Rajasthan Court January 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kistoora Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN292
M.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is direct against the order dated August 17, 1982, whereby the plaintiff-petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint, was rejected.2. The plaintiff, in his plaint, inter alia claimed a relief in respect of the amount of gratuity. The defendant's case was that a sum of Rs. 4,158 08 p. has been deduced out of the gratuity amount in pursuance of orders dated July, 16, 1977 and March 31, 1980. The plaintiff wanted to introduce para 4(a) in the plaint, wherein he awarded that the deductions, which have been made in the gratuity account, are unauthorized and the plaintiff is further entitled to principal amount of gratuity along with twelve percent per annum interest toy way of damages from the defendants The learned Additional District Jade, No. 1, Jodhpur, rejected the petitioner' application for amendment, firstly, or the ground that the question of payment of gratuity can only be decided by the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act...
Tiwari Jhooma Lal Swarooplal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN600
P.K. Banerjee, C.J.1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the Government by way of penalty forfeiting 40% of the security which the petitioner deposited with the Government.2. The petitioner is a lessee of minor mineral under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (here in after referred to as 'the Rules'). These Rules have been framed under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 The petitioner was in possession of the said mine for a number of years but during the period in question, though the petitioner continued in possession, no lease deed was executed by the Government for the reasons best known to them. But be that as it nay, under Rule 17 of the Rules, it has been provided that the conditions have been included in every mining lease and if they are not so included, shall be deemed to have been included therein. Therefore, whether the lease was executed or not, a minor mineral lease will be deemed to contain the provi...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mohan Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Raj200; 1983()WLN258
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of damages on account of non-delivery of goods by the railway administration.2, The facts which have given rise to this litigation and which are no longer in controversy, are that the Plaintiff Mohan Raj consigned firewood from Auwa Railway Station for Asarwa Railway Station on the Western Railway, under Railway Receipt No. 84618 dated 18-11-65. The plaintiff had indented a wagon for the carriage of the aforesaid goods and the firewood of the plaintiff was loaded in Wagon No. WR 26811 at Auwa Railway Station. In the railway receipt the Quantity of goods booked was mentioned as 108 qtls.. the railway administration having accepted the consignor's statement about weight of the consignment. When the representative of the plaintiff went to Asarwa Railway Station for taking delivery of the aforesaid consignment, it was found that wagon No. 26811 contained only 62.50 qtls. of firewood. There was another wagon No. 5...
Banshi Lal anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)17
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Both these special appeals raise common questions relating to the validity of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter reffered to as 'the Rules' ).2. The Rules have been made by the Governor of Rajasthan, in exercise of the power conferred on him by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, for the purpose of regulating the recruitment to the posts in and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service ( hereinafter referred to as 'the service'). The Rules were published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 16th March, 1966 and they came into force with effect from that date. Rule 4 of the Rules relates to composition and strength of the Service and the said rule, as originally framed, laid down that the Service shall consist of eight groups specified in the Schedule to the Rules. The number of groups specified in the Schedule to the Rules was subsequently increased ...
Dr. Chandra Bhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Raj149; 1983()WLN101
Kalyan Dutt Sharma, C.J.1. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Dr. Chandra Bhan Singh, petitioner, has challenged the appointment of Shri Nathu Lal Jain, non-petitioner No. 3, as Advocate General for the State of Rajas-than and prayed for issuance of a writ of quo-warranto against him and for an appropriate, writ, order or direction for quashing the appointment on the ground that it has been made in violation of the provisions of Articles 165 and 319(d) of the Constitution of India. The State of Rajasthan as well as His Excellency the Governor are also impleaded as non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in this writ petition.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated as follows:--The office of the Advocate General for Rajasthan fell vacant after Dr. S. K. Tiwari had ceased to hold that office. In exercise of the powers conferred on him under Article 165 of the Constitution, His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan app...
Miss. Niharika Tak Vs. the University of Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)32
S.K. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner-appellant whose writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed summarily by the learned single Judge vide order dated April 2, 1981 has filed this appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. It may be stated that the learned single Judge dismissed the three writ petitions by a common order. The appellant shall be referred as the petitioner here in after.2. The petitioner passed the Intermediate Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. She applied for addmission to Part II of the Three Years Degree Course (TDC) of the University of Jodhpur (which will here in after be referred to as the University') at Kamla Nehru College, Jodhpur for the academic year 1980-81. Ordinance 35 framed by the University in 1978 lays down the conditions with regard to the eligiblity for admission to Part II of the TDC. It prescribes that the students who have passed 1st year TDC Examination of the Uni...
Shiv Dan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN40
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The date of birth of the petitioner is in dispute, and the petitioner claims that he was born on 29.11.29, and, therefore, he should not be retired till he comes 55 years of age on the basis of calculation from 29.11.29.2. Mr. Calla, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the service record the date of birth recorded was 29.11.29, and the correction was made later on without any notice to him and consequently, the correction making it as 29.11.27 is against the principles of natural justice and cannot be taken note of. Mr. Calla submitted that in the correspondence which ensued between the Police department and Insurance department, the respondents themselves verified that the date of birth of the petitioner was 29.11.29, and that being so, they cannot be allowed to unilaterally alter or correct it.3. Prima facie, the submissions of Mr. Calla are quite plausible. However, Mr. Khan, learned G.A., has placed before me the original service record, copies of ...
Mahendra Surana and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN165
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. AS identical questions of fact and law are involved in all the above writ petitions as such the same are disposed of by one common judgment.2. In all the above writ petitions validity of Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1976 (here in after referred to as the Emergency Rules'), has been challenged. All the petitioners are the members of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 (here in-after referred to as 'the RAS Rules' Part III of the RAS Rules deals with recruitment to the service. Rule 7 of the RAS Rules provides sources of recruitment. There are for sources of recruitment to the service after the commencement of these Rules (a) by a competitive examination, (b) by promotion of administrative subordinate; (c) by selection from among the extension officers out of the categories mentioned therein (d) by special selection, from among persons other than administrative subordinates and persons governed item (c) ab...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Maharaja Shri Karni Singhji and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Raj90; 1983()WLN4
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has filed this writ petition for quashing the order of the Board of Revenue dated December 19, 1972 (Ex. 8) whereby it quashed the order of the Collector, Bika-ner, dated September 6, 1971 (Ex. 6) as being without jurisdiction.2. The present writ petition relates to the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 (Act No. VII of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. I may advert to the relevant facts in brief.4. A deed of sale was executed on the 9th day of September, 1970, by Maharaja Shri Kami Singh, Ex-Ruler of Bikaner State (respondent No. 1), through his lawful attorney Maharai Kumar Shri Narendra Singh (respondent No. 2) in favour of Kami Charitable Fund Trust, Bikaner (respondent No. 3). Land measuring 19,23,803 sq. ft. situated within Lallgarh Palace area was transferred by the aforesaid sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. The document was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Bikaner, on 9-9-1970 an...
NaraIn Singh Vs. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bundi and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Raj164
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner whose election was set aside by the election tribunal, has challenged the judgment of the Election Tribunal. The short point in dispute in the election petition before the Tribunal was about the age of the petitioner. The petitioner was elected as Panch of the Gram Panchayat for Ward No. 7 of Anthera on 10th December, 1981.2. Ghanshyam, the respondent filed an election petition mentioning that the petitionerNarainsingh was born on 6th June, 1962 and, therefore, he was not 25 years of age at the time of acceptance of the nomination papers.3. The Tribunal on a proper appreciation of evidence including the statement of Ghanshyam (PW 2), the electoral rolls of the Panchayat Ex. 2 containing an entry that Narainsingh was of 23 years of age, the statement of P. W. 1, Babulal, Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School Talera who proved the date of birth of Narainsingh as recorded in school Register, as 6th June, 1962; came to t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »