Rajasthan Court July 1981 Judgments
Kalicharan and ors. Vs. Principal Dhatri Kalpad Training Centre and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)260
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Plaintiff-petitioners instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that they were wrongly denied admission in the Dhatri Kalpad Training Centre, Sardarsbahar (for short 'the Centre') by non-petitioner No. 1. The petitioners filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 CPC along with the suit praying that they should be allowed to take training at the Centre provisionally. The learned Munsif, Sardarshahar, by his order dated December 23, 1980 directed that arrangements may be made for admitting the petitioners to the Centre according to merits. Aggrieved, the defendants went in appeal and the learned District Judge, Churu, by his order dated January 22,1981 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Munsif. The petitioners have filed this revision petition on February 16, 1981.2. On March 3, 1981, a show cause notice was ordered to be issued to the non-petitioners. In pursuance of that, Mr. A.K. Mathur has appeared on behalf of non...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN223
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi dated 31-4-1980, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 250/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has argued only one point. His contention is that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the offence falls within the purview of Section 304, IPC and not under Section 302, IPC. His contention is that the incident took place at the spur of moment and, that there was no pre-meditation for committing this offence. It has been further contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that he is an old man of 72 years of age and that a lenient view may be taken. It was also contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that the injured did not get medical aid properly and that if the blood could be supplied ...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Sugar Mills Vs. Director of Transport and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)181
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The short question, which arises in this writ petition is as to whether the dumpers used by the Udaipur Cement Works, which constitutes a division of the Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), is taxable as 'motor vehicles' under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951. A Similar question has been decided by me in the case of Birla Jute . v. The Regional Transport Officer & Taxation Officer & Anr. 1980 WLN (UC) 375, and it was held that the dumpers cannot be considered as 'motor vehicles' for the purposes of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 and are not liable to imposition of tax under the said Act, so long as they are used solely within the premises of the petitioner. The aforesaid decision squarely governs this case as wel.2. The case of the petitioner is that four dumpers are used by the Company for the purpose of collection and transportation of stone and other raw materials from the quarry to the crushing plan...
Tag this Judgment!Batliboi and Co. Ltd. Vs. Govind Narayan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj14; 1981()WLN252
Kasliwal, J.1. This Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been filed against the judgment of learned single Judge of this Court, dated 22-1-1981, in Civil First Appeal No. 55 of 1980 upholding the judgment of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated April 26, 1980, in a suit for eviction.2. The appellant is a tenant in certain premises situated in C-Scheme, Jaipur. The premises were taken on rent from one Moti Lal since deceased in his capacity as a Karta of the joint Hindu family, at Rs. 375 per month, from April 1, 1966. The rent was subsequently increased to Rs. 425 per month w. e. f. October 1, 1972. According to the plaintiffs Govind Narayan and Laxmi Narayan sons of late Moti Lal, the premises in question came in their share in pursuance to an oral partition alleged to have taken place on February 22, 1973. The defendant-appellant was informed about the oral partition by a notice dated December 12, 1973 and was asked to pay t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Narendra Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)465
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. By this Special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, the State of Rajasthan has questioned the correctness of the orderdated August 12, 1980, passed by a learned Single Judge of this court, by which he dismissed its petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order (Ex.6) dated May 9, 1979 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. Jaipur (for short the Tribunal), by which it quashed the order of compulsory retirement of respondent No. 1.2. Briefly put the facts leading to this appeal are these : Respondent No. 1, who was the appellant before the Tribunal was initially appointed as Muafi Enquiry Officer on September 18, 1948 in the Settlement Department of the erstwhile Jodhpur State. He was appointed as Naib-Tehsildar in the year 1954. He was promoted to the Rajasthan Administrative Service in the year 1971. Respondent No. 1, continued on this post until the order (Ex-1) dated October 22, 1975 was...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Usman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj100
ORDERDwarka Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner is a contractor and used to purchase scrap materials sold at railway auctions. The Controller of Stores, Northern Railway, New Delhi, published a public notice on Jan. 18, 1967 notifying the sale by public auction of scrap steel rails at Bilara in Jodhpur Division of the Northern Railway, The highest bidder was required to deposit 25% of the sale price on the fall of hammer and to pay the remaining amount to the Chief Cashier and Pay Master, Northern Railway or Divisional Cashier and Pay Master concerned, within seven days from the date of final acceptance of the bid. The petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of one lot of scrap steel rails sold by auction held at Bilara on Jan. 31, 1967, sold for Rs. 60,680/- and he deposited 25% earnest money then and there, on the closure of the auction and also deposited the balance 75% of the sale price within the prescribed period. 2. However, on Apr. 1, 1967 the Divisional Superintendent, NorthernR...
Tag this Judgment!Sudesh Kumar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)190
M.C. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the consolidated seniority list prepared for the Laboratory Assistant (Chemistry) and the Laboratory Assistant (Physics). As a result of the consolidated seniority list he was placed below Shri S.C. Ghosh, Shri S.S. Mariapan and Shri S.C. Gupta, non-petitioners No. 5 to 6, respectively. He has further challenged the promotion of non-petitioners No. 5 and 6 to the post of T.A. Grade II (Chemistry).2. The material facts, as averred by the petitioner, are that he was initially appointed as a Laboratory Assistant on 2-1-1960 by the Director of Geology Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as 'the O.N.G.C. '). Thereafter he was selected by the Department Pro motion Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.P.C.') as a Laboratory Assistant (Chemistry) on 1-3-1967, which post he joined on 2,-7-1967 H effecting promotion lo the post of Technical Assistant, Grade II (Chemistry a consolidated senio...
Tag this Judgment!Shankuntla and 3 ors. Vs. Chairman, Housing Board, Jaipur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN296
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. A short but interesting question calls for determination in these writ petitions. The Rajasthan Housing Board (Hereinafter called the Board) a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal has been established under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Under sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the Act it has been empowered to acquire, hold and dispose of property both movable and tmmovable and to enter into contracts and may by its corporate name sue and be sued and do all things and acts necessary for the purposes of this Act. Under Section 26 the Board is empowered to incur expediture and undertake work in any area in force under the Act for the framing and execution of such housing scheme as it may consider necessary. Under Section 53 the Board may, from time to time, with the previous sanction of the State Government, make regulations consistent with the Act and with any rules made under the Act-(a) ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Chaturbhuj and 20 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN587
M.C. Jain, J.1. The above cases raise a common question as to maintainability of the complaint under Section 182, I.P.C., by the Sub-Inspector when a final report has been accepted by the Magistrate after investigation.2. I may state the facts as stated in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 695 of 1980--The State of Rajasthan v. Chaturbhuj. A report was lodged by Chaturbhuj on 27, 0.1977 at the Police Station, Barlut, on which a case under Sections 420 and 406, I.P.C., was registered and investigation was undertaken. On investigation the case was found to be false, so the S.H.O., Barlut, presented a complaint under Section 182, I.P.C, against the accused Chaturbhuj. During the trial of the accused an application was moved by his counsel on 9.6. 1980, in which a plea was raised that as the final report was accepted by the Court, so the complaint under Section 182, IPC could be lodged only by the Court and the complaint by the S.H.O. was not maintainable. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Singh Parihar and ors. Vs. Priti Parihar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1005
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. As the miscellaneous petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the Criminal revision arise out of the same case, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order.2. The facts necessary to appreciate the points involved in the case are these. Non-petitioner Smt. Priti Parihar was married to the petitioner No. 1 Kailash Singh Parihar. The other petitioners Kan Singh Parihar, Kamla Parihar and Madho Singh Parihar are the father, mother and brother respectively of Kailash Singh Parihar. The petitioner No. 5 Meena is said to be the married wife of Kailash Singh Parihar. It is not disputed that the non-Retitioner Priti Parihar was married t0 Shri Kailash Singh Parihar. Kailash Singh parihar, had filed an application for dissolution of his marriage with the non-petitioner Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The marriage of the non-petitioner with Kailash Singh Parihar was dissolved by a decree of divorce by the lear...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »