Rajasthan Court September 1981 Judgments
Smt. Geeta Bajaj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj48
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constn. of India for issue of appropriate writ, order or direction to the State of Rajasthan, Gyan Devi, Collector, Jaipur and the Improvement Trust Jaipur (respondents 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively), to prevent Gyan Devi from constructing a cinema building on her plot of land, measuring 3012.13 square yards, situate at Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur. The exact relief claimed against each of the respondents will be mentioned a little later in the context of the restatement of the pleadings of the parties which may be given here as follows.2. Gyan Devi purchased two adjoining plots of land measuring 3012.13 square yards in all situate at Moti Doongri Road Jaipur, in Nov. 1970. On Dec. 8, 1970, she made an application under Section 5A, Raiasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Act, No. XXX of 1952, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act for the grant of a 'no objection certificate' for the construction of a cinema on the aforementioned la...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chand Sharma Vs. Rameshwari Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj83; 1981()WLN392
G.M. Lodha, J. 1. These two cross appeals have been filed by either of the spouse against the order of the District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, Camp Gangapur City, dated 5-8-1980.2. Rameshwari is the wife and Umesh Chand is the husband. A decree for dissolution of marriage has already been passed by the District Judge, and confirmed by this Court on the ground that Rameshwari has deserted Umesh Chand and in spite of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, she did not comply with the decree and continued to stay away from the husband.3. The present controversy has arisen in respect of the application of Rameshwari under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of permanent alimony and maintenance. The lower Court has come to the conclusion that Rameshwari is entitled to get permanent alimony and maintenance. She has claimed Rs. 200/- p. m. as per her application. The lower Court has directed that she would get Rs. 125/- p. m. as maintenance from her husband Umesh Chand and t...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Swetamber JaIn Sampraday Vs. Digamber Amnay and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ701; 1981()WLN471
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. A preliminary point has been raised by Mr. N. P. Gupta learned Advocate for the non-petitioners that this revision petition is not maintainable in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. (new). For the disposal of this preliminary objection some facts need to be stated. They are as follows:2. The proceedings Under Section 145, Cr.P.C. (old) which started in the year 1973, were finally decided by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on Jan, 13, 198) and he held that on the date of preliminary order and within two months prior to it, the non-petitioners were in possession of the subject of dispute. The revision petition was filed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. who transferred it for disposal to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. It is given out that another revision petition has also been filed by non-petitioners and that too is pending decision in the court ...
Tag this Judgment!Bansilal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)450
S.C. Agrawal, J.1 This special appeal has been filed against the order dated 7th January, 1980 pass by the Learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 99/78 where by the aforesaid writ petition tiled by the appellant has been dismissed.2. The appellant had joined the service of the Government of Rajasthan on January 1, 1960 as Senior Demonstrator in SMS Medical College Jaipur. While the appellant was working as Senior Demonstrators the Government of Rajasihan issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the posts of Civil Assistant Surgeons. The appellant submitted his application for the aforesaid post of Civil Assistant Surgeon and the selection for appointment on the said port was held by the Rajasthan Piiblie Service Commission. On the basis of the recommendations of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the Government of Rajasthan issued an order dated 19th July, 1963, whereby J23 persons, including the appellant and Dr. G.N. Saxena, respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj NaraIn and anr. Vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj63; 1981()WLN386
G.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a defendants' second appeal in an ejectment suit, which has been decreed by both the courts on the ground of default. The Addl. District Judge (7), Jaipur City, in Civil Appeal No. 83/80 decided on 16-3-81 has upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Munsif (2), Jaipur City on 21-5-80 in Civil Suit No. 276/80. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit on 7-4-77 under Section 13 of the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that the defendant-tenant has not paid the rent from 1-9-76 to 31-3-77. On 14-11-77 the Court determined the rent under Section 13 (3) of the Act for a period from 1-9-76 to 31-10-77, and directed the tenant to pay this amount by 29-11-77. Instead of making payment, the tenant applied for extension of period. Extension was granted up to 30-1-78. 3. On 30-1-78, the tenant paid the rent as determined. He also paid the rent of November and December, 1977 on this date. According to law,...
Tag this Judgment!Pappu Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)284
M.B. Sharma, J.1. Accused appellant Pappu has been convicted by the learned Addititional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh Under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in defult of payment of which he has further to suffer two months rigorous imprisonment.2. In a nutshell the case of the prosecution is this. One Gafoor Khan is the father of Smt. Phoola, PW 1. His field and the field of Taru, father of accused appellant are adjacent to each other in Bhukarka-ki-rohi. Smt. Phoola aged 16 years along with her younger brother Munshi then aged about 12-13 years had gone to her fields for work. She was conducting weeding operations in her field and it is alleged that at 11 A.M. the accused along with three others viz. Ramu, Suresh and Raju came there. The accused appellant is said to have caught hold of Phoola and he and others took her to a room in the fields of accused. It is alleged that Phoola was placed on a cot and the accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Beni Madhava and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1981
Reported in: 1983CriLJ633
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. Both these bail applications filed under Section 439, Cr. P.C. raise common questions for determination, and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order, 2. In Bail Application No. 721 of 1981 the applicants are Beni Madhava, Brijlal, Sobedar and Shivram. On the basis of a report given by one Motilal Of village Beri to Shri Nensingh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, police Station, Weir on July 4, 1981, a case under Sections 438 and 307, I.P.C. was registered. In connection with the aforesaid case the accused-applicants, Beni Madhava. Brijlal and Subedar were arrested on Jan. 19, 1981. Accused-applicant Shivram was arrested on Feb. 20, 1981. They were remanded to judicial custody from time to time by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Weir, By order, dated April 13, 1981 the Judicial Magistrate remanded the accused-applicants to judicial custody till April 27, 1981. In the meanwhile, on April 18, 1981 the S.H.O.P.S. Weir filed the challan against the accused-ap...
Tag this Judgment!Khetsidas and 12 ors. Vs. Mst. Kanchan Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)294
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a redemption suit filed by the respondent No. 1 Shrimati Kanchan Bai against the appellants and others. The mortgage sought to be redeemed was executed on 24-3-1943 for sum of Rs. 2200/-by DaultRam, father-in-law of the plaintiff Smt. Kanchan Bai, in favour of Balabux and Banshidharji of whom the appellants are the hairs. The mortgage property is whole of Talia No 143 and half of Taliano. 144 sjtuatvd in Bhopalganj, Bhilwara. Under the terms of the mortgage deed Ex. A 1, the morgagees were given a right to construct a house on the mortgagee land & the morgagor was only to redeem after payment of the mortgage amount along with cost of construction of the house as per entries in the account books of the mortgagees. On the same day i.e. March 24, 1943 an agreement Ex. A2 was executed by Daulat Ram, the mortgagor in favour of the morgagees on Annas 4 stamp, under which it was agreed that any amount may be spent over contructions on t...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)243
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 6.8.76, by which he has convicted the appellant Ashok Kumar for the offences Under Section 363 and 346 I.P.C and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months on the first count and six months rigorous imprisonment for the second count.2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 1.3.75 Mst. Sukhi (PW 6) had gone to ease herself in the Bada at a distance of about 15 pandas from her house and was enticed away by the appellant Ashok Kumar. Babulal (PW 5), father of the girl had gone to village Khara in connection with his business. Mother of the girl is said to have gone to the temple at 5 A.M. for worship. Babulal's son went to village Khara and informed Babulal about Mst. Sukhi missing from house since morning. Babulal came to the...
Tag this Judgment!Atmadeo Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN584
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. The Petitioner entered the railway service as a clerk on June 10, 1941 in the office of the Chief Traffiic Manager of the erstwhile Jodhpur State Railway. On integration of the railway system he was continued to be employed as a clerk in the Northern Railway and was subsequently promoted as a Head clerk. By an order issued on September 20, 1977 the railway authorities informed the petitioner that he would retire from railway service with effect from June 1, 1974 on attaining the age of 58 years, in terms of Rule 2046 (b) of the Railway Establishment Code, Volume II.2. The petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 2046 (b) of the Railway Establishment Code, Volume II on the ground that it was discriminatory and was violative of the guarantee of equality enshrined in Articles 14, and 16 of the Constitution, as it makes an unreasonable classification between ministerial servants of the railway appointed there after. Learned Counsel placed reliance up...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »