Rajasthan Court November 1982 Judgments
Jugal Kishore Vs. Deonarayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN603
M.C. Jain, J.1. This revision petition arises from the appellate order passed in execution proceedings.2. A decree for eviction of certain premises was passed in favour of the decree-holder Deo Narayan and against the judgment-debtor Jugal Kishore. In execution of that decree, the decree-holder was put into possession of part of the premises on 4.11.1970 and on 9.11.70 the decree-holder moved an application that the judgment-debtor on the night intervening 8th and 9th November, 1970, had removed certain permanent fixtures, including 30 to 40 tin-sheets. He prayed that an inquiry into the removal of fixtures may be made and the judgment-debtor may be bound down not to remove the fixtures. On this application on 10.11.1970 a restraint order was passed by the executing court, whereby the judgment-debtor was directed not to remove any thing, which is permanently fixed in the premises and it was also ordered that if any thing belongs to him, he can remove it only after inquiry. For the rema...
Tag this Judgment!Ratna Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)496
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Ratna appellant was tried for the offence under Section 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur. By the judgement dated July 8, 1982 the appellant was held guilty for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to four years RI Ratna has filed the appeal in this Court against his conviction and sentence through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. Kamla was married to Bhoora younger brother of appellant Ratna. Bhoora was living as 'ghar-jawai' at village Dhebra with his wife at the house of his father-in-law Bhoora (PW 2). On November 1, 1981 at about 4.00 p.m. Smt. Kamla was working at the field of her father. Ratna went there and caused injuries to her. She sustained five incised wounds and became unconscious. Ravji (PW 3), Roopa (PW 6) and Dhanji (PW 7) witnesses were ther nearby. On hearing the cry of Smt. Kamla they rea...
Tag this Judgment!Kishna Ram and anr. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan, ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj169; 1982WLN(UC)515
Main Search Forums Advanced Search DisclaimerCites 7 docs - [View All]Smt Vimla Devi & Ors vs Managing Director Kadarba Bus on 22 October, 2009Ram Rakh Vyas vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 January, 1977Article 141 in The Constitution Of India 1949Shri. Saleh Mohammed vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 3 September, 1980Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949Blog Linkspowered byRajasthan High Court Kishna Ram And Anr. vs State Transport Appellate ... on 23 November, 1982Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 Raj 169, 1982 WLN UC 515Author: G LodhaBench: G LodhaORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. These two writ petitions relate to the grant or refusal of the permit under the provisions of the Rajas-than Motor Vehicles Act by the Regional Transport Authority for a route which admittedly is in Bikaner Division. It is common ground that the routes in both these writ petitions are in Bikaner Division, and the Bikaner Division falls within the jurisdiction of the seat of the High Court at Jodhpur....
Tag this Judgment!Kashiram Vs. Hansraj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj145; 1982()WLN590
M.C. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Hanumangarh dated April 5, 1980, whereby, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable.2. A few facts may be noticed, which have given rise to the present revision petition.3. A decree for ejectment was passed on April 16, 1973 by the learned Munsif, Hanumangarh in favour of the respondent-decree-holder Hansraj and against the petitioner-judgment-debtor Shri Kashiram and appeal was preferred against that decree in which the, parties entered into compromise on Sept. 20, 1973 and it was agreed that the petitioner shall vacate the shop by June 30, 1976.4. According to the petitioner, he had already handed-over the possession of the shop to the decree-holder but the decree-holder has still maintained the execution.4-A. The patitioner's case is that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950 (for short 'the Act1...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Ram Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)391
D.L. Mehta, J.Learned Counsel for both the parties submit that this writ petition may be finally heard and decided at this stage. The prayer is accepted2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the orders Annexures 5 and 6 and played that the impugned orders may be quashed. Vide order Ex. 5 dated 8.6.82 it has been ordered that the petitioner should be reverted to his parent department and in consequence there of the order Ex. 6 has been passed on 15th June, 1982 by the Block Department Officer that the petitioner is being relieved from the forenoon of 15th June, 1982 and he is directed to report to the Commissioner Primary and Secondary Education Department Bikaner. He will pass the posting order. In reply to the writ petition Annexure R1 has been produced and the petitioner has been directed to be posted within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director, Education. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as First Grade Inspector on 9-10-79 and was ...
Tag this Judgment!Hardamsingh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN597
M.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated April 4, 1980 (Ex 2) passed by the Deputy Secretary Revenue (Ceiling), whereby the petitioner's case was ordered to be re-opened under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act').2. The Authorised Officer decided the petitioner's ceiling case by his order dated May 31, 1975 (Ex.1). The petitioner was having 46 Bighas 18 Biswas Nehari land and 13 Bighas 10 Biswas Barani land, total 60 Bighas 8 Biswas. Considering the different intensity of irrigation, the Authorised Officer determined the total irrigated land of the petitioner to be 38 Bighas, and 2 Bighas and 14 Biswas as dry land and in this manner the petitioner was having 40 Bighas 14 Biswas, whereas, his ceiling area comes to 43 Bighas 4 Biswas. As the petitioner was having the land within the ceiling area, he dropped the proceedings. The Deputy Secretary, in his impugned order considering the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Bansidhar and 3 ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)401
D.L. Mehta, J.1. These four writ petitions have been filed by the Railway employees. Learned Counsel for both the parties agree that these writ petitions should be disposed of at the admission stage, as additional submissions are not necessary Since common question of law has been raised in these writ petitions and argued, so these are being decided by one order, as prayed. It would be necessary first to mention the facts from one writ petition in order to appreciate the controversy. In SB Civil Writ petition No. 1809 of of 1981 (Gokul Chand v. The Union of India and Ors.), the petitioner was appointed originally as Substitute Fitter (vide Ex. 1) dated Feburary 28, 1976. Thereafter, he was promoted as Skilled Fitter. The petitioner as well as the other persons, who have filed the writ petitions, were promoted to the post of High Skilled Fitter Grade II (vide Annexure R-l) dated April 1, 1982 In Annexure R-1, it has specifically been mentioned that the petitioner and others who have fai...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)300
M.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated March 23, 1979 passed by the Deputy Secretary Revenue (Ceiling) under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1979 (for short 'the Act').2. The petitioner's ceiling case was dropped by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Ceiling), Sri karanpur on April 3, 1972 against which, the State Government went in appeal and the case was remanded. After the remand of the case, on December 9, 1977 the Sub Divisional Officer again found that the land held by the petitioner is below the ceiling limit, so the proceedings were dropped. The petitioners ceiling case was again decided by the Authorised Officer under the Act. He again dropped the proceedings by his order dated May 16, 1975.3. On April 1, 1966, the petitioner Hariram had four adult sons namely Manirum, Dayaram, Dhanraj and Anand Swroop. A decree for partition was passed on October 6, 1969 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karan pur in sui...
Tag this Judgment!Jailal Kapur Vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)534
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Jialal Kapur, the petitioner, is in employment of Hindustan Zince Limited, Udaipur. He was posted as Chief of Planning and Development (Mines) on February 5, 1973 and his service were terminated on February 6, 1974. The termination of services was challenged by the writ petition but, the writ petition was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn and the special appeal filed was also rejected.2. The petitioner then filed a suit which was decreed by the District Judge, Udaipur, on May 24, 1980. The order of determination was quasded and, ceciared void and, the following order was passed:The suit of the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1 is dismissed but it is, however, decreed against the defendant No.2 and with costs and it is further ordered as follows:(1) The order of termination passed by the defendant no. 2 on 6th February, 1974 was illegal & void and as such, it was ineffective as against the plaintiff.(2) The plaintiff will be deemed to have continued in service ...
Tag this Judgment!Banwarilal Nagpal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN565
M.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition raises a controversy as to whether a person can be compelled to surrender the surplus land out of the land retained by him instead of surrendering the land transferred by him, which is not recognizable in law.2. I may recount a few material facts of the present case giving rise to the controversy that has arisen.3. The petitioner purchased 5 Bighas of land, 4 Bighas being Killas Nos. 22 to 25 in Chak 8 GGR and 1 Bigha being Kills No. 21 in Chak No. 6 GGR from respondent No. 3 Balbirsingb by a registered sale-deed dated April 18, 1972 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/Ceiling proceedings were instituted against the respondent No. 3 Balbirsingh in case No. 783 of 1975. Shri Balbirsingh, respondent No. 3 filed his objection to the draft statement, served on him and in his objection on, inter alia, he stated that he had sold the aforesaid land to the petitioner bonafide and with full consideration. The respondent No. 3 mentioned that he had built a pucca house and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »