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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ram Niwas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj42; 1983()WLN88
ORDERM.C. Jain, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated Jan. 15, 1982,passed by the District Judge, Chure, whereby he allowed the plaintiff's application under Section 35B(1). C.P.C., and it was further ordered that the defendant shall not be allowed to the further prosecution of its defence. 2. The facts, giving rise to the present revision, may briefly be noticed. 3. The plaintiff-non-petitioner Ram Niwas instituted a suit against the Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,588.80. An ex parte order was drawn against the defendant, but the same was set aside on payment of costs of Rs. 50/- and the costs were paid. Thereafter the case was posted for filing of the written statement, but the written statement was not filed and the case was adjourned to 16-7-1981, 20-8-1981, 10-9-1981 and 24/9/1981 on costs of Rs. 50/-, Rs. 30/-. Rs. 50/- and Rs. 70/- respectively. On 20-10-1981.the defendant filed the written statemen...
Ratan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)1
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Ratan singh, the petitioner in this writ petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution was a Granthi of a Gurdwara in District Ganganagar ana in that capacity, he held five Kilas of land in chak 78 L. N., Tehsil Padampur, District Ganganagar, in lieu of the services rendered by him to the general public. By order dated 5th June, 1965 the State Government proceeded to abolish the system of village servants and directed that Kotwals, Tarkhans, Nais, Pujaris, Granthis and Molvis of Ganganagar district who held village service grants, if they wished to secure khatedari rights in respect of the land held by them in lieu of village services, will have to pay to the Government the reserve price of the land. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the State Government, the Collector, Ganganagar issued a notification dated 10th May, 1966 whereby it was declared that the services of the village servants i. e. Kotwals, Tarkhans, Nais, Pujaris, Granthis and Molvis Of Ganga...
Gopikishan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)9
K.D. Sharma, C.J.1. Gopi Kishan, petitioner, has invoked the extra-ordinery jurisdiction of this Court by. way of this writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to fix the petitioner under the Unified Pay Scales w. e. f. 18-6-1955, on which date be acquired the requisite qualifications for the post of Male-Nurse Compounder Grade-1 and to give him all consequential benefits arising form such fixation.2 The relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner passed bis High School Examination in the year 1947 and passed the Punjab Nurses Registration Council Examination also, as is evident from the certificate issued to him on 19-2-1955.3. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of a temporary compounder vide order of Civil Surgeon, then State of Ajmer, on 18-4-1955. Thereafter, when the State of Rajasthan was formed, the petitioner opted ...
Jamandass Vs. Gokuldass
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj8; 1983()WLN228
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision has been referred by one of us (Agrawal, J.) to the Division Bench as it involves an important question of law whether the amendments introduced in Section 6 of the Rajas-than Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950) (for short 'the Act1) by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance No. XXVI of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') which Was promulgated on September 29, 1975 and which was subsequently replaced by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act. 1976 ('the Amendment Act' hereinafter) fall in the category of amendments which are intended to have retrospective operation or they fall in the category of amendments which do not have retrospective operation.2. We may first notice the, material facts, The non-petitioner (plaintiff-tenant) instituted a suit on April 29, 1970 against the petitioner (defendant-landlord) under Section 6 of th...
Banarsi Das and anr. Vs. Mohd. Safi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1983
Reported in: I(1984)ACC332; AIR1983Raj97; 1983()WLN1
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. In this appeal learned counsel for the appellant submits that Banarsi Das, appellant has expired but his legal representatives have not been brought on record and his name may be struck off from the record. However, this appeal can be maintained on behalf of his wife smt. Premvati who is the other appellant and was one of the claimants in the original Court.2. Subodh Chandra, who was the son of Banarsi Das and Smt Pranvati, met with an accident on June 21, 1969 at about 7.00 P.M. while he was going on his scooter was struck by truck No. RJW 771 belonging to Mohammed Shafi and which was being driven by that time by Goverdhan. As a result of the aforesaid accident, Subodh Chandra died and a claim petition was filed by his parents Banarsi Das and Smt. Premvati, against the driver, owner fend insurer of the motor vehicle No. RJW 771 on the ground that the said truck was being driven at the relevant lime by Goverdhan in a rash and negligent manner. The Motor Accident Cla...
Gopal Dutt Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN76
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the interim stay order dated 19.8.82 passed by this Court should be confirmed.2. Mr. S.K. Tewari, appearing for respondent No. 6 and Mr. Garg, appearing for respondents No. 5, have prayed that the stay order should be modified, and that they should be allowed to competed the construction with the condition that in case the writ petition is accepted, they would themselves demolish the entire construction and would not claim any rights what-so-ever on account of the construction made during the pendency of the writ petition. Mr. N.L. Jain, Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 3 has stated that so far as the State of Rajasthan, the Jaipur Development Authority and the Competent Authority of the Land Cerling Laws is concerned, they will have no objection either way, which means that the respondents 1, 2 and 3 have got no objection, if either the stay order is continued, or it is vacated or modified.3...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Satya Pal Mehta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN91
M.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated September 25, 1980, whereby the learned Additional Munsif No. 2, Bikaner, confirmed the leave granted on 18.10.1978 by the court to institute a suit without serving any notice under Section 80, CPC.2. he plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 Satyapal Mehta instituted a suit on 17.10.1978 praying for the following reliefs:d djkj fn;k tkos fd izfroknhx.k la- 5 ls 7 rd dks ;ksX; ?kksf'kr djus dk vkns'k la- AAAbZ0&AywtkHkkx; A 5 A 75 fnukad 14&10&78 ,oa buls lacf/kr vU; vkns'k vuqfpr vukf/kd`r ,oa vfu;fer ,oa vlaoS/kkfud gksus ls 'kwU; izHkkoghu ,oa fujLr gS A[k oknh dh fyfi ijh{kk fnukad 28&9&78 dk oknh dh ofj'B fyfid ds in ij inksUufr okLrs fjtYV fu'Ik{k :i ls fcuk fdlh izdkj ds HksnHkko ds l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk ?kksf'kr fd;k tkos vkSj oknh ds ofj'B fyfid ds in ij inksUufr dk dsl ij l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk lgh ,oa fu'Ik{k :i ls fopkj fd;k tkos A rkfd oknh Bhd le; ij ojf'B fyfid ds in ,oa osrueku :- 330&560 es inksfUur izkIr dj lds A x ok...
Dr. Sudhir Kumar Vs. University of Udaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)4
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Mr. Parekh raised the preliminary objection and submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable on the following grounds:(1) Petitioner has concealed and suppressed the material facts and on this ground alone the writ petition should be rejected.(2) Mr. Parekh has submitted that Section 43 of the Udaipur University Act of 1962 provides that the decision of the Board on all such matters shall, subject to the revision by the Chancellor, be final and shall not be liable to be challenged in any court or tribunal. His submission is that the revisional power vests in the Chancellor and the petitioner has not availed an alternative remedy and as such the writ petition is not maintainable, and the petitioner should be directed, if he so chooses to avail the alternative remedy.(3) That there is misjoinder of cause of actions. Exs. 6,8 and 9, Ex. R1/8 are not in any way connected with each other and each of them gives fresh independent cause of action, and the writ petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›