Rajasthan Court March 1982 Judgments
Gaj Raj Vs. Estate Officer (Divisional Superintendent), Western Railwa ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj283; 1982()WLN223
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to quash the order Ex. 2 dated August 10, 1976 of the District Judge, Pali passed under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (Act No. XL of 1971) (for short 'the Act' herein).2. The petitioner has alleged himself to be the owner in possession of a plot of land measuring 90' x 75' situate at Falna, District Pali. The plot is bounded on all sides and there is a constructed room in it. Non-petitioner No. 1 Divisional Superintendent, Western Railways, Ajmer was appointed as Estate Officer under Section 3 of the Act. The aforesaid plot which will for the sake of brevity hereinafter be referred to as 'the plot in question' was claimed as railway land. A notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner to show cause why an order of eviction be not made in respect of the plot in question, which was public premises. The petitioner fil...
Tag this Judgment!Surta Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)30
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. The revision petition has been preferred against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur (Camp Jaisalmer) dated 15-4-1978 by which the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 4 (1) (e) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969, and sentence of three month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-in default, two months. Simple imprisonment awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaisalmer, on 3-12-1977 was upheld.2. At the commencement of the arguments learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to press the revision petition on merit, but submitted that in view of the fact that a period of more than five years has lapsed since the alleged date of the occurrence, a lenient view may be taken.3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the ease, the learned Publie Prosecutor does not dispute this prayer.4. The perusal of the record shows that the matter relates to recovery of furmented wash from...
Tag this Judgment!Moola Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2333; 1982()WLN95
Kalyan Dutta Sharma, C.J.1. This is an appeal filed by Moola Ram under Section 449 Cr. P.C. against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated March 1, 1977, by which the appellant's application under Sub-section (3) of Section 446 Cr. P.C. for remission of the penalty sought to be recovered from him under the bond for appearance was rejected on the ground that acceptance of such an application would amount to review of the previous order dated July 3. 1976, for recovery of the whole of the penalty.2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated as follows:3. The appellant was being tried in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bikaner for offences punishable under Sections 364, 324 etc., of I.P.C. During the pendency of the trial bail was granted to the appellant. The appellant frunished his personal bond in the amount of Rupees 5000/-. One Ishwar Ram stood surety for the appellant and filed his surety bond in the like amount for appearance of the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Geej Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2079; 1982()WLN91
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This appeal under Section 341, Cr. P.C. is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Si-kar, dated 7th July, 1977, in a case under Section 193, IPC and Section 340, Cr. P.C.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant Gees Raj submitted an application under Section 282 of the Succession Act, 1925, r/w Section 193, I.P.C, and Section 340, Cr. P.C. against non-applicant Kishan Dev for prosecuting the non-applicant under Section 193, I.P.C. Broadly speaking the case of the appellant as set up in the application was that the non-applicant Kishan Dev had submitted an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikar, that he was the adopted son and legal heir of Laxmi Narain deceased and he was entitled to get the jagir compensation of the jagir sanctioned in favour of Laxmi Narain deceased, According to the appellant that application was ultimately dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 26th April, 1967. It was further alleged that the no...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Bafna Vs. the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)37
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The points involved in all the writ petitions are identical and therefore they are being disposed of by a common order.2. It will be suffice to give the facts in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2103 of 1980. The petitioner is a Graduate and came to be appointed as Meter Reader vide Order dated June 19, 1973 of the Executive Engineer (DD), Jaipur, Rajasthan State Flactricity Board (short 'Board' here in after). He joined as such on June 19, 1973 and since then he is continuing in the pay scale of Rs. 80-5-110-6-152-7-194. Prantiya Vidhjut Mandal Mazdoor Federation was a recognised Trade Union of the Board some where in the year 1970. It presented a demand before the Labour Department of the Government of Rajasthan. While the industrial dispute was pending between the Union and the Board, on February 22, 1972 during the course of conciliation proceedings a settlement was arrived at and it was agreed that the existing scales of pay of various categories of post would be rev...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Deen Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj225; 1982()WLN217
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Lal Deen for quashing the order (Ex. 101 dated Jan. 24, 1976. by which, the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaisalmer declined to make a reference under S 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (No. XXIV of 1953) (for short the Act' hereinafter), 2. A few facts leading to this writ petition mav briefly be recounted here. 3. The award (Ex. 8) dated Mar. 20, 1975 was made by the Land Acquisition Officer. Jaisalmer in respect of the well situate in Khasra No. 77 f village Nawatala, which was acquired and handed over to military authorities- for the purpose of establishing of Field Firing Range. The amount determined was Rs. 10,930.70 P. as detailed in the award (Ex. 8). A direction was made by the Land Acquisition Officer that as the compensation relates to the public property it should be placed at the disposal of the Collector. Jaisalmer for 'public utilities'. 4. An application (Ex. 9) und...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. J.P. Sharma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj245; 1982()WLN105
Sharma, J.1. The Union of India has filed this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bikaner, Dt. Sept. 7, 1970, whereby the learned Judge, while dismissing the objections under Section 30 of the Act filed by the appellant Union of India, accepted the award made by the Arbitrator and made it a rule of the court passing a decree for Rs. 4,26,828.90 P. in favour of M/s. J.P. Sharma and Sons and against the appellant Union of India. The learned District Judge also directed that the Union of India shall pay interest @ 4% per annum on the principal sum from the date of the decree till realisation.2. Respondents M/s. J.P. Sharma and Sons were engaged as goods-handling contractor by the Northern Railway for the purpose of performing all the work of porterage of geeds at the various railway stations and goods sheds falling in zone No. 2 of the Bikaner Division of the Novihem Railway. ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ram Prasad Prahladrai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj253; 1982()WLN88
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. In this second appeal by the Union of India two questions have been raised by learned counsel for the appellant.2. The first argument made by the learned counsel is that the Railway Administration was not bound to give open delivery at the instance of the plaintiff. According to learned counsel, seeking open delivery was unjustified and as such the Railway Administration was within its rights to sell the goods by public auction. The argument of the learned counsel appears to be well founded. There is no provision in the Railways Act or THE Rules authorising the consignee to claim open delivery or assessment of damages before delivering the goods In Union of India v. Gyani Ram AIR 1967 Patna 32, Manbhardayal & Co. v. Union of India AIR 1967 Patna 412, Union of India v. Jutha Ram AIR 1968Patna 35 and Union of India v. Hukam Chand (AIR 1970 Madh Pra 55) it has been held that the consignor/consignee cannot claim open delivery or assessment of damage before delivery, as ...
Tag this Judgment!Murari Lal Vs. K.C. Aneja
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2082; 1982()WLN254
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. An interesting question of law has been raised in this revision petition,2. The petitioner Murari Lal filed a private complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate First; Class, Bharatpur, under Sections 332, 353, 324, and 504 IPC against the non-petitioner Capt. K. C. Aneja. The learned Magistrate after preliminary inquiry found the case under Sections 323, 324 and 504 IPC prima facie established against the accused and took cognizance under those offences. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate in pursuance to summons issued to him after the cognizance having been taken by the learned Magistrate. The trial in the case was proceeded with as a warrant case instituted otherwise than on police report.3. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant Murari Lal and in the meantime the Chief Ordnance Officer, C. D. O. Amunition Depot, Bharatpur sent a letter No. 2100/1/X/HQ dated 18th April, 1980, making a request for handing over the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Dhanni and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj62; 1982()WLN790
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. This judgment deal with the five connected writ petitions listed above. These petitions came to be instituted in the following circumstances.2. On September 17, 1979, the State Government of Rajasthan in exercise at its powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 24 of 1953), which will hereafter be shortly referred to as the Act, issued a notification (annexure R. 1/1) that land com-prised in Khasra number 60/1, measuring 15 bigha 6 biswa belonging to Dhani and another, khasra number 60/2, measuring 2 bigha 18 biswa, belonging to Girdhari Das (both Dhani and Gird-hari Das being joint petitioners in writ petition No. 1038/1980), khasra number 61/2, measuring 34 bigha 11 biswa. belonging to Kesar Dev. Nannu Ram Hari Parsad and Mala Ram (Joint petitioners in writ petition No. 1039/1980), khasra number 62, measuring 13 bigha 12 biswa, belonging to Fatma, Faizu Khan and Moinuddeen (joint petitioners in wr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »