Rajasthan Court January 1983 Judgments
Kishanlal Sharma Vs. Prem Kishore
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Raj100; 1983()WLN314
Sidhu, J.1. This petition of revision under Section 115 C.P.C. is directed against the appellate order, dated, July 23, 1981, by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur City whereby that learned Judge affirmed the order, dated, December 12, 1980, by the trial court dismissing the petitioner's application, dated, April 11, 1980, for provisional determination of arrears of rent payable by the petitioner-tenant to the respondent-landlord, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 (3), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, as amended to date.2. The facts which may be helpful in appreciating the controversy may be briefly recapitulated here. Prem Kishore, who is the respondent in this petition and who will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit against Kishanlal Sharma, the present petitioner, who will hereinafter be referred to as the defendant, for eviction from certain residential premises on the averments that the defendant is in occupation ...
Tag this Judgment!Makbool Khan Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)12
K.D. Sharma, C.J1. This is a petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for setting asid the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, dated September 16, 1982, by which the petitioner's application Under Section 457, Cr. P.C. for delivery of a truck No. RJC. 1213 to him was dismissed and the provision of the said truck was handed over to non-petitioner No. 3 on his furnishing a personal bond in the amount of rupees two lacs with two sureties of rupees one lac each with stipulation till the decision of the case the vehicle will be kept in order and the Superddar shall maintain full account of its income and expenditure and will not transfer it to any other person and will produce it in court on September 24, 1982 and all subsequent dates of hearing.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated as follows. One Makbool Khan lodged a first information report in writing Station House Officer, Barmer, on June 3, 1981, wherein it was alleged that truck No. RJC 1213...
Tag this Judgment!Ratna Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN95
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This appeal raises a short question as to whether a counter claim can be allowed in a claim petition filed under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly in the circumstances of the present case.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that a collision took place on January 7, 1977 between a jeep belonging to the Government of India and the truck belonging to the appellant on the main highway between Barmer and Balotra. The persons, who were travelling in the jeep, were injured in the accident and they filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), which was allowed by the Tribunal and compensation was awarded to the injured persons by the Tribunal in respect of which a separate appeal has been preferred by the appellant which is pending in this Court.3. The Union of India filed a separate claim petition on August 22, 1977 before the Tribunal and claimed compensation for the damage ca...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN295
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. The question which arises in this appeal is as to whether a suit for accounts can be maintained except when there is specified relationship between the parties.2. The plaintiff's case is that he along with the proforma defendant Vishwanath had taken up a contract from the State of Rajasthan for completion' Hon of works specified in the plaint. The plaintiff and the proforma defendant bad completed the works in respect of which the contract was given to them, but they have not been paid the full amount in respect of the work done by them and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- has been wrongly deducted by the defendant The plaintiff also alleged that according to the terms of the contract she defendant was to supply material including coal and machinery like pumps, which the defendants provided but no proper accounting bad been made. The plaintiff and his partner bad also deposited security deposits with the defendant which have not been refunded. The plaintiff requested the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ratna Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1983
Reported in: 1(1984)ACC368
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This appeal arises a short question as to whether a counter claim can be allowed in a claim petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly in the circumstances of the present case.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that a collsion took place on January 7, 1977 between a Jeep belonging to the Government of India and the truck belonging to the appellant on the main highway between Barmer and Balotra. The persons, who were travelling in the jeep, were injured in the accident and they filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), which was allowed by Tribunal and compensation was awarded to the injured persons by Tribunal in respect of which a separate appeal has been preferred by the appellant, which is pending in this Court.3. The Union of India filed a separate claim petition on August 22, 1977 before the Tribunal and claimed compensation for the damage caused t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Manoharlal Sh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN237
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the Judgment dated August 19, 1982 of the learned single Judge of this Court by which he allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent without any order as to costs.2. The appellants and respondeat were non-petitioner and petitioner before the learned single Judge and they will be referred is such herein.3. The petitioner was holding the post of Junior Accountant with non petitioner No. 1, the Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Fedsration Ltd. (herein after referred to as the Federation) in its Jodhpur Dairy Unit. By order (Anx. 2) dated June 3, 1981 the petitioner's services were, terminated with immediate affect and he was asked to hand over charge to one Shri Om Dutt. It is alleged that this order came to the notice of the petitioner on June 6, 1981. The order (Anx 2) (typed copy Anx. 3) filed by the petitioner runs as follows:Since you are holding a responsible post and y...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Wool and Namda Association and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1983
Reported in: [1984]55STC153(Raj); 1983()WLN42
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. As identical questions of fact and law are involved in both the writ petitions, the same are disposed of by a common order.2. Writ Petition No. 105 of 1981 has been filed by Jaipur Wool and Namda Association, a company registered under the Rajasthan Non-Trading Companies Act, 1960, for promoting the cause of the persons who are interested in the manufacture, sale and purchase of woollen felts. Writ Petition No. 359 of 1982 has been filed by M/s. Premier Felt Manufacturing Company which is carrying on business of manufacturing woollen felt at Rani Bazar, Bikaner. In the writ petition filed by Jaipur Wool and Namda Association it has been prayed that the respondents may be prohibited by a writ of prohibition not to recover any amount from the members of the petitioner-company whose names have been given in annexure 1 with regard to inter-State sales tax as the amount has already been paid to the State in the form of additional excise duty every year. It has been furth...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Raj229; 1983()WLN322
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the learned District Judge, Pali on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. It is not, disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that under the amended provisions of Section 28 of the Act, no appeal lies against an order passed on an application under Section 24 of the Act. He, however, prays that the appeal may be treated as a revision petition. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the appeal being treated as a revision petition, but he also urges that he has filed cross-objection, which may also be treated as a separate revision petition, inasmuch as the respondent has paid full court fees payable on a revision petition and has also filed a copy of the order passed by the learned District Judge, pali, along with the cross-objections and further the said cross-objections were filed within the time prescribed under the law...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Wahi and anr. Vs. Surendra Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1426; 1983()WLN35
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The appellants : (1) S.P. Wahi, Chairman. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Deharadun and (2) R. Srinivasan, Member Personnel. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, have filed this appeal under Section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act (No. IXX of 1971) (which will hereinafter for the sake of brevity be referred to as 'the Act'), questioning the correctness of the order dated December 3, 1982, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in S. D. Civil Contempt Petition No. 75 of 1982. by which, the appellants were directed to attend the Court on the next date i. e. January 3, 1983.2. The respondent (who was petitioner in the writ petition) filed a writ petition under Article 226 of 'the Constitution on September, 16, 1980. seeking, inter alia, to quash the seniority list Ex. 2 dated September 3. 1979. Along with the writ petition, a stay petition was submitted praying that Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Deharadun (for short 'the Commission') may be restrained fr...
Tag this Judgment!Harshamal Shivbux Vs. Ramkishan Das Sagarmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj34; 1983()WLN26
ORDERM.C. Jain, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge. Churu, dated April 4, 1977, whereby he allowed the application of Girdharilal (defendant No. 3) under Section 29 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (V of 1920) (hereinafter referred to as 'the F. I. Act'), And consequently stayed the proceedings of the suit.2. A few relevant material facts giving rise to the present revision petition may briefly, be stated as under.The plaintiff M/s. Harshamal Shivbox instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 18,916.95 p. against M/s. Ramkishan-das Sagarmal and its partners and ex-partner and the legal representatives of the ex-partners. It was alleged by the plaintiff-firm that Sagarmal Nathmal, Poosraj alias Pushpraj, Girdharilal, Hulashchand and Mst. Ratni Bai were the partners of the defendant-firm and this firm continued its business up to St. 2020 at Bombay. After St. 2020, the firm, stopped its business Sagarmal and nathmal expired in St. 2020...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »