Rajasthan Court May 1981 Judgments
Onkar Vs. Jagmohan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj179; 1981()WLN231
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This order will dispose of the objection raised by the office that the cross-objection filed by the respondent on Feb. 13, 1981 is barred by one day.2. The appellant filed the appeal under Section 100, C. P. C. against the judgment and decree dated July 24, 1980 passed by the District Judge, Sriganganagar on Apr. 5, 1980. The appeal was admitted on Nov. 6, 1980 and the substantial questions of law arising out of it were formulated and the summons of the appeal was served on the respondent on Jan. 13, 1981. On behalf of the respondent, cross-objection was filed on Feb. 13, 1981. There is no dispute regarding the aforesaid facts. The office has reported that as the cross-objection has been filed after 31 days, it is barred by one day. On this point, I have beard Mr. S.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent.3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the cross-objection has been filed w...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Thakuri Bai Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN540
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. The petitioner, Thakuri Bai, obtained a rule in this case upon the State of Rajasthan to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the detention order, issued by the State Government against her son, Tillu alias Tillumal, son of Nianmal Sindhi, resident of Surajpole, Kota, vide No. F. 2/21(24) Home-5/80, dated, December 26, 1980, under Section 3(2), National Security Act, 1980 (for short, the Act) and consequently directing the release from detention of the said Tillu.2. The facts necessary for the decision of this petition may be shortly stated here. On December 26, 1980, the State Government made an order under Section 3(2) of the Act directing that Tillu be detained, stating there in that it was satisfied that it was necessary to do so with a view preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial Jo the maintenance of public order. Tillu was arrested on December 27, in pursuance of that order, and...
Tag this Judgment!Amar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)35
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore convicting the accused appellants Under Section 307 read with Section 149, 147, 148, 324 read with Section 149, and Section 323 read with Section 149. Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to various terms of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences.2. The prosecution case briefly is that the accused-appellants Amara, Koja, Thana, Raga, Rajiya and Punama left their village Bhawana on account of famine conditions and were staying in the field of Raga Jat in village Ranodar under police station, Sanchore along with their cattle and donkeys. On February 24, 1975 the donkeys are said to have been let free by the accused appellants for grazing and about noon time they strayed away and caused damage to the crops in the field of Bher Singh. Thereupon, Jogsingh and Bher Singh collected the donkeys in order to carry them to the cattle pound. Rajiya accused is alleged to have met them...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. R.N. Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)41
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Dr. R.N. Singh Professor of Paediatrics (Umed Hospital) in S.N Medical College Jodhpur has filed this special appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949 against the judgment of Hon'ble single Judge of this Court dated 23rd April, 1981 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 366 of 1980 whereby the judgment of Rajasthan Civil Appellate Tribunal was set aside and the following writ was issued:As the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of the record in holding in its impugned judgment marked Annexure 9 that by appointing the petitioner as Superintendent, the State Government has enhanced her status and thereby adversely affected the right of the con-petitioner No. 3's seniority and varied his service conditions to his detriment in violation of the provisions of Article 14 and Article 16, the writ petition filed by Dr. Chandra Kiran is accepted and the impugned decision of the Tribunal marked Annexure 9 is set aside and the non-petitioner No. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Kalpana Kumbhat Vs. University of Jodhpur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)51
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Petitioner, Mrs. Kalpna Kumbhat, was a student of M. Sc. (Zoology) (Final). She appeared in the examination of M. Sc. (Final) in the year 1980. On July 8, 1980, she was hospitalised on the night intervening 7th & 8th July, 1980, where she delivered a child.2. After her maternity period was over, she moved an application to the University of Jodhpur for permitting her to appear in the practical examination, which she could not give on 8th July, 1980 for the reasons, mentioned above. As the University failed to grant any relief inspite of repeated requests, she has approached this Court for the following relief Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;--(i) The University may be directed to reconvene the practical examination for petitioner and to issue fresh marksheet after adding the marks obtained in the practical examination and to award appropriate merit or(ii) The University may be directed to allow the petitioner to appear in the practical examination in the...
Tag this Judgment!Khwaja Printing and Processors and 6 ors. Vs. the Rajasthan State Indu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN173
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Since common questions of law were inovlved, I have aceepted the joint request of both the parties to hear and decide all these seven cases by a common judgment.2. These are seven writ petitions filed by the industrialists of Pail against the auction of the land by the respondents. The petitioner's case is that in the industrial area of Pali they were allotted various plots, the measurements and specifications of which have been given in the lease-deeds annexed with the writ petitions. According to the petitioners the respondents No. 1 and 2 now want to illegally curtail a strip of ten meters land adjacent to the road which is known as Mandia Road, Pali.3. The petitioners rely upon clause No. 1 of the lease deed in which on the northern side a road has been shown. This road, according to the petitioners is Mandia road. It is contended that the respondents are bound by the boundaries shown in the lease deed clause (1) and they cannot usurp any land between the road and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›