramchandra, non-petitioner No. 2, who also contested the election to the same office, got 113 votes only...
Tag this Judgment!Ummed Mal Vs. Kundanmal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Raj202
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. This civil execution appeal is against the judgment and order dated February 1, 1975 of learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi, by Ummedmal, judgment-debtor.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are these. The respondents-decree-holders filed a suit for partition of two shops situated at Sumarpur but it was dismissed by the trial Court. The respondents-decree-holders preferred first appeal, which was also dismissed. However, the second appeal filed on their behalf in this Court was accepted and the suit was decreed. Letters Patent Appeal filed by Ummedmal was dismissed. The respondents-decree-holders filed the execution application on 28-1-1972 in the Court of Addition District Judge, Sirohi. Notices under Order XXI, Rule 22, C. P. C. were issued. The appellant put appearance on 8-4-1972 and was also present on the next date i. e. 9-5-1972. On 8-7-1972, no instructions were pleaded by the counsel of the judgment-debtor. The Court vide order dated July 7, 1973 hel...
Tag this Judgment!Bajrang Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Raj298; 1981()WLN32
Shrimal, J.1. Shri Bajranglal was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Begas, which falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur. On a complaint filed against the Sarpanch by Ram Prakash and others regarding misconduct and neglect of duties committed by him, an enquiry was Initiated. A report along with a forwarding letter, dated March 14, 1980, was sent to the Government. After considering the report, a statement of charges (Annexure 3) was served on the petitioner. A notice dated May 19, 1980 (Annexure 2), calling upon the Sarpanch to show cause in writing why the charges should not be inquired into, was issued and May 28, 1980, was fixed for the purpose. After having received the reply (Annexure 4) and considering the same on merits, the Government decided to have the enquiry into the charges, mentioned in Annexure 3, conducted. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur, was appointed as Enquiry Officer; vide order, dated June 9, 1980 (Annexure 5). The Sarpan...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlesh Kumar Vs. Shiv Ratan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN369
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This rule is directed against the order dated December 12, 1980 of the Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur by which he dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC.2. The plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1, who is the landlord, instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against defendant non-petitioner No. 2, who is the tenant. The ejectment was sought in respect of shop No. 5 on various grounds. On February 26, 1980, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner stating that he is a Sub-tenant and for completely and affect-ually determining the question involved in the suit, his presence is necessary and as such, being a necessary party, he should be impleaded as a party to the suit. The material averments, contained in para 2 of the application, are as under. The learned Additional Munsif held that the petitioner cannot be impleaded as a party against the wishes of the plaintiff and dismissed the petitioner's application under ...
Tag this Judgment!Jalam Singh Vs. University of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)109
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Shri Jalam Singh, is seeking a writ of mandamus to quash the examinations for the Pre-Medical Test (hereinafter referred to as 'the PMT Examination') which was held in November, 1980 for selecting suitable candidates for admission to the Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan.2. In the State of Rajasthan, there are live Medical Colleges run by the State, at Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Bikaner and Ajmer. Admission to the said Medical Colleges is made by selecting the suitable candidates on the basis of the results of the PMT Examination, which is conducted by the University of Rajasthan for and on behalf of the Government of Rajasthan. For the purpose of conducting the PMT Examination in the year 1980, the University of Rajasthan had published a scheme for the PMT Examination, whereby, the distribution of marks in the various papers in Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English ...
Tag this Judgment!Champa Lal S/O Sh. Shriram Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)155
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Petitioner, Champalal, has filed this writ petition, claiming, himself to be a bus vehicle opertator and has made the following prayer:It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be accepted and a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writs, order or direction which may be deemed proper in the circumstances of the case be kindly issued, setting aside and quashing the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 5-3-79 to the extent of making direction to the R.T.A. that the period of 4 months allowed to the petitioner for engaging a higher model vehicle should not be extended, and order dated 3-7-79 passed by Secretery R.T.A, Bikaner.2. The Order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (hereinafter called to as 'the Tribunal'), dated the 5th March, 1979, contains the following important directions:When the appellant does not have a ready vehicle even today and the respondents had already obtained perm...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kumar and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue and 2 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN516
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, Dilip Kumar and Jugal Kishore, have challenged the validity of the order, dated June 23, 1978, Ex, 9, passed by the Government of Rajasthan for reopening the ceiling proceedings under section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the same petition the order of the Additional Collector, dated September 6, 1979 and the order of the Board of Revenue, dated 27th August, 1980, upholding the order of the Additional Collector, have also been challenged.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that one Raghunath died in the year 1962, leaving behind him Dilip Kumar and his widow Mst. Nathi. This is an admitted case of the petitioner that at the time of the death of Raghunath he left 199 Bighas and 7 Biswas of agricultural land. This land was entered in the revenue record in the joint Khatedari with Mst. Nathi an...
Tag this Judgment!Chunnia and anr. Vs. Keshri Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)137
K.D. Sharma, C.J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the Chunnia and Mingu against Keshri Mal and others under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing or setting aside the orders marked Annexures 2, 3 & 4 and for decreeing the suit of the petitioners for possession of the land in dispute as well as mesne profits,2. The relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated as follows : The petitioners vide registered sale deed dated February 6, 1962, purchased agricultural land including land comprised in Khasra No. 247 measuring 4 Bighas and 13 Biswas situated at village Malawada from Dhula and Moda Meenas, who were members of Scheduled tribes. The land comprised in Khasra No. 247 had been mortgaged with possession by Dhula and Moda, vendors to non petitioner No. 1 Keshri Mal and so a right to ledeed the mortgaged-land was given to the purchasers, i.e. the petitioners at t...
Tag this Judgment!Chotey Lal Agarwal Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)97
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. By this writ petition Messers. Choteylal Agarwal, a contractor, has prayed for seeking a direction order or writ from this court to the Rajasthan Housing Board, directing to release the security deposit of the petitioner immediately and to make out bill of its final works done by the petition exceeding Rs. 15000/- with interest at 18 percent per annum from the date of withholding the payment. It has also been prayed that the Board, be also restrained from issuing any order to the petitioner to continue with the work on the same terms and conditions as the work order by which the petitioner was granted the work. The petitioner in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board, filed tender, which being the lowest was accepted by the Housing Board. The work order was given by the Board for the construction of 30' 60' sized 18 flats at Jawahar Nagar locality. The work was estimated for a sum of Rs. 3,02,109.13 paise. The date of the commencement of...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Singh Vs. Sate of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)169
M.C. Jain, J.1. These two writ petitions raise common questions and arise out of the same facts so they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner Pratap Singh joined the Police Department as Constable on 23-11-1965 and the other petitioner Man Singh joined the Police Department as Constable on 29-8-1969. On 4-12-1974 the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur issued a notice mentioning that under the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules and Standing Order No. 7-66, a list of the Constables is to be prepared for promotion cadre course of Head Constables and individual applications were invited for the examinations to beheld in January, 1975. Another notice Exhibit 2 was issued on 4-1-1975 under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to be rules) for the same purpose. The petitioners sent their applications. A Board was formed consisting of the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, Assistant Superintendent of Police, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »