Rajasthan Court March 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.
Jagtar Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)117
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Admit, Issue notice. Mr Udawat, learned Public. Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of non petitioner No. 1 and Mr L. R. Calla on behalf of non petitioner No 2 at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties the matter has been finally heard today.2. Mr. Calla raisd a preliminary objection that all that the impugned order speaks is a direction to the non petitioners to show cause about the action taken against him, and, therefore, there is no illegality to be challenged by way of filing the revision petition. According to him even if there is any wrong recorded term in the order this point may be raised by the petitioners in that court itself by after putting in appearance in compliance to the notices. Had it been only a question of issuing show cause notice in a proper way, this court would have looked into the matter as to whether an interference in revisional jurisdiction is called for or not? But in the present case...
Smt. Heera Bai Vs. Nandlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)88
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 4th December, 1980 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur. By this judgment aforesaid the Additional Sessions Judge reversed the judgment dated 9th January, 1980 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Mavli in an application for maintenance filed by the petitioner under Section 125,Cr.P.C.2. The said application was filed by the petitioner with the allegation that she is the wife of the non-applicant and since the non applicant was not keeping her & had married again, she may be allowed maintenance @ Rs.300 per month. The said application filed by the petitioner was opposed by the non-applicant and one of the grounds for opposing the petition was that the petitioner was living in adultery with one Bhuralal. The Magistrate I class, Mavli by his judgment dated 9th January, 1980 allowed the application of the petitioner and directed the non applicant to pay a sum of Rs, 60/- per month as maintenance allow...
Sunder Lal and anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj74; 1983()WLN189
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. The question, which arises in this case, is as to whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is not disputed that the appeal was not filed within the time allowed under the Limitation Act, but the learned counsel for the appellant explained that the delay was caused on account of the fact that the court of the Additional District Judge was situated at Raisinghnagar but the case was heard while the learned Judge was holding a camp court at Suratgarh and that applications for certified copies were submitted at Suratgarh and then at Raisinghnagar and finally at Sri Ganganagar, where the Central Record Room of the District Court is situated. Learned counsel submits that there was sufficient cause for the delay. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that under the law a valuable right has accrued to the decree-holders and the same should not be lightly interfered with by this ...
Akbar Khan and 3 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)96
D.L. Mehta, J.1. In all these four writ petitions, a common point is involved and, therefore, it will be convenient to dispose them of by this single judgment.2. The petitioner Akbar khan (in S.B. Civil writ Petition No. 72 of 1981) was appointed semi permanent with effect from 31.1.71 vide order Ex.1. Similarly, petitioner Manilal (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 148/81), La mi Narain (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 149/81) and Sokat Ali (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 73/81) were declared as semi-permanent with effect from 31.5.70, 31.3.71 and 1.7.70 respectively, vide orders marked Ex.1.3. The Superintending Engineer, vide his letter No. 7044 dated 7.9.77, addressed to the Chief Engineer, P.W.D., (B & R), Rajasthan, Jaipur, & requested that the fixation of other seven Civil Mistries is still to be done and he has supplied the required information vide his letter dated 26.5.77. He has specifically mentioned in Ex. 3 (in the cases of Akbar knan, Shokat Ali & Laxmi Narain) and Ex.2 (...
Surendra Mohan Mathur Vs. Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Raj167; 1983()WLN49
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated September 3, 1982, whereby the prayer of the petitioner to lead secondary evidence has been rejected. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a revision against the said order was filed before this Court and the same was withdrawn on October 8, 1982 in Civil Revision Petition No. 495/82. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed an error apparent on the face of record in not permitting the petitioner to lead secondary evidence with regard to draft prepared for a partition on October 18, 1970. It is contended that the learned Additional District Judge committed a clear error of law in taking the aforesaid view and as siren this Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is p...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramkumar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)51
M.C. Jain, J.1. The respondent Ramkumar Singh was acquitted of the offences under Sections 397 and 307, IPC, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, by his judgement dated 22.12.1972.2. The prosecution case in nutshell, is that on 12.9.1971 at about 3.30 p.m., the accused-respondent came in the field of Mst. Anki. The respondent inquired Mst. Anki as to whose field that is. Thereupon she replied that it belongs to Swamis. The accused, thereupon asked her to handover Borla and Galsari. Thereupon she said that she will call her father-in-law. According to Mst. Anki, the accused took out the revolver and at revolver point she was relieved of her Galsari and Borla and she was again threatened not to raise any alarm, else he will fire a shot with pistol. Thereafter the accused ran away from her field. Mst. Anki raised an alarm and called Shivji Mali. It is alleged that both of them followed the accused raising shouts 'Chor' 'Chor'. The accused entered into the town of Sardar Sahar....
Phoolchand and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN161
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974), here in after to be shortly referred to as the Cr PC, has been moved on behalf of two brothers, namely, Phool Chand Sharma and Gopal Prasad Sharma, in the following circumstances.2. It is alleged that these two brothers, during the period, June to September 1980, made cheques to each other as payees, drawn on the New Bank of India, Sinsini, that these cheques were delivered by them to the Manager, State Bank of India, Bharatpur Branch, for collection, that the said Manager credited the amount of these cheques in their respective accounts immediately without waiting for the necessary advice from the drawee bank & that when these cheques were sent to the then Manager of the drawee bank at Sinsini for clearance, the latter, instead of immediately dishonoring them and sending the necessary advice in that behalf to the State Bank of India, Bharatpur Bianch, sat over them, for an unre...
Sabir Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)75
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Sabir has filed this appeal against his conviction under Section 302 IPC and 307 IPC for causing death of his brother Ismile and causing another gun shot injury, with the intention to cause death of Hanif, his third brother. The conviction has been recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh, who conducted the trial.2. According to the prosecution, there were four brothers Sabir, Ismile Hanif and Mohammed Ali. The eldest was Ismile, who used to live separately from the other three brothers. Sabir, Hanif and Mohammed Ali used to live together.3. About 7-8 months prior to the date of the occurrence, there was dispute bet wean these 3 brothers in respect of the partition of the agricultural land. This dispute led to separation of Sabir. On 24th May, 1978 at about 7 A.M., Mohammed Ali (P W. 2) was taking his four bullocks and one calf from his house to the well. He tied at the well. At that very time, Sabir came there. He had a gun and a pharsa with him. He untie...
Labour Enforcement Inspector (Central) Vs. Shanker Lal Joshi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)56
M.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Chhittoregarh dated 6-7-1976 whereby the respondent was acquitted of the breach of the Rules 4, 5 and 5(a) punishable under Rule 22 of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956.2. Shri K. K. Ahlowalia, Labour Enforcement Officer P.W. 1 along with Shri J.D. Sharma, Assistant Labour Commissioner P.W. visited the mine of respondent on 15-1-1974 at about 1 P.M. He found that 12 male and 25 female labourers were working on the mine. He asked for the attendance Register, Payment of Wages Register, Employees B Register, Advance Register, Fines Register and Deductions Register from Shri Shankerlal, the owner and lease holder of the mine. Shri Shankerlal admitted that no registers are kept. The requisite notices were also not pasted at the mines. Inspection memo Ex. P. 1 was prepared to which Shri Shankerlal appended his signature and Shri J. D. Sharma also signed, the same. The memo also contained a show cause...
Kishan Lal Koli Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN106
S.K. Sidhu, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ for quashing Notification No. AME/Tonk/RCRI/1982, dated, February 18, 1982, issued by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Tonk, inviting applications for the grant of mining lease for bajri over a certain area on the bank of river Banas in village Chironj on rent-cum-royalty basis, and for a direction to the respondents (i.e., the State of Rajasthan, the Director of Mines Rajasthan and Assistant Mining Engineer, Tonk) to grant the mining lease over the area in question to the petitioner on long term basis and, till the fin lisation of the long term mining lease in favour of the petitioner, to grant him a permit for removal of bajri on short term basis.2. A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition would at once show that there is no merit at all in this petition and that therefore it should be dismissed in limine. It will be seen that the petitioner made an application, dated, Febr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »