Rajasthan Court August 1981 Judgments
Surendra Pratap Vs. S.T.A.T.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)248
D.P. Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. These three writ petitions are directed against the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal), dated April 3, 1974. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, by its resolution dated 4/5th December, 1970 granted nine fresh non-temporary stage carriage permits on Bhilwara Deoli via Banera Shahpura, Jahazpur route. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called 'The Tribunal') by its order dated April 3, 1974, allowed three appeals filed by the Rajasthan Transport Service, Prop. Sardar Mai Dasot Ram Swaroop and Nitya Nand and granted them one permit each in place of the petitioners Ratan Lai Tambi, Mohammed Sharif and Shriram Daruka.2. In respect of Ratan Lai Tambi, the Tribunal gave two reasons for cancelling the permit granted to him by the State Transport Authority namely that :--(1) he had no experience of transport business (2) that he was a Pradhan and his main concern was politics ...
Tag this Judgment!United Pictures Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN397
M.L. Shrimal J.1. These two writ petitions Nos. 1217 of 1981 and 1210 of 1981, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by M/s United Pictures and M/s T. Naveen Pictures respectively involve common questions of law and facts. They are, therefore, disposed of by a common judgment.2. Writ petition No. 1217 of 1981 relates to the film 'Bin Maa ke Bache' and the writ petition No. 1210/81 appertains to the film 'Kranti'. M/s K.S. Enterprises, Motion Picture Producers, Bombay producer of the film 'Bin Maa ke Bache' move an application to the Government of Rajasthan for exemption of the exclusion of the film from payment of entertainment tax under the provisions of Section 7 of the Rajasthan Entertainment (Advertisement) Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1957). The Government, after considering the Material placed before it, vide order dated 25th February, 1981 (Annexure 7), granted exemption from payment of entertainment tax along with additional entertainment...
Tag this Judgment!Mithoolal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)443
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1 By this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, the petitioner-appellant has questioned the correctness of the order dated July 30, 1971 of a Learned Single Judge of this Court, by which, he declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed it summarily. The facts leading to this appeal any briefly be noticed.2. The petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') held the past of Agriculture Extension Officer in the Agriculture Department. While holding that post, he was sent on deputation to the Development Department as Vikas Adhikari. By order (Ex. 12) dated April 2, 1971 of the State Government, he was transferred as Vikas Adhikari, Ahore, with immediate effect. He did not join that post. Subsequently, by order (Ex. 17) dated Jone 15, 1971 in supersession of the order (Ex. 12) dated April 2, 1971, the petitioner was revarted to the Agriculture Department with immediate effe...
Tag this Judgment!Parmanand and anr. Vs. Ramswaroop and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)258
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 28, 1970 of the learned Additional District Judge Shri Ganganagar under which he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that it is abated.2. Vishvanath and Laxmi Narain filed a suit against the appellant in the court of learned Civil Judge Hanumangarh, in the suit For a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were jointly owners of the suit property and that the sale deed in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 Parmanand and Kewal Ram by Nathu Ram defendant No. 1 does not affect the rights of the plaintiff was claimed. After the trial the learned Civil Judge, Hanumangarh under judgment and decree dated March 30, 1966 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for both the reliefs. An appeal was filed and when the appeal was pending in the court of District Judge, Ganganagar Vishna Nath one of the plaintiff respondent died on July 21, 1966. An application under Order 22 Rule 4.C.P.C. for bringing t...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Daljit Kaur Vs. Balwant Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)230
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This is a wife's appeal Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the judgment dated October 31, 1979, of the learned District Judge, Ganganagar under which he allowed the application Under Section 13 of the Act of the Respondent Balwantsingh filed by him against the appellant.2. The marriage of the appellant with the Respondent Balwant singh took place on Fagun Samvat 2021 in accordance with Sikh religion. After the marriage both lived together at Chak No. 172 at the house of the Respondent, but some time in the month of September, 1965, the appellant is said to have left the respondent and went to the house of her parents and did not return. A petition Under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the respondent against the appellant and that miscellaneous petition No. 7 of 1968 was later on compromised and the appellant started living with the Respondent.3. The Respondent filed an appli...
Tag this Judgment!Sua Son of Bhura and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)234
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Sua and four others have filed this bail application Under Section 438, Cr.P.C. They apprehend that they will be arrested in Case No. 28/81 dated 20.6.81 lodged at P.S. Roopangarh for an offence Under Section 302, I.P.C. The offence relates to murder of one Rameshwar, whose dead body was found near the field. Though the case was registered on 20.6.81, it was argued by Mr. Shrimal, that no evidence whatsoever has been recorded against these accused, and even that police under the pressure of the complainant party wants to arrest these persons.2. The learned P.P. could not controvert the allegation that there was no evidence against these persons, but submitted that the police is not going to arrest these persons till any reliable evidence comes on the record. It was also pointed out that so far only a few witnesses have said that some days before this incident, Hanuman had a quarrel with Rameshwar deceased and they had threatened Rameshwar that he would be murdered. Acc...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Chand Vs. Raghuvirnath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)237
Mahendra Bhusan Sharma, J.1. The suit premises are situated in Dhan Mandi Ganga-nagar and the respondent filed a suit against the appellant in the court of Civil Judge, Ganganagar on May 17,1978 and one of the grounds set out in the suit was that the appellant has neither paid nor tendered rent due for six months before the filing of the suit and as such was liable to be evicted. So far as the allegations seeking eviction of the appellant from the suit premises, with ragard to non-payment of rent are concerned, they were that the rent for the period from April 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978, 13 months @ Rs. 2500/- per year, amounting to Rs. 2708.33 was due and has neither been paid nor tendered. After the written statement had been filed, in with a plea was raised that the suit on the ground of default was without any basis and was wrong, the learned trial court under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!Lucky Minmate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN316
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal from a judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jaipur City, made on September 19, 1980, whereby that learned Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.2. The suit which was dismissed at aforesaid was brought by Lucky Minmate Private Ltd., brought through its Managing Director, Vishnu Kumar Modi (hereafter called the plaintiff) against the State of Rajasthan (hereafter called the defendant) for a declaration to the effect that notice dated, March 4, 1978, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff is illegal and void, and for a prepetual injunction restraining the defendant from realising from the plaintiff any amount by way of prospecting charges and from cancelling the mining lease granted to the plaintiff earlier.3. The facts about which there is no dispute between the parties may be stated like this. On June 5,1976, the defendant granted a mining lease for lime-stone and marble near village Rampura, Tehsil Neem ka Thana, District Si...
Tag this Judgment!Dayal Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1008; 1981()WLN430
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision Under Section 397/ 401, Cr.P.C. by the surety Dayalchand is directed against the order dated July 30, 1981 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by which, he maintained the order dated August 27, 1980 of the Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar.2. A few facts leading to this revision petition may briefly be stated;In Criminal Case No. 86 of 1979, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar was trying the accused Amuntullah for the offence Under Section 3/6 of the Passport Act (No. XV of 1967) and Section 3/14 of the Foreigners Act (No. XXXI of 1946). He was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing two surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 5000/-each. Petitioner Dayalchand and one had Prakash furnished personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. The accused failed to appear in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. Thereupon, the learned Judicial Magistrate, forfeited the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Dave Vs. the State of Rajasthan and the Rpsc
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN244
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This cases raises an important question about the interpretation of rule 15 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Combined Competitive Examination by Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1962.2. Ashok Dave, the petitioner appeared in these examinations conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and was declared successful having obtained 136 position in the list, called the merit list, published by the Public Service Commission on 20-8-80 in the Rajasthan Raj-patra Dated 9-10-80 (Part VII) pages 328, 329 & 330. The caption of the list is as under:Rajasthan Rajya Sevayen Sanyukt Prityogi Pariksha, 1979. S. No. Roll No. Merit List. X X X X 136 5571 (Prov) '.3. It is not in dispute that the roll No. of the petitioner was 5571. In all 316 candidates were included in the merit list. Since the petitioner's number was at Section No. 136, he was above more than half of the candidates. Even then, he was not appointed in the service.4. It was revealed that inspite of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »