Rajasthan Court August 1982 Judgments
Thana and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)577
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore dated February 22, 1977 by which all the appellants were held guilty for the offences under Sections 447 and 148 I.P.C. & sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment on the first count, two years rigorous imprisonment on the second count. Appellant Dola was convicted for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a line of Rs. 100/- in default to under go one month's rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted for the offences under Sections 325/149 and 323/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment on the first count and six months rigorous imprisonment on the second count. All the appellants except Dola were held guilty for the offence under Section 326/149 I P.C. and sentenced to two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. Al...
Tag this Judgment!Radhe Shyam Vs. Board of Technical Education
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)566
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Radheshyam, a student of Polytechnic at Jodhpur. He is doing Part Time Diploma Course, took his admission in the Electrical Branch in the academic session 77-78. He appeared in his first semester examination in May/June 1978. He failed in the second semester examination latter on.2. The petitioner applied for Civil Branch after passing second semester examination but as his marks were high, he was not allowed to change his Branch. He appeared for third semester of Electrical Branch in November 1979 but he failed. He then applied for change to Mechanical branch and he was permitted to change the branch.3. After change in the Mechanical brrach, petitioner did not appear in third semester of the Mechanical branch in the year 1980-81 and also 1981-82.4. The petitioner now has applied for change from Mechanical to Civil but that has been refused.5. According to the Petitioner, this has been done on account of the letter of Director dated...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwarlal Vs. Puran Chand and Indu Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN614
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. In these two revision petitions, a common question about the validity of an appeal against the order passed under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') has been raised and as such both these revision petitions are disposed of by a common order. The plaintiff opposite parties are the tenants of the same land-lord, the petitioner in each case, in respect of different shops. In both these cases, the tenant-opposite party filed suits for fixation of standard rent under Section 6 of the Act, in respect of the shop of which one of them was tenant. It was claimed by the tenant-plaintiff in each suit, that the agreed rent was excessive and as such it was prayed that standard rent may be fixed for the premises in dispute.2. The tenant-plaintiffs also submitted an application under Section 7 of the Act seeking determination of the provisional rent for the respective shops. The trial cour...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Meera Vs. Purshottam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)587
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by the wife against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Balotra, dated December 18, 1981, whereby the respondent's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed.2. The respondent's case was that the parties were married on Pes Sudi 3, St. 2034 and lived as husband and wife for about two years and there after she left for her father's home along with her brother and there after did not return despite effort, so she has withdrawn herself from the society of her husband without any reasonable and lawful excuse.3. The non-petitioner-appellant resisted the petition on the ground of physical and mental cruelty meted out to her by her husband and inlaws and the petition was also resisted on the ground that her husband insisted for cohabitation with his father, for which she refused, but his fa...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)591
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Appellant Moti was tried for the offence under Sections 302 and 323 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi. By the judgment dated 17-2-76, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held him guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to imprisonment for life on the first count ad six months rigorous imprisonment for the second count with an order that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Being dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence, Moti has filed this appeal in this Court.2. Succintly narrated the facts of the case giving rise to the trial of the appellant and the present appeal, are as under: Deceased Poona, resident of Phoolabai-Ka-Kheda, had borrowed grass-seed from the appellant. On 5-5-75, appellant went from his village Kundal to the village o the deceased Poona to receive the seed. He stayed there for the night. Next morning, he along with the deceased left for village Kachholi. Rupa (PW 5), brother of the appellant Moti also...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Lal Sharma S/O Pt. Ramdeoji Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN681
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Nandlal Sharma, who claims to be the Vice President of the Rajasthan Freedom Fighters Samiti and the President of Prohibition Samiti, Bassi, has filed all these four writ petitions, which are identical in facts as well as in the grounds raised and the prayer made. It is difficult to understand, why the petitioner has filed these four writ petitions as there is no difference between anyone of them.2. According to the petitioner, Article 47 of the Constitution contains a mandate to the State to introduce prohibition by law. On 11th November, 1967, Rajasthan State introduced prohibition in a phased programme. On 13th March, 1979 the prohibition was introduced in Rajasthan with effect from 1st April, 1980 in three phases. From 1st April, 1979 seven districts were covered by it. On 2nd April, 1980 three more districts were included and three more districts were also included with effect from 2/10/79 According to the petitioner, from 12th August 1981 by an Ordinance, the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal Brij Gopal and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj104; [1987(54)FLR216]; 1982()WLN497
ORDER, 1980 - Clause 18 and CONSTITUTION OF INDIA--Articles 14 & 16--Notification dated 27-5-1981--Validity of--Notification held valid by Supreme Court--M/s Pokarchand v. State of Rajasthan is not a good lawI have no hesitation to hold that judgment of this Court M/s Pokar Chand Jeevraj and 11 Ors. v. The Rajasthan and Ors. 1981 WLN 561 cannot be treated as good law in view of authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Lila Dhar and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. AIR 1982 S.C. 29; Surajmal Kailash Chand v. Union India and Anr. 1982 S.C. 130. In both the later decisions this notification has been declared valid.(c) ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 - Section 3B and RAJASTHAN TRADE ARTICLES (LICENSING & CONTROL) ...
Tag this Judgment!Himmat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)518
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This revision petition, filed by the petitioner Himmat Singh, is directed against the order dated April 17, 1982, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, in Criminal Original Case No. 197/84. By his order aforesaid the Chief Judicial Magistrate has ordered that charges under Sections 468, 420 and 109 I.P.C. be framed against the petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid order charges under Section 420/420 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and 468 I.P.C. have been framed against the petitioner on April 17, 1982. In the revision petition the petitioner has prayed that the aforesaid order dated April 17, 1982, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the charges framed against the petitioner in pursuance of the said order be quashed.2. The petitioner was posted as Overseer in the office of the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. (B&R;) at Banswara during the period from July 1, 1958 to August 27, 1959. During this period the work for repair of the Ghatol Road from Bansw...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Abbas KamruddIn Bhalamwala Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj128; 1982()WLN580
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. By this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (for short the 'the Ordinance' herein); the appellant questions the correctness of the order dated June 4, 1982 of the learned single Judge of this Court which he passed in S. B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 484 of 1981 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 528 of 1981,2. In this appeal, we are not concerned with the facts of the case, and, therefore, it is not necessary to detail the same in the judgment. Suffice it to state that the appellant filed writ petition (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 528 of 1981) under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other writ which the Court may deem fit to issue for quashing Ex. 8 dated Feb. 17, 1981 of the Special Secretary Agriculture Group VI Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Ex. 9 dated March 24, 1981 of the Fishery Development Officer, Rana Pratap Sagar. Rawat Bha...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Govind Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj211
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by Smt. Shanti Devi, who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the wife', against the decree and judgment passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2,Jodhpur dated 29-8-1980 for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), on the ground of desertion. 2. The petitioner Govind Singh, who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the husband', filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the Act before the learned District Judge seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage by divorce against the wife on the ground of desertion and cruelty. It was alleged by the husband in his petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnised in January, 1964 according to Hindu rites in Jodhpur and after about four years, in June 1968, the wife went to the husband's house according to the custom prevalent in the community, on the performance of 'gona' or 'Muklawa'. Thereafter the parlies lived tog...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »