Rajasthan Court August 1982 Judgments
Rama Kishan Vs. Umedmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-15-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)350
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. The only argument advanced by the learned Counsel of the appellant in this appeal is that as the outstanding amount of rent had already been deposited by the tenant appellant in the court under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') prior to the institution of the suit, no decree for payment of the said amount of arrears of rent could have been passed against the appellant.2. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 648/- in respect of rent for the period of 36 months @ Rs. 18/- per month was claimed in the suit. This amount of rent related to 25.1.75 to 24.1.78. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 648/- towards the arrears of rent was deposited by the defendant tenant in the court under Section 19A of the Act on different dates. It is also not in controversy now between the patties that the amount of rent for the aforesaid period was neither paid or deposi...
Tag this Judgment!Vichitra Banwarilal Meena Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj297; 1982()WLN294
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J. 1. The Iyer coined 'Bharati Ghost' (Bhim Singhji's case (AIR 1981 SC 234)) is haunting the corridors of this Court now, brandishing broken and smashed sword of Golak Nath (AIR 1967 SC 1643) a Giriian (Scheduled Tribe) is attacking the 45th amendment (D. D. Basu's Shorter Constitution of India, p. 807. Eighth Edn. The Constitution(Forty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1980) for giving a decisive death-blow to Article 334 of the Constitution. Vichitra, the petitioner, little realises the distinction between homicide and suicide. The billion dollar question is his success in striking down the reservations, whether would be disaster for the Girijans and failure may result in blessings in disguise.2. The razor-thin distinction between photo finish race of homicide v. suicide by Vichitra. may become too obscure to be spelled out or to be observed even by a microscope, if the fatal writ issued for alleged paralysation of parliamentary function of 'reservations' or special reser...
Tag this Judgment!Bhilwara Sahkari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd. and anr. Vs. Prescrib ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN478
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Both these writ petitions raise common questions for determination and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2 The petitioner in both these writ petitions is Bhilwara Sahkari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Sahkari Bhandar'). It is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and is running a wholesale Bhandar at Bhilwara. Shyamlal, respondent No. 2 in civil writ petition No. 156/77 was appointed as Assistant Accountant cum-clerk in the Sahkari Bhandar with effect from June 30, 1973. It is alleged that on inspection it was found that the said respondent had misappropriated money of the Sahkari Bhandar during the year 1974-75 and the matter was brought to the notice of the Board of Directors of the Sahkari Bhandar by the Executive Officer of the Sahkari Bhandar and it was also brought to the notice of the said respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Munilal Vs. Sarvaieet
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1982
Reported in: AIR1984Raj22; 1982()WLN756
ORDERDwarka Prasad, J. 1. An interesting question regarding the interpretation of Section 10. Civil P. C. arises in this revision petition as to the meaning and contents of the expression 'the trial of any suit'.2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord non-petitioner filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioner tenant on 6-12-1977 in the court of Munsif. Sri Ganganagar which was transferred to the court of Additional Munsif, Sri Ganganagar. In that suit, a decree for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent was passed against the petitioner on 27-2-1981. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid decree and the said appeal is still pending in the court of District Judge. Sri Ganganagar.3. Earlier to the filing of the suit for ejectment the petitioner had filed a suit on 28-11-1977 in the Court of Munsif, Sri Ganganagar seeking a declaration to the effect that the petitioner-tenant could not be dispossessed from the premises in dispute without the process of...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Nemji Chitarmal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)441
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of damages for short delivery and damages to goods in transit over railway.2. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are that M/s Mohanlal Hargovind sent 20 crates of Bidies on February 8, 1962 from Tumsar Road Railway Station for delivery to M/s Chandulal Jagjiwandas at Baran Railway station. The Railway receipt in respect of the aforesaid consignment of Bidies in which Chandulal Jagjiwandas was shown as the consignee was endorsed by the consignee in the name of Shah Nemji Chitarmal. When M/s Shah Nemji Chitarmal took delivery of the goods at Baran Railway station, one crate of Bidies was found in damaged condition. The plaintiff, M/s Shah Nemji Chitarmal, took delivery of 19 crates of Bidies and the loss was assessed by the Station Master, Baran at the time of delivery.3. After serving the requisite notices under Section 77 of the Railway Act and Section 80 C.P.C., the plaintiff filed a suit for th...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Singh Vs. Raj Atomic Power Project and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN417
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. 'Enklab Zindabad, CITU Zindabad, RACU Zindabad, Project Allowance Katoti Vapasulo, Kala Adhyadesh Vapasulo' shouting these slogans, the petitioner is alleged to have led a procession & demonstration at not less than prohibited/protected place of Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Rawatbhata Kota on 11th December, 1974. An inquiry and dismissal followed in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.2. Whether such a dismissal can be sustained is pivot of debate in this writ petition by a workman against bis employer. The equities are well balanced in this equitable jurisdiction. Shri Mridul's claim of fundamental right of a much more of protected workman in an Industry, of protest and agitation against Katoti in wages and allowances by peaceful method of demonstration and procession, in the new era where workers have been assured participation in the management by the enactment of Article 43A in directive principles of Constitution, cannot be brushed aside as ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Das Vs. Goswami Brijesh Kumarji and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj3; 1982()WLN474
ORDERDwarka Prasad, J.1. In this revision petition, the only question which arises is with regard to the scope of Clause (a) of Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C.2. Order 7. Rule 11, C. P. C., so far as it is relevant for the present case, reads as under :--'Order 7. Rule 11:-- Rejection of plaint --The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases : -- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the question as to whethe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›