Rajasthan Court October 1982 Judgments
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Union of I ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN695
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1880 and petitioner No. 2 is its shareholder, The Company has a number of industrial establishments at various places in India. The Company owns a unit known as M/s. Sriram Rayons, located at Sriram Nagar, Kota which manufactures 'Rayon Tyre Cord Fabric', 'Rayon Tyre Yarn' and 'Rayon Tyre Coud' and auxiliary products, such as Sulphuric Acid, Carbon-di-sulphide, etc.2. The case of the petitioner company is that for the purpose of manufacturing 'Tyre Cord Fabric', ' Tyre Yarn' or 'Tyre Cord', the raw material used is 'Tyre Cord Crade Woodpulp'. The technical know-how of the woodpulp is only with the United States of America. The 'Tyre Cord woodpulp' or any other like product, which could be used in the manufacture of 'Tyre Cord Fabric', is not produced or manufactured in India and the petitioner is a required to import the same.3. The petitioner imports the above noted item, spar...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Singh Vs. Collector, Sriganganagar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)255
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constituion of India, the petitioner, Niranjan singh, who is Up-Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Anupgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat Samiti') has challenged the validity of the 'election of the members of the standing committees of the Panchayat Samiti held on 10th February, 1982 and notified on 11th February, 1982 by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Anupgarh (respondent no. 2).2. The Panchayat Samiti has been constituted under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, it has been provided that every Panchayat Samiti shall constitute four standing committees one for each of the group of subjects mentioned In clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d) of sub Section (1). Provision has also been made for constitution of a fifth standing committee for any of the subjects enumerated in any gr...
Tag this Judgment!The Ganga Nagar Sugar Mill Ltd. Vs. Jetha Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)406
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated December 2, 1981 passed by the Authority under the payment of wages Act, 1936 (here-inaftei referred to as the 'Authority') in case No. PW A/74 of 1980. The case aforesaid arises out of an application filed by 408 employees of Sri Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd, Sri Ganganagar under section 15 of the Payment of wages Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') wherein it has been submitted that the petitioner viz, the Executive Officer, the Ganganagar Sugar Mills 1 td, had failed to make the payment of the wages of the applicants for the period from 15th October 1979 to 4th November, 1979. In the said proceed the petitioner filed an application raising preliminary objections One objection was with regared to the jurisdiction of the Authority to entertain the application and it was submitted that an industrial dispute with regared to the same matter was pending before t...
Tag this Judgment!Peer Bux and anr. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)598
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Upon a complaint filed by the Inspector Factories at Bhilwara, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara tried the petitioners for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter to, be referred as the 'Act') and by the judgment dated August 2, 1976 held them guilty and sentenced them each to a fine of Rs. 200/- (two hundred only) in default to undergo 20 days SI. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The appeal was transferred to the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge. Bhilwara. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara by the judgment dated March 22, 1978 rejected the appeal.2. It is in dissatisfaction with the aforesaid orders that the petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to the trial of the petitioners, the appeal preferred by them and the present revisio...
Tag this Judgment!Baldev Traders Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN687
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. The petitioners, M/s. Baldev Traders and a partner of the firm Baldev Kumar, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Rajasthan Rice Procurement (Levy; Order, 1981.2. The State of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Food) Order published under GSR 360, dated June 9, 1978, and with the prior concurrence of the Central Government made an order vide notification,, dated October 13,l98l, known as the Rajasthan Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1981 (thereinafter referred to as 'the Levy Order). Under the above Levy Order every whole seller is required to sell to the State Government at the procurement price:(a) 50% of the total quantity of the rice held in stock by him at the commencement of this Order:(b) 50% of the total quantity of the rice got milled by him everyday out of stocks of p...
Tag this Judgment!Kauda Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN563
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The accused-petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act (No.XVII of 19 9)(here in after referred to as 'the Act') for having been found in possession of one bottle of liquor on November 24, 1978. After trial, he was convicted under Section 4(2) of the Act and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month, by the Additional Judicial Magistrate. The accused-petitioner lodged an appeal against his conviction and sentence. The learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur by his judgment dated October 5, 1982 confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the accused-petitioner has filed this revision.2. I have heard Mr. D.L. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made one prayer only i.e. that the accused-p...
Tag this Judgment!Juharmal Vs. Kapoor Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj139; 1982()WLN572
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. The objector-appellant has filed this appeal under Order XXI, Rule 58 (4), C. P. C. against the judgment dated Aug. 10, 1982 of the Additional District Judge, Sirohi, by which his ob-jection under Order XXI, Rule 58. C. P. C. was dismissed.2. A few facts may be noticed first. Kapoor Chand was the original decree-holder, who is now represented by his legal representative Smt. Saku Bai, widow of Gandhi Dhanraj and is respondent No. 1. The original decree-holder Kapoor Chand obtained a decree against Ummedmal and Keshri Mal. In execution of the decree, dated Oct. 15, 1973, the house in question was attached on Oct. 21, 1973. The objector-appellant filed objection on Mar. 14, 1975 under Order XXI, Rule 58. C. P. C. as it existed then. The objection was rejected on July 1, 1978 on the ground of unnecessary delay. An appeal was filed in this Court, which was registered as Section B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 89 of 1978. This Court, in view of the concession made by the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kanta Choudhary Vs. Rajendra Choudhary
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN774
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal filed by the appellant Smt. Kanta Choudhary arises out of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant again the respondent Rajendra Choudhary The said petition has been dismissed by the District Judge, Jodhpur by his judgment dated September 23, 19812. The appellant and the respondent were married at Jodhpur on November 7, 1976 according to the Hindu rites. A daughter was born to the appellant on August . 1977. On May 27, 1978 the appellant left the respondent's house and started living with her parents. On June 26, 1978 the appellant filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondent In the said petition the case of the appellant was that after her marriage appellant was ill treated by the parents and the elder brother of the respondent for the reason that the parents of the appellant had not given sufficient dowry and had giv...
Tag this Judgment!Maghar Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)502
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Appellants Maghar Sigh and Bikar Singh @ Amarjeet Singh were tried for the offences under Sections 307, 326 and 324 read with 4 I PC. by the Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar. By the judgment dated February 9, 1982 accused Bikar Singh @ Amarjeet Singh was convicted for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and Maghar Singh for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and Maghar Singh for the offence under Section 326 read with 34 I.P.C. and both of them were sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment each. By the same judgment Maghar Singh was held guilty for offence under Section 324 and Bikar Singh for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment each with an order that the substantive sentences awarded to both the appellants shall run concurrently.2. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Datt and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)549
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This revision petition raises the question of law, as to whether in a case where on the First lnformation Report lodged for the incident a case is registered by the police and subsequent to that a complaint is filed in the Court, can the Court proceed with the complaint without receiving the report regarding the proceedings taken on the First Information Report, filed with the police.2. On September 1, 1977 First Information Report regarding the beating giving to one Banwari was filed at Police Station Rajgarh against the petitioners. A case under Sections 307, 365, 342, 148 Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act was found to have been committed and efforts for arresting the accused were also made. Petitioner Mozi Ram is said to have been arrested. About nine months passed in the investigation but the police did not put the conclusion of the investigation before the Court. As the police did not proceed further with matter for a long time, Banwari complainnat fel...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›