Rajasthan Court May 1982 Judgments
Smt. Kishna Devi Vs. Vishnu Mitra and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj281
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J.1. In this petition, Shrimati Kishna Devi had challenged the judgment of Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur of 23rd November, 1979 setting aside the order passed by Addl. Mun. & Judl. Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur dt. 7-8-1978.2. The suit for permanent injunction is pending in which the petitioner is plaintiff. In this suit, permanent injunction has been claimed against the defendant. There exists a lane in between the house of the parties and according to plaintiff, this is cemented sanitary lane. In this sanitary lane, sewage line of the flush latrine has been permitted and, the windows and doors of the plaintiff's house are opened in this lane.3. The learned trial Magistrate granted temporary injunction and restrained the defendant from making construction over this sanitary lane in dispute, but in appeal that order has been reversed and application for temporary injunction has been dismissed,4. Shri B. L. Panwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner-plai...
Tag this Judgment!Hukamaram, Umaram and Ramu Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN244
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. In this application, Under Section 482, Cr.P.C, against the order dated the 7th June, 1979 of Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions case No. 59/76, Hukamaram, Umaram & Ramuram, the applicants, contend that the impugned order by which they have been called upon to face the trial and cognizance has been taken against them under Section 319, Cr.P.C. should be quashed, as it was done on the basis of police statements and no evidence has been recorded by the Sessions Judge.2. Dr. Bhandawat, the learned Public Prosecutor could not dispute the facts as alleged by the petitioners but he submitted that a Sessions Judge was competent to take cognizance on the basis of the police statements recorded under Section 319, Cr.P.C. as per the decision of this Court in Ajayb Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1978 RLW 9.3. It is not in dispute that application dated the 14th May, 1979 was moved by the Asstt. Public Prosecutor before the Sessions court for taking cognizance against these app...
Tag this Judgment!Shera S/O Anda and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)123
1. One Roopa Jat lodged an F.I.R. in the, police station Chohtan, District Barmer, on 16th September 1980, alleging that Harji s/o Bhagwan has informed him that Shera, Pola, Chautha, Ugra, Ishna, Sona, s/o Harchand, Deva s/o Lalal Jattan have beaten sanwakr s/o sons Jat of Taratara village, who has come to take water from the well of village Tara-tara, seven accused persons who were on the well, came near Sanwala and starting beating him. In doing so, Shera caught hold of Sanwala and Sona gave lathi blow on the head of Sanwala. On account of it, Sanwala fell down. Thereafter, Ugra and Pola gave lathi blows and, Chautha, Ishra, Deva gave fists blows. Sanwala became unconscious and was being taken to hospital but he breathed his last at the bus stand Sanwlor.2. After investigation, the police committed seven persons accused under Sections 148, 147, 302, 302/149, 302/147, I.P.C. After the committal proceedings, seven accused persons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge. Balotra, who e...
Tag this Judgment!Merta Oil Mills Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)188
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This writ petition involves the question as to the validity of the bye-laws known as Nagarpalika Merta (Laghu Yantralaya Niyantran) Up Niyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bye-laws') framed by the Municipal Board, Merta City.2. The Municipal Board Merta City (hereinafter referred to as 'the Muncipal Board') is a Municipality governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 90 of the Act empowers the Municipality to make bye-laws. Sub-section (1) enumerates the matters in respect of which bye-laws may be made. Sub-section (2) requires that every Municipal board before making any bye-laws under Section 90 shall publish in such manner as shall in its opinion be sufficient for the information of persons likely to be effected thereby, a draft of the proposed bye-laws together with a notice specifying a date on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration and shall before making the by...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Bhajan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)201
1. In the Harijan Mohalla of Pipar City, Kana Ram was beaten to death and Shri Kishan was seriously injured on 16th March, 1978 in the evening at about 8 p.m. Sohanlal s/o Shankerlal lodged a report in the police station, Pipar City at 9.30 p.m. of the same day alleging that Hari Bhajan, Sadulram and Amarchand attacked Kanaram with weapons and Hari Bhajan gave axe blow to Kanaram, Amarchand gave dharia blow to Kanaram and Sadulram gave lathi blow to Kanaram. When Shri Kishan tried to rescue, Hari Bhajan gave an axe blow in the head of Shri Kishan.2. The police registered a case under Section 307 IPC and later on after the death of Kanaram, the same was converted into 302 IPC against all the three accused. After investigation, they were challenged and after commitment, they faced trial.3. During trial, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Ilahi Bux, P.W. 2 Sugna Ram, P.W. 3 Dr. N.R. Bhandari, P.W. 4, Dr. K.N. Mathur, P.W. 5 Babu lal, PW 6 Sohanlal, PW 7 Gulab, PW 8 Shri Kishan, PW 9 Kaluram ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Vs. Jhumaklal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)342
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the mortgagee against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Doongarpur, up holding the decree passed by the Munsif, Sagwara, in a suit for redemption.2. The property in dispute between the parties, which is situated in the town of Sagwara, belonged to one Nihalchand who mortgaged the suit house with possession with Jadavchand, father of the defendant for a sum of Rs. 580/- by a registered mortgage-deed dated January, 7, 1920 for a period of 15 years. Nihalchand mortgagor died leaving the plaintiff Jhumaklal as the nearest reversioner, being the son of Nihalchand's nephew. Nihalchand also executed a will dated May 14, 1945 leaving all his immovable property to the plaintiff Jhumaklal.3. As the original mortgagee, Jadavchand had expired, plaintiff Jhumaklal filed a suit for redemption of the mortgaged property against the defendant and stated that he was willing to pay the mortgage amount to the mortgagee...
Tag this Judgment!Raish Plastics and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1982
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT92(Raj); 1982()WLN189
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. These writ petitions raise a common question regarding leviability of excise duty on the manufacture of acrylic plastic sheets, tubes and plastic bangles out of Methyl Mathacrylate Monomer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Monomer') both, regenerated and virgin, so it would be convenient and proper to dispose them of by this common order.2. The facts, as stated in the case of the petitioner Raish Plastics (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1543 of 1980) are that the petitioner manufactures acrylic plastic sheets, whether flat or round, and plastic bangles, through cylinderical process. In the manufacture thereof the petitioner uses regenerated Monomer manufactured in its own factory out of plastic scraps and it also purchases regenerated Monomer from the market. The Monomer virgin is purchased by the petitioner from Polymer Corporation of Gujarat Ltd., Baroda. The other petitioners purchase monomer virgin from other firms of different places. The petitioners' case is tha...
Tag this Judgment!National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. Shanker Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN490
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. By this writ petition, under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner National Engineering Industries. Limited, Jaipur, has challenged the correctness of the order dated June, 25 1969, of the Industrial. Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, wheryby the Tribunal refused to accord approval to an order of dismissal of the respondent Shanker Lal, under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here in after referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondent No. 1 was employed as a workman in the Maintenance Department of the factory of the petitioner. On April 7, 1969, a charge-sheet, issued by the factory Manager, was served upon the respondent, wherein it was alleged that the respondent was not working at all since February 18, 1969 and all efforts on the part of supervisor to persuade him to work had failed. He was persistently refusing to work and also disobeying the instructions given to him by ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pratap Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj274; 1982()WLN182
ORDERM.C. Jain, J. 1. This writ petition raises an important question as to the applicability of Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1955 Act)' and Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1956 Act') to the ceiling proceedings under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1973 Act'). 2. A notice under Section 11 (1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner submitted his return. The petitioner's ceiling case was then decided by the Authorised Officer by his order dated 28-4-1975 (Ex, 1) and it was found that there is no surplus land available with the petitioner. Thereafter, the Collector issued a show cause notice dated 17-3-1981 (Ex. 2) calling upon the petitioner as to why reference should not be made to the Board of Revenue under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and under Section 82 of the 1956 Act, in...
Tag this Judgment!Satyakam Vs. Dallu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj193; 1982()WLN387
Guman Mal Lodha, J. 1. Where Sarva Shri Joshi, Lodha and Mridul failed can any one expect that Dallu Dhakar would succeed? 2. When three eminent members of Bar Council, two of whom are adorning this Bench and third one equally eminent, adjudicates that land in dispute had some similarity in shape and measurements with the land in earlier litigation, causing grave suspicion against conduct of Advocate, can it be held that Dallu Dhakar unwary illiterate simple villager is expected to possess third sense having more knowledge awareness than Sarva Shri Joshi. Lodha and Mridul. is the real controversy in this case. 3. Mr. H.C. Rastogi. counsel for the appellant and plaintiff Satvakam Advocate wants me to hold that in spite of the above glaring speaking feature of the case, I must hold that Dallu had no reasonable and probable cause to complain against the Advocate, who wasexonerated by the Bar Council on the'benefit of doubt' theory, as if this benefit also cannot be extended to the Door un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›