Rajasthan Court November 1982 Judgments
Kailash Meghwal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj182
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J.1. Making Article 38 of the Constitution of India containing the directive principles that the State shall two-mote social order ensuring justice social, economic and political in national life as bedrocks. Shri Kailash Meghwal. M.L.A. of Ajmer alone with two other alleged social workers, Ramesh Chand and Sunil Lunia, has filed this writ petition against Shri Shiv Charan Mathur. Chief Minister of the State and other functionaries of State of Rajasthan alone with Government of Rajasthan.2. The entire pivot of the controversy centres round the alleged shifting of office of Public Health Engineering Department Circle Ajmer to Bhilwara.3. Seemingly the controversy and the debate appear to be having political overtone? because Shri Meghwal is member of Legislative Assembly from Aimer and Shri Mathur represents Bhilwara district. Political controversy has been brought to the judicial forum in the dimensions newly widened by the Apex Court in S.P. Gupta's case, AIR 196...
Tag this Judgment!Brijlal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1511; 1982()WLN785
ORDERKanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Petitioner Brijlal was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh on 17-9-73 for the charge of causing injuries with a gun to complainant Dayaram. In appeal the conviction for that offence was maintained but the sentence of 2V2 years' R. I. was reduced to two years' R.I. The petitioner then preferred revision petition in this Court. By the judgment dt. 22-12-81, this Court partly allowed the revision petition and altered the conviction from Section 307, I. P. C to one under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced the petitioner to the period he had remained in custody, along with sentence of fine.2. During the course of investigation, a gun was recovered from the petitioner and the same was ordered to be confiscated by the trial Court at the conclusion of the trial. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. challenging the order of confiscation...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Madan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)354
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi dated June 6, 1980 acquitting the accused Madansing in respect of an offence under Section 182 I.P.C.2. Madan Singh had filed a First Information Report on May 9, 1976 in the police station, Sirohi to the effect that Shanti Devi along-with one other person unlawfully entered the premises of the complaint and hurled abuses upon h m and threw stones at aim. During investigation, the Station House Officer, Sirohi found that the relations between Shanti Devi and Madansingh were strained and proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P.C. were initiated by Shanti Devi against Madansingh which were ultimately dismissed by die court. The Police officer found on investigation that this much was proved that Shanti Davi while standing at the door hurled abuses at Madansingh and an offence under section 504 I.P.C. was made out against her but there was no reliable evidence to support the the...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)495
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated by Gauri Shanker non-petitioner No. 2 in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Parbatsar on May 29, 1978. The preliminary order was drawn by the learned Magistrate on the same date. On the application filed under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C. by Gauri Shanker ad interim order for the attachment of the property in dispute was passed. Notices were issued to Durga Prasad (petitioner here). He filed the reply and prayed for dropping of the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC and vacating the adinterim order for attachment. Both the parties filed affidavits of a number of persons. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate on bearing the parties and pet using the material on record, concluded that there was imminent danger of breach of peace with regard to the property in dispute. He, therefore, confirmed the ad interim order for attachment dated May 29, 1978 on June 19, 1978 and fixed June 29, 197...
Tag this Judgment!The University of Jodhpur and anr. Vs. Sunil Vyas and 21 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)470
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. All these twenty two appeals have been filed by the University of Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated August 24, 19(sic)2. By the judgment aforesaid, the learned single Judge has held that the amendments made in existing Ordinances 39 to 41 of the University were not made in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 24 of the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and has quashed the aforesaid amendments as well as the notification dated June 29, 1982 issued by the Registrar of the University. The learned single Judge has directed that the various petitioner who had filed the writ petitions challenging the validity of the amendments made in Ordinances Nos. 39 to 41 and the notification dated June 29, 1982 (respondent in these appeals are eligible for admission to the First Year B.E. Degree Course in the Faculty of Engineering of the University and has furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj154
Kasliwal, J.1. In all the above three writ petitions learned single Judge by his order April 11, 1979, has made a reference to a larger Bench under Rule 59 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for an authoritative decision, Learned single Judge formulated the following point:'Whether the consumption of the electricity energy by the petitioner electricity company in its power house and other allied premises and process of equipments for the purpose of generating conversion and/or manufacturing process of electricity for being supplied to the consumers in the city of Ajmer would bring the petitioner within the definition of 'consumer' as contemplated by Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act, 1962.'2. Learned single Judge further observed as it is the principal point on which all these three cases can be broadly decided, all the three writ petitions as a whole are referred to the larger Bench to avoid delay and complicacy of arguments again before this Bench.3....
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal Vs. Mithan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN644
M.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi, dated 23.9. 1982, whereby he allowed the preliminary objection relating the maintainablity of the appeal and dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as 'the Act).'2. A few material facts may by noticed. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed Mst. Dhapu, Ashok Kumar and Mithanlal against the defendant-petitioner in the Court of Munsif, Abu Road, on the grounds of default and reasonable bonafide need. It was alleged in the plaint that the disputed permises, namely the shop, is required for Mst. Dhapu, who will start a small 'kirana' shop A plea was taken in written statement that the shop fell to the share of the plaintiff Mithanlal and Mithanlal is the owner of the shop since 1976. Thereafter, an application for am...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Dutt Sharma Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN642
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Heard Mr. N.N. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondents, and perused the writ petition and reply of the rejoinder and Annexures appended therewith.2. Mr. Mathur, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, Rule 19 (a) provides that in Clause (iii) any autonomus Body created by an Act of State or Central Legislature under the control of the Government (Herein after in this rule referred to 'as Borrowing Authority)' the Borrowing Authority shall have the powers of the Appointing Authority for the purpose of placing him under suspension and of the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of taking a disciplinary proceeding against him. Submission of Mr. Mathur is that the Registrar or the Chief Auditor has no objection to suspend the petitioner in the light of rule 19 (a), referred to above. According to him, only the Bo...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Lal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN751
M.C. Jain, J.1. This petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 13-1-1982 of the Civil Judge, Pali, whereby he condoned the delay in depositing the amount of interest and further set aside the order passed on the applications dated 16-2-1979 and 19-2-1979 presented by the defendant. As a consequence of condation of delay and reversal of the order passed on the above applications, the order dated 16-2-1979 striking out the defence of the defendant, was also set aside.2. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition may, briefly, be stated. The plaintiff Jamnalal instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground of default. On 13-12-l978 the court. determined the provisional rent as well as interest. The provisional rent was determined to the tune of Rs. 357/- and the interest was determined as Rs. 16.07 and the Court directed the defendant to deposit the total amount of Rs. 373.07 by 31-1-1979. The amount of rent to the tune of Rs. 357/- wa...
Tag this Judgment!Moolraj Vs. Gulab Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN588
M.C. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7-7-1982 passed by the Additional Munsif No. 2, Jodhpur, whereby he rejected the petitioner's application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.2. The material facts, which are essential to be noticed for the disposal of the revision petition, are that Mool Raj Vyas, defendant No. 1 in the suit, borrowed loan from the Railway Employees-Co-operative Banking Society Ltd., Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society'), defendant No. 2. The said debt was not discharged fully by defendant No. 1 Moolraj. There upon the debt was recovered from the surety Gulab Singh, who has now instituted a suit for the recovery of the amount against the principal debtor Moolraj Vyas and he also impleaded the Society as defendant No. 1, that is the present petitioner, moved an application under Order 7. Rule 21 C. P.C., in which he raised a ground that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as such a suit before the c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »