Rajasthan Court February 1982 Judgments
Yatayat Nigam, Udaipur Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj17; 1982()WLN273
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This appeal was allowed after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on Feb. 25, 1982 mentioning that the reasons will be record-ed later on.2. I proceed to record the reasons.3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated Sept. 22, 1970 of the District Judge, Partabgarh, by which he maintained the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.4. Initially, the averments may briefly be summarised. The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit against the defendant-respondent Union of India (the owner of the Western Railway Administration) for damages amounting to Rupees 9994.27. The plaintiff owns a passengers Bus No. RlY 1848, This Bus was plied on Bhilwara-Chittorgarh road-It was alleged that, near Medikheda village, the road crosses railway track. In other words, at that place, there is a public level crossing. The road is 'S' like bend near the public level crossing. i.e., coming from, towards Bhilwara up to Medikheda, the road runs along...
Tag this Judgment!Administrator, Municipal Board Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1398; 1982()WLN98
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a criminal appeal under Section 378(4), Cr. P.C. against the order of acquittal passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Gangapur City, dated the 31st Jan., 1976, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The facts as alleged by the complainant are as under:On 6-5-1974 the Food Inspector of the appellant-Board took sample of milk from the hotel of the respondent-accused and after preparing the necessary documents, sent the sample to the Chief Public Analyst, Rajasthan and according to the report of the Chief Public Analyst, the sample was adulterated as there was 33% added water.3. After receipt of the report, the complaint was filed by the appellant who is a public servant against the respondent, The respondent pleaded that the milk was not meant for sale as milk, but was kept in the hotel for preparation of tea only.4. During the course of the trial, the Food Inspect...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Taj Mohd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN231
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhunjhunu dated the 31st October, 1974, by which the trial Magistrate acquitted the accused respondents, namely Taj Mohd. and Yasin, under Section 56(a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.2. The facts of the case as narrated by the appellant in the memorandom of appeal and reiterated during the argument are as under:3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Vishser Singh Gram Panchayat, Jasarapur, Dev Road, Incharge out post Sarhad sent a report on 29th March, 1970 to the effect that the accused Taj Mohd s/o Ahmed Bux resident of Gram Jasarapur and another accused Yasin s/o Jumerdi Khan s/o Jasarpur P.S. Khetari are selling liquor illegally and these are dealing in illicit liquor that the liquor is loaded in their jeep. It was further stated there in that there is no contract for selling liquor for the said village. On this information Bhagwan Singh Head Constable Incharge ou...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Dayal Kureel Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN407
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment dated December 11, 1981 of the learned Single Judge dismissing S.B. Civil writ Petition No. 1694 of 1981, whereby the appellant challenged order No. L (G) 838/35 dated October 31, 1981, whereby he was transferred from the post of Assistant Personnel Officer, Jaipur to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer, Baroda on the vacant post.2. The facts giving rise to this special appeal are that the appellant belongs to the Scheduled Caste and had received quick promotions under the roster system introduced by the Government. As such he incurred the disple asure of the officers belonging to the general category and they started harassing him. The appellant belongs to Kota Division. He was promoted as Assistant Personnel Officer in the scale of Rs. 650-1200 vide order dated October 1, 1975 and was transferred from Kota and posted are Assistant Personnel Officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Deepla Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)170
M.C. Jain, J.1. The appellant stands convicted of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated April 27, 1976.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was serving the deceased Bakshis Singh on a salary of Rs. 1200/- per year, on 18. 12. 74 one Ramnath Bagwan (P.W. 4) came to the deceased Bakshis Singh and told him that the appellant Deepla had stolen 'Maltas' from the garden which he had taken on lease from Gyansingh on the night intervening Friday and Saturday. The deceased asked the appellant about it First the appellant refused but then he confessed the fact of theft of 'maltas. There upon it is said that the deceased asked the appellant either to seek apology from Ramnath Bagwan or to pay compensation to him. Thereafter the son of the deceased, namely Gurmitsingh and the appellant went to the field situated at Chak 65 G. B. Bakshis Singh came to the field at no...
Tag this Judgment!Mathuralal and anr. Vs. Mandattsingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)173
M.C. Jain, J.1. The above two writ petitions arise out of the common facts. It will be proper to dispose of them together by a common order, so they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The name of Mandattasingh was entered in the electoral roll of village Banjariya, panchayat Pardi, which was prepared for election of the panchayat in the year 1981. The electoral roll was published on October 16, 1981 and objections were invited under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules'). One Jaloo filed an objection to the inclusion of the name of Mandattasingh in the electoral roll of village Banjariya of Gram Panchayat Pardi on the ground that he was not ordinary resident of that village. Along with the objections, Shri Jaloo submitted documents showing that Shri Mandattasingh is a resident of Deogarh town only. Mathuralal also filed an objection to the inclusion of the name of Mandattasingh in the voters list of Pardi, Ward No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Vali Mohd. and ors. Vs. Mst. Vahidan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN381
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This civil second appeal is directed against the judgment & decree passed by the Senior Civil & Assistant Sessions Judge Jaipur District, Jaipur confirming the judgment & decree passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur in a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction.2. Mst. Vahidan and Sakuran, the plaintiffs-respondents, daughters of Kadar bux filed the suit on the allegation that their share in the property mentioned in para 1 of the plaint was gifted orally to them by their father Kadarbux about 14 years prior to the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs in pursuance to this gift took possession of the property. Now, defendants-appellants want to dispossess the plaintiffs from their possession. The gift was denied by the defendants. The case of the defendants was that Kadarbux had left for Pakistan and could not have gifted the property. The possession of the plaintiffs over one 'Tibara' and 'Sal' was alleged to be illegal having been...
Tag this Judgment!Kuberiya Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)98
M.C. Jain J.1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., by the Sessions Judge, Banswara, by his judgment dated 19.11.1975, and has been awarded sentence of imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Kalu and the accused Kuberiya, along with the witness Homiya (P.W.), were the Chowidars at the Dynamite Magzine (Mahi Dam ) On the night of 9th May, 1975, Homiya (P.W.5) and the appellant Kuberiya were on duty and in the day there was the duty of Kalu. The timings of the duty, as given out by P.W.5 Homiya, were that day duty the was from 8.00, a.m., to 5.00, p.m. and the night duty was from 5.00, p.m. to 8.00, a.m. On the night of occurrence Kuberiya came on duty at about 8.00, p.m. after three hours of the commencement of the duty, which was objected to by Kalu deceased. The deceased Kalu told the accused that he had been amending his duty habitually late Kuberiya said that he would be proceeding to take his meal. It was al...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)115
1. The learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara has convicted the accused appellant Panna under Section 302 I.P.C. and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Panna and Saman-der had a common well in village Mandalgarh. A few days prior to the occurrence which is said to have been taken place on May 22, 1975, deceased Samander and the accused had quarrelled over some matter. On the day of the incident Ladu P.W. 2 who is the real brother of deceased Samander saw that Samander deceased and the accused were on the well. After about an hour he heard that Samander is lying dead. A report was lodged in the police station by one Geesa P.W. 3 but the name of the accused was not mentioned therein because having come to know that Samander was lying injured, Geesa immediately went to the police station. The accused was suspected of having committed the offence and was arrested His clothes were found to be blood stained and were seized and seal...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Surjali Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)43
1. Appellant Mst. Surjali Stands convicted for the offence under sections 302 and 309 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first count and simple imprisonment for one year on the second count. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta by his judgment dated January 7, 1976.2. In a nut shell the prosecution case is that the accused Mst. Surjali was married to one Laxman P.W.3. She was married some 12 years ago. There were two off springs out of the wedlock, one daughter Bhanudi aged about 6 years and a son Jhuman aged about one year. On June 27, 1975 when Laxman returned to his house, he found his son Jhuman weeping. There upon he asked his wife as to why his son is weeping, she started abusing him. He inflicted two or three blows on her. On the next morning he awakened Her at about 6 am. and asked her to take care of the children but she did not care. There after breakfast was given by him to the children and h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »