Rajasthan Court November 1982 Judgments
Prabhu Dayal Vs. Rta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)309
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Asind-Vijayanagar via Parasoli, Shimbhugarh, Antoli, Gulabpur (here in after referred to as the 'route') is an 'A' Class route having a length of 54 kilometers. It is over lapped by the notified scheme for Aimer-Udaipur route upto a distance of 4 kilometers from Vijayanagar to Gulabpura Chauraya. The said scheme has been implemented in the year 1975 Rest of the route is being over lapped by a draft scheme published under Section 68 C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the Asind-Vijaynagar via Parasoli Shimbugarh Antoli etc. duly published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated July 26, 1976. Prabhu Dayal, the petitioner in this writ petition is an existing operator on the route and holds a non-temporary permit valid upto December 5, 1982 subject to the incidence of nationalisation. The scope for the route was five See carriages to perform 5 return services. By resolution (Anx. P. 10) dated July 8/9, 1982 the Regional Transport Authori...
Tag this Judgment!Nandlal Vs. Abdul Sattar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)317
M.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Additional Munsif No. 2, Jodhpur, dated March 16, 1982, whereby issue No. 2 relating to jurisdiction, has been decided in favour of the plaintiff.2. Issue No. 2 was to the effect that whether the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit in view of the provision contained in Section 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The learned Additional Munsif proceeded to decide the issue on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this issue could not and should not have been decided as a preliminary issue without recording the evidence of the parties. As per the pleadings of the defendant No. 1 the money was advanced and was taken by him in different capacities. In what capacity the money was advanced and in what capacity the money was taken by the defendant are the questions of fact and without determining these questions of f...
Tag this Judgment!Karan Singh and 2 ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)286
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. These three writ petitions raise common questions for determination and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. The petitioners in these writ petitions were employees of the Northern Railway at Jodhpur. Karan Singh (petitioner in S B, civil writ petition No. 1888/81) was employed as Driver Grade C and on February 2. 1981, he had put in 26 years of service. Lekh Raj and Dewa Ram (petitioners in writ petitions no. 1889/81 and 1890/81) were employed as shunters and on February 2, 1981, they had put in 23 and 26 years service respectively. All the three petitioners were posted at the Loco Running Shed, Jodhpur, With a view to press their demands with regard to the amentioneration of their conditions of service certain workmen employed at the Loco Running Sheds of the Indian Railways commenced an agitation in the last week of January and first week of February, 1981. During the course of the aforesaid agitation, about 305 out of 908 employees employed at...
Tag this Judgment!Deo Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)324
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Petitioner Deo Narayan has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on July 11, 1974 for quashing the order Ex. 3 dated March 11, 1974 of his compulsory retirement and has also prayed for other consequential reliefs.2. The relevant facts may be noticed: The District and Sessions Judge, Pali, by his order (Ex. 3) dated March 11, 1974, under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules (for short 'the Rules' herein) passed the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner as the petitioner had completed 25 years of qualifying service A bank draft of Rs. 1740/- being three months, pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice was also sent along with the order. It has been stated by the petitioner that his service record was quite clean except for the fact that by order doted November 25, 1947, a fine of Rs 5/- was imposed by the Chief Justice, Chief Court, Jodhpur on the grounds that his work was found 'to be very unsatisfactory' ...
Tag this Judgment!Yaqoob Ali Vs. Firm Haji Taj Khanji Ibrahimji, Udaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1982
Reported in: AIR1984Raj1; 1982()WLN666
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is a joint reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court in the two revisions involving somewhat similar questions, as according to him there are conflicting decisions of the learned Judges of this Court relating to the provisions of Order XVI, Rule 1, C. P. C. as amended by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act (No. 104 of 1976) (for short 'the Amendment Act'), which came into force from Feb. 1, 1977.2. We will notice the facts giving rise to S. B. Civil Revision No. 49 of 1979, Yaqoob Ali v. Firm Taj Khan Ibrahim. as S. B. Civil Revision No. 289 of 1979, Heeralal v. Pyarelal was disposed of by a Division Bench onJanuary 8, 1982 on account of the concession made, it was not considered proper to decide it on merits. S. B. Civil Revision No. 48 of 1979.3. The plaintiffs-non-petitioners filed a suit again the defendant-petitioner for specific performance of contract, damages etc. The suit was contested on various grounds by the defendant. Issues wer...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN600
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated December 28, 1976 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Jodhpur Criminal Case No. 23 of 1975 under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (here in after referred to as 'the Act').2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 26/27-8-1974, Head Rakshak Shri Raghubirsingh and Rakashak Devaram, while on round saw one person dropping coal from the Railway wagon and they further saw the other person, collecting and filling it in bags. Both of them concealed themselves and apprehended the accused-persons namely; Jagdish and Bheekamchand in the presence of Hardev. The Head Rakshak Shri Raghubirsingh prepared the recovery Memos Ex. P/3 & Ex P/6 and, the arrest memos Ex P/4 and Ex P/5 and also made an entry in the diary Ex.P/8. On finding that a case under Section 3 of the Act was made out against them, he recorded in the daily diary Ex. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhagan Lal Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN512
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Pretective umbrella for preventing, punitive punishment under Prevention of Food-Adulteration Act, by plea of food stuffy meant for animals, whether genuine or result of inguenuity of human intelligence to exploit animals and human-being together, is the pivot of legal debate in these two criminal prosecutions.2. Prevention of prosecutions and implementation & enforcement of Prevention of Food-Adultreation Act by vested interests, who do trafficing in human life for minting money, whether should be prevented by exploding such defences of ingenuity, trickery, is another fact of the present prosecutions, where the same petitioner is facing three prosecutions, for adulterating in three different varieties of food stuffs, on the same shop, as alleged by Mr. Tibrewal.3, Whether man who is termed as 'most intelligent animal' by some philosophers, should be allowed to exploit animals silence and helplessness of non-contesting, non-protesting and non-speaking, by taking, defen...
Tag this Judgment!Amir Ahmed and anr. Vs. Usuf
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)292
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the respondent for eviction of the appellant from the premises consisting of half portion of the 'Barsali' and kitchen, latrine, bath room, chowk and chabutra on the ground floor and a room and 'Delana' on the first floor. In the said suit the respondent sought eviction of the appellant on three grounds, ramely, (i) default in payment of rent: (ii) causing damage to the premises, and (iii) sub-letting the half portion of the 'Barsali' by the appellant to one Ramzan without the consent of the land lord. The Munsif, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur, by his judgment and decree dated May 15, 1980, decreed the said suit of the respondent and passed a decree for eviction on the ground that the appellant had sublet a part of the premises, namely, half portion of the 'Barsali' to Ramzan without the consent of the respondent. The said decree passed by the Munsiff has been affirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Jodhpur, b...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Dhapi and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)568
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The appellants Mst. Dhapi and Manphoolram have filed this appeal and it has been placed before me on difference of opinion between G.M Lodha, J. and M.C. Jain, J. hearing the appeal in Division Bench. The learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by his judgment dated November 6, 1979, convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 302, IPC and they were sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fin(sic), to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and also convicted them under Section 201/-, IPC and were sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer six month's rigorous imprisonment Both the convicts appellants appealed and the appeal was heard by a Division Bench consisting of G.M. Lodha, J. and M.C. Jain, J. G.M. Lodha, J., has come to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellants under Section 30, IPC and also under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Gram Panchayat, Village Mahawa Vs. the Advisory Committee and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj71
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. Seemingly battle against nepotism, favouritism and deprivation of landless from distribution of surplus land under ceiling laws, whether genuine or crocodile tears and trickery to retain possession by landowners, is the pivot of real debate in this petition.2. Hardly the ink of Hon'ble Justice Shrimal's pen has dried in penning the monograph on 'Land Reforms', in which he made Government Advocates tall claim of distribution of this land to landless, the alleged third innings of this Land-owners v. Landless litigation was on the 'docket' and board of this Court, by the present writ having been filed on 19th July, 1982. Whether it is 'old wine in new bottle,' is a serious question for judicial adjudication.3. The above author of 'Land Reforms Monograph' has observed as under:--'Transfer of land made by land-holders having excess land than that of the ceiling limit prescribed under the law does not create any right in favour of the transferees and the plea of bona fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »