Rajasthan Court May 1982 Judgments
Kalyan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN533
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. The prosecution case in short is that Gopal Nayak is a Khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 449, measuring 15 Bighas 13 Biswas of land, situated in village Jhalipura. In pursuance to a decree, dated February 25 1982 passed in Revenue Suit No. 126 of 1981, physical possession of the land in dispute had been delivered to him on March 1, 1982. According to the police record Khasra Girdawari for the relevant year stands recorded in his name. He being the member of the Scheduled Caste fearad that the accused-petitioners and other persons might dispossess him of the land and destory his crop. He moved on application to the same effect at the Police Station, Kaithoon, for giving police protection to him. The police authorities posted Head Constable, Radha Kishan and Constaables, Brij Raj Singh Shive Raj Singh and Hanuman Singh, to maintain peace and order in the area near about the field of Gopal. On April 4, 1982, the petitioners along with other persons, armed with Gandasies, an...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Dhariwal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN264
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Dowry death or accidental one, is the debate. The 'fumes, fire and flames' produced from the charred flesh of Hansa Rani, tells 'tell tale' of murder by Ashok, motivated due to failure of her parents to satisfy the ever increasing greed and lust of (money) dowry, is the pivot of prosecution story. Accidental 'burning alive' is the defence.2. The twin letters unfolding, unveiling, and unearthing the sensational, stratling tragic tale of woe and tears of Hansa, matrimonial tragedy, makes too pathetic, hair raising, nerve shocking and society rocking reading. The defence story of their fabrication, true or false, is yet to be adjudicated.3. Deceased wife a post graduate clerk of Sales Tax department, and Accused husband, a Gold medalist Lecturer of Engineering, College, prima facie shows that education hardly detracts crime of dowry deaths, if the prosecution story is true. 'Bail before Jail' is the prayer of defence. Gallows to dowry murderers, the contra demand of prose...
Tag this Judgment!Harji Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1938; 1982()WLN719
ORDERM.L. Shrimal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The facts giving rise to this bail application are that on March 23, 1982. Rameshwar Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pancholi happened to pass through Bandikui for making purchases to celebrate some marriage function. He was forcibly abducted and removed to an unknown place. According to the F, I. R. the abductors, while taking him away, administered beating to him. A case No. 49/82 was registered at the police station, Bandikui, on March 28, 1982 wherein the names of the accused were not mentioned according to the author of the F.I.R. the identification and the names of the abductors were not known. From the affidavit filed before this Court, by the abducted person Rameshwar, it is revealed that the abductors demanded a ransom of Rs. 100000/-and compelled him to write a letter asking his son to bring the money. On April 1, 1982 Rs. 29,000/- were paid to Harji and thereafter Rameshwar was released. The affidavit further reads ...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Kamlesh Bhardwaj Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN358
G.M. Lodha, J.1. As the stenographers are on strike, the judgment in these bunch of 31 writ petitions is being dictated on dictaphone.2. This is a bunch of 31 writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates who applied for being selected as Lecturers in the various departments of the Govt. Colleges of Rajasthan. The petitioners can safely be categorised in two categories. Category A denotes to those petitioners who are not only Post graduates but have got further qualifications of Ph. D. or M. Phil/M Litt. These petitioners who have obtained the decree of M Phil/M.Litt. or who have done Ph D., all fall in one category which may be for the sake of convenience treated as category 'A'. The other petitioners who have not qualified themselves by having the degree of doctorate that is Ph.D. or M.Phil/M.Litt. falls in category 'B'.3. The advertisement which was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for inviting applications for the post of lecturers in the various departments cont...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gulab Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)144
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. One Kalu Ram stood surety for Madan Lal an Excise Contractor who was given Country Liquor contract on guarantee system in the year 1975 for a shop in Borunda. In relation to the dues against said Madan Lal with regard to the aforesaid Liquor contract the House of Kaluram the Surety was at attached under Ex. 1 dated August, 30, 1976. The petitioner who is the widow of said Kalu Ram has filed the writ petition in this Court for quashing the attachment of her house by the respondents and from restraining the respondents from recovering any amount from the petitioner's properties on the basis of certificate issued against Madan Lal the Liquor contractor,2. The facts relevant for appreciating the controversy in this writ petition are these:3. Licence for country Liquor shop situated in Borunda, Tehsil Bilara for the year 1975-76 on guarantee system was given to one Madan Lal and Kalu Ham since deceased husband of the petitioner Smt. Gulab stood a surety for the...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)207
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma J.1. In this writ petition, during the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Anand Singh, has confined his arguments to the disposal of the representation of the petitioner made to the Inspector General of Police relating to qualifying examination in which he appeared. Thus only such facts which are relevant for consideration of the point canvassed in this writ petition may be stated. The petitioner, who initially entered Government service as Constable in R. A. C., Batallion, in Rajasthan Police, came to be selected and appointed as A.S.I. Wireless by order, dated April 9, 1956. After completion of the training he was confirmed on the post of A.S.I. by order, dated December 7, 1960. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of officiating Sub-Inspector of Police (wireless) by order, dated October 17, 1966. He was so promoted after undergoing qualifying examination as per the Rajasthan Police subordinate Service Rules, 1966. He wa...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Lal Vs. Ram Gopal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN439
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This is a defendant's revision against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar dated 9-12-1980 up-holding the order of Additional Munsif cum-Judicial Magistrate, Alwar dated 3-10-79, whereby defence of the defendant-petitioner was struck off.2. Brief facts leading to this revision are that the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for eviction of two shops situated in Mohalla Shivpura, Alwar against the petitoner on 4-10-75. According to the plaintiff, one shop was let out to the petitioner on 19-2-67 at Rs. 30/- p.m and another shop was let out at Rs. 5/- p.m. on 1-5-67. The suit for eviction was based on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff. The defendant filed his written statement on 24-11-75 and took the plea, inter-aha, that one shop was taken on rent on 19-2-67 and the tenancy of that shop also began from that date. As regards the other shop, it was admitted that the tenancy began from 1-5-67. It was also pleade...
Tag this Judgment!Roshanlal Vs. Ramlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)210
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to quash the order (Ex.2) dated November 4, 1981 of the Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short the Authority').2. Respondent No. 1 Ramlal submitted an application before the Authority under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short 'the Act' herein). He claimed Rs. 4200/- as compensation amount, interest and costs. He sought direction under Sub-Section (3) of Section 15 of the Act. The application was contested by the petitioner on various grounds. An objection was raised in the reply to the effect that the Authority had got no jurisdiction to go into the question of crop share and to decide it and further that the dispute relating to that could only be adjudicated by a revenue court. By the order (Ex 2) dated November 2, 1981 direction for the payment of the sum of Rs. 14, 668.50p to respondent No. 1 was made. This amount consisted of the wages, overtim...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Manju Vs. Prem Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)302
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court date 13th January, 1982, by which the decree passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated August 11, 1981 was affirmed and the appeal filed against the decree, was dismissed.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant did not dispute before us the question of fact that the appellant Smt. Manju delivered a child on November 18, 1979 and the marriage was solemnized on June 29, 1979. The contention of Mr. Mithur, learned Counsel for the appellant however is that the husband had coitus during the advanced stage of pregnancy and therefore, the finding of the learned single Judge that he was not having the knowledge of the advanced stage of pregnancy is not reasonable. According to the learned Counsel, the very fact of the husband having coitus during the advanced stage of pregnancy proves that the husband had condoned the default of the other spouse and therefore, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Vs. Nane Shah
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj6
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. Both the revision petitions arise out of the judgment dated March 18, 1976, of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur under which the learned Judge dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 27/72 and 26/72 preferred before him out of miscellaneous proceedings under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C arising out of two suits Nos. 281/71 and 258/71, filed by Manoharsingh, non-petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') in the trial court. Under the aforesaid judgment, the learned Judge affirmed the order of the trial court issuing a temporary injunction against the petitioners and others restraining them from taking possession of the suit property under any order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 60/660 (of This Court) under Section 145, Cr. P. C. or otherwise fill the decision of the suits.Plaintiff, firstly, filed a suit No. 258/71 in the court of learned Munsif against Nane Shah and Shankerlal, Smt. Ratandevi, Smt. Pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »