Rajasthan Court February 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.
Firm Modern Machinery Stores, Alwar Vs. the District Judge, Alwar and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1983
Reported in: 1983()WLN74
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the learned District Judge. Alwar, dated May 16, 1981 and the Munsiff, Alwar, dt. May 2. 1977, by which these two Courts have taken the view that the petition filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Rajas-than Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1957'), is not maintainable in the Court of Munsiff. Alwar.2. Brief facts for the determination of this controversy are that the petitioner filed an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957 for determination of the debts outstanding against the non-petitioner. Kaluram. It is undisputed even by the petitioner that Kaluram ordinarily resided in village Toda Machawa, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar which falls within the jurisdiction of Munsiff. Laxmangarh. The petitioner submitted this application in the Court of Munsiff. Alwar on the ground that the cause of action for giving th...
Bhanwarlal Kavad and ors. Vs. Shyamsunder and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj113; 1983()WLN307
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 28-8-1982 whereby the defendant-petitioners' applications under Order 10. Rs. 1 and 2, C. R C. dated 2-12-1981 and 10-5-1982, were rejected.2. The plaintiff-non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 instituted a suit for rendition of accounts against the present petitioners and two other defendants. Defendant No. 1 Bhanwarlal filed his written statement on 8-5-1981. Thereafter written statements were filed by the other defendants. On 10-7-1981, the plaintiffs moved an application for permission to file additional written statement under Order 8, Rule 9, C. P. C. This application of the plaintiffs has not so far been disposed of. On 11-8-1981 the defendant Bhanwarlal moved an application for admission and denial of the original notice said to be signed by the plaintiff Shyamsunder, as a plea has been taken by him in his written statement that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by time. A further application to the same effect was pre...
Karan Singh S/O Chittar Singh Vs. Collector and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN154
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a writ petition by Karan Singh who was Patwari in the services of the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner, Karan Singh, has been dismissed on February 2, 1982 vide an order (Annexure I).2. A departmental inquiry was instituted against the petitioner in the year 1975. In that inquiry, the two charges were levelled against the petitioner and, after the inquiry they were found to be proved.3. According to the inquiry report, the inquiry officer was of the opinion that the following two charges were proved:1 ;g gS fd dj.k flag iVokjh us iVokj e.M+y vUFkM+k es iVokjh in ij dk;Z djrs gq, Jh Hkksiky flag o y{e.k flag jktiwr xzke cFkokM+k es 1402@& :Ik;s olwy djds ml jkf'k dk fl;kgk es vey ugh djds vigj.k fd;k A2 ;g gS fd Jh dj.k flag us jlhn la0 25752@14 dh r`rh; izfr Jh j?kq ukFk oxSjg tkV ftudh vksj ls 10-06 iSls tek gq, Fks dks ugh nsdj vius ikl j[kh rFkk bl r`rh; izfr ij mijh ysdku djrs gq, vjksi la0 izFke es of.kZr jkf'k dk vadu djds Jh Hkskiky flag o y{e.k f...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jamnadass Gangadass and Co. and anr. Etc. Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1766; 1983()WLN224
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. The above contempt applications raise a common question of limitation, so they are being disposed of by this common order.2. In the writ petitions filed by the contemners, similar interim orders were passed by this Court, whereunder the contemners were required to deliver sixty-five per cent stock of sugar held by them on the date of commencement of the Sugar (Retention & Sale by Recognised Dealers) Order, 1979, on payment of its price @ Rs. 323/- per quintal. Despite intimation by the State Government, as contemplated by the interim orders, the contemners failed to sell sugar to the Government, as ordered. The State has moved applications for initiating contempt proceedings against the contemners under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On these applications, this Court ordered issuance of notices to the contemners. Although the applications were filed within one year from the date of commiss...
Kamlesh Kumar Khatri Vs. the University of Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN12
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Against the order dated December 2, 1982 of the learned single Judge by which he dismissed the writ petition summarily, the appellant Kamlesh Kumar, who will here in after be referred to as 'the petitioner' has filed this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949.2. It will be proper to notice relevant facts leading to this appeal in order to appreciate the points that have been canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties before us.3. The petitioner was admitted in Bachalor of Engineering First Annual Scheme Examination in the academic year 1980-81 in mines. He did not secure the requisite marks in Chemistry-I subject in First B.E. Annual Examination. He was, however, allowed to keep term in the next higher class i.e. Second Year B.E. He cleared the subject Chemistry-I on account of which he was allowed to keep terms. In the Second BE. Examination, the petitioner failed to secure the minimum marks in papers Chemistry-III, Civil Engine...
Vishwa Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Raj188; 1983()WLN127
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed by a citizen of Mandrela town, Tehsil Chirawa. District Jhunihunu of Rajasthan State. The State of Rajasthan. videnotification D/- the 2nd May, 1976 established the Municipal Board Mandrelawhich included the area of revenue village of Mandrela and which earlier wasa Panchayat. The population of Mandrela town as per 1980 year census is9,299 and it is said to be having urbanoriented complex as there are Government hospitals, private medical elinics.higher secondary and middle schools including primary and adult educationcentre, private schools, branches of Bank,of Baroda, post offices, telephone exchange office. Junior, Engineer, State ;Electricity Board and water supply offices, etc.2. On 26th June; 1981. a notification was issued under Section 6(1) of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipalities Act') by the State Government expressing its intention t0 convert the Municipality of Mandrela to...
Ram Bharose and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)47
S.C. Agrawal, J1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants Ram Bharose, Harphool, Man Singh and Badna against the judgment dated 16th June, 1977 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 84/76. In the sessions case aforesaid appellant Ram Bharose was prosecuted on charges under Sections 327, 363/ 336, 392/394, 376 and 379, IPC. The other three appellants viz , Harphool Mansingh and Badna, were prosecuted on charges under Sections 327, 363/366 and 392 and 392/394 IPC. The Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants under Sections 323 and 366 IPC, and has acquitted them of all other charges. Appellant Ram Bharose has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 366 TPC and to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 325 IPC. The other three appellants have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each under Section 66 IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for si...
Mohan Bai Vs. Jai Kishan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Raj240; 1983()WLN203
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is as to whether a compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. should be signed by the party as well as by his counsel and a compromise petition, signed by the Advocate for the party only and not by the party himself, would not form a valid basis for a compromise decree under Order 23, Rule 3, C.P.C.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on account of the amendment in the provisions of Order 23. Rule 3, C.P.C. by the Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 and on account of the addition of the words 'in writing and signed by the parties' in the aforesaid provision. a lawful agreement or compromise, before it can be given effect to by the court by recording the same under Order 23, Rule 3, C.P.C. should be signed by the party himself and such a compromise petition cannot be acted upon by the Court, if it is signed merely by the Advocate for that party.2A. The provisions of Order 23, Rule 3, C.P.C. as they now stand after ...
Om Prakash Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)16
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has been convicted by Judicial Magistrate First Class Roadways, Hanumangarh and sentenced him for 15 days simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo 7 days simple imprisonment Against the said conviction an appeal was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hanumangarh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh accepted the appeal of the petitioner in part and modified the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Road Ways He maintained the conviction and the sentence was reduced to already undergone. Against the said judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge a revision petition has been filed before this Court and the revision has been admitted. The short question involved in this case is whether only on basis of the conviction recorded, the petitioner could be removed or dismissed from service or not This Court in case of Purshottem Singh v...
Chhangaram and Pema Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN318
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Second innings of 'bail without jail', after avoiding arrest for one and a half years.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Khan P.P.3. Chhanga and Pema have filed this second Bail application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. after the first was rejected by this Court on 4.9.81, In the order dated 1.9.81, detailed facts have been given as to how two cross cases were filed by the rival parties and in one of them Chhanga Ram and Pema are facing investigation. The co-accused of Chhange ram and Pema were granted anticipatory bail by order dated 4.9.81, and they are Sarvjeet, Raghubeer, Ramsingb, Murli and Raghunath required in F.I.R. No. 57/81 of P.S. Goda Bhim dated 29.7.81. In the cross case of FIR No. 56/81 of the same Police station, Jainarain and Cbiman were admitted to bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. by the same order.4. Earlier also, a submission was made by Mr. Rastogi, who represented Chhanga ram and Pema that it was established on record that the opposit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›