Rajasthan Court February 1982 Judgments
Panna Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1982
Reported in: 1986(23)ELT103(Raj); 1982()WLN28
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. The facts leading to this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 are that on 30th May, 1974, in pursuance of an information, the Central Excise and Customs Preventive party checked Delux Bus No. RRL 294 going from Ajmer to Jodhpur at the octroi post, Ajmer-Beawar Road, Ajmer. The petitioner was travelling in the said bus and was spotted out. He was alighted from the bus and was searched in the presence of two independent withnesses which resulted into recovery of 9 pieces of primary gold weighing 463.430 Grams from the left pocket of pant of the petitioner. The details of the 9 pieces recovered from the petitioner are given as below :------------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Marking on the pieces Number of pieces-----------------------------------------------------------------------1. Hiranand MM JPR 9950 4 (two big and two small)2. M.C. Jain Ajmer fine gold 13. F...
Tag this Judgment!JahurdIn Vs. Modaram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)164
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for compensation decree by both the courts below. The plaintiff-respondent Modaram filed a suit against the defendant - appellant on the allegation that the defendant was running an oil factory and flour mill known as the Rajasthan Oil & Flour Mills at Nokha. The plaintiff was an employee in the service of the defendant and use to take oil cakes from the machine. No safety measures had been introduced by the defendant in the factory, as a result of which the plaintiff lost his right hand on March 8, 1966 while working in the factory during the course of employment. The plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs. 8,000/- by way of compensation. The case of the defendant was that though he was running the Rajasthan Oil Flour Mills at Nokha but the plaintiff was not in his service and (he plaintiff did not receive any injury in his Mill. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following iss...
Tag this Judgment!Dal Chand Vs. Satish Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj23
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is a defendant's revision against the order dated Jan. 15, 1977 of the Civil Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Civil Judge has ordered for striking out para 3 and para 2 of the additional pleas of the written statement It may be stated that the learned Civil Judge dismissed theplaintiff-non-petitioner's application under Order VIII, Rule 9, C. P. C. and allowed the application under Order VI, Rule 16. C.P.C. The plaintiff has not challenged the order dismissing his application under Order VIII, Rule 9, C. P. C. The defendant has challenged that part of the order dated Jan. 15, 1977, by which the application of the plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 16, C. P. C. was allowed.2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner instituted a suit for Rs. 6,000/- against the defendant-petitioner on the basis of a promissory note dated Mar. 13. 1963. The defendant contested the suit denying the execution of the pronote after borrowing Rs. 3,000/-. In para 3 of the written statement...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Chand Vs. Satish Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN54
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is a defendant's revision against the order dated January 15, 1977 of the Civil Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Civil Judge has ordered for striking out para 3 and para 2 of the additional pleas of the written statement. It may be stated that the learned Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiff-non petitioner's application under Order VIII, Rule 9, C.P.C. and allowed the application under Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C. The plaintiff has not challenged the order dismissing his application under Order VIII, Rule 9, C.P.C. The defendant has challenged that part of the order dated January 15, 1977, by which the application of the plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C. was allowed.2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner instituted a suit for Rs. 6,000/- against the defendant-petitioner on the basis of a promissory note dated March 13, 1963. The defendant contested the suit denying the execution of the pronote after borrowing Rs. 3000/-. In para 3 of the written statement, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›