Rajasthan Court September 1981 Judgments
Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. Kishanlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)304
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal by mother of' the minor Om Prakash under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act (No. viii of 1890) (for short 'the Act') against the order dated September 4, 1979 of the District Judge, Jodhpur by which he accepted the father's petition Under Section 25 of the Act.2. The respondent will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and the appellant as the non-petitioner.3. The petitioner was married with the non-petitioner and out of this wedlock a son was born on December 1, 1969. The relations between the petitioner and the non-petitioner became strained when the son Om Prakash was of less than 5 years of age. According to the petitioner, the non-petitioner left the matrimonial home on September 10, 1974 along with the minor son Om Prakash. A notice is said to have been issued on March 24, 1976, by the petitioner for handing over the custody of the minor son Om Prakash but that notice was refused by the non-petitioner. The petitioner filed the...
Tag this Judgment!Pokar Chand Jeevraj and 11 ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN561
M.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are wholesale dealers in wheat. The State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, issued Notification Ex. I dated 23-5-1931 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-clause (ii) of Cause 18 of the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Central) Order, 1930 (here in after referred to as 'the 1980 Order') fixing the maximum limit of 200 quintals of wheat to be possessed by a dealer at any one time. The notification came into force with effect from 27th May, 1981. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the aforesaid notification of the State Government inter-alia on the ground that the time given for reducing the stock of wheat upto 200 quintals by 26th of May, 1981, was highly unjust, unreasonable and insufficient. The petitioners' case is that inspite of best of efforts on their part, it was not possible for them to dispose of their existing stocks within the time given to the petitioners under t...
Tag this Judgment!Panchayat Samiti Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)435
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. In this writ petition, it was contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Udaipur committed an error in passing an ex-parte award against the petitioner without supplying a copy of the claim petition to him along with the notice of the date of hearing.2. The undisputed facts are that the respondent Partap Singh was employed as a tractor driver in the Panchayat Samiti, Shahpwra on daily wages. It is also admitted that the Panchayat Samiti was carrying on agricultural operations in the chunk of land used for the implementation of the 'Grow More Food' Scheme. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid scheme was discontinued and as such the Panchayat Samiti did no longer require the services of Partap Singh and terminated his services with effect from April 1, 1977 by the order of the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti, Shapura dated March 27, 1977. An industrial dispute was raised by the e...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendrasingh Vs. R.T.A. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj97
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner holds a non-temporary stage carriage permit over the route Hanumangarh Town-Hanumangarh Junction Municipal Area City Bus route validly renewed up to 19-1-1984. The Member of the Regional Transport Authority issued a notification dated May 15, 1981, whereby, the applications were invited for the grant of contract carriage permits up to 5-6-1981. The applications were required to be presented to the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority. The applications were to be considered on 8-6-1981 at 11 a. m. by the Member of the Regional Transport Authority. It may be stated that the petitioner did not hold any contract carriage permit.3. Mr. J. G. Chhangani, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 11 raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the petition by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to raise any objection against the grant of contract carriage permits and as...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Vs. Neni Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)317
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This special appeal has been filed the .appellant Hanuman against the order dated October 14, 1971, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1709 of 1969. By the order aforesaid, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by Lachhaman and quashed the order dated June 4,1969, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Sri Ganganagar and the order dated September 22,1969, passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar.2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition aforesaid are briefly as under. Appellant Hanuman owns field in Square No. 44 in Chak No. 39, Tehsil Padampur, whereas Lachhman was holding land in, Squares No. 42 & 43. Irrigation to the fields of Hanuman as well as Lachhman was done by Shri Gang Canal through the water course which was running from stone No. 67/235 to stone No. 69/235 and then to stone No. 69/234. Hanuman submitted an application before the Executive Engineer Sri Gang Canal Sourthern Division Sri Ganganagar, for ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC364(Raj)
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 10th April, 1970.2. This case has a chequered history. The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No. 2 is the proprietor of M/s. Daulat Oil Mills, Jaipur. This concern was said to be a partnership concern and was dealing in the business of manufacture and sale of oil and oilcakes. The Commercial Taxes Officer issued a notice to the assessee-partnership firm, M/s. Daulat Oil Mills, under Section 10(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for the accounting period 8th November, 1965, to 15th October, 1966. In response to the notice, on behalf-of the firm, it was contended that the partnership firm has been dissolved and, as such, the notice may be issued to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 was assessed to tax under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and an additional demand for a sum of Rs. 21,957.72 was created against respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!Suneeta Vs. University of Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)275
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This special appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949 against the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed summarily on the ground that it was premature.2. The University of Jodhdur (hereinafter referred to as the University) had advertised certain posts of lecturers in the Department of Political Science. The appellant as well as Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 had applied for the said posts in pursuance of the said advertisement. Selection for the post of lecturers in, the University has to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). Section 4 of the Act provides for the constitution of a selection committee and Under Section 5 it is laid down that the recommendations of the selection committee shall be considered by the Syndicate of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›