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.
Satyanarayan and ors. Vs. Ram Niwas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj105; 1983()WLN254
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed under Order 39, Rule 2-A C.P.C. by the learned District Judge. Merta dated Jan. 15. 1983. The learned District Judge found as a fact that the appellants had disobeyed the order of temporary injunction passed by that court and they unlawfully took possession of the shop in dispute, in derogation of the order of temporary in-'junction. He, therefore, directed that each one of the appellants be detained in civil prison for a period of 7 days.2. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell and for a declaration that the sale deed dated July 24. 1978 executed by the appellant Sat-yanarayan in favour of the wives of appellants Nos. 2 to 4 was ineffective against the plaintiff and for cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed a temporary injunction was passed by the learned District Judge. Merta on March 3. 1982 restraining the defendants in that suit from dispossessing the plaintiff from the shop in dispute and from d...
State of Rajasthan Vs. R.J. Moolchandani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)100
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated May 2, 1973 passed by the Special Judge, Sri Ganganagar, whereby, the accused-respondent R J. Moolchandani has been acquitted of the charges under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the Act').3. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is as under:- At the relevant time, the accused-respondent was posted as Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer, C-Ward, Sri Ganganagar, and was dealing with (he assessment of the passenger & poods tax payable by M/S Nanak Roadways who were plying their buses from Raisinghnagar to Ursar and Raisinghnagar to Annopgarh. On 19.10.1970, PW5 Jarnailsingh, who was employed as a cashier with M/s. Nanak Roadways, submitted an application (Ex. P/6) before Shri Jhabarmal Maheria (P W8), Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruotion, Sri Gangaragar. In the said application, it was stated that the pr...
Dhuli Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)66
1. Mst. Dhuli has challenged her conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder of her husband Kalia.2. One Vira reported to the police Station that yesterday when he was grazing his cattle, his sister Dhuli w/o Kalia met him. Dhuli told him that before six or seven days, her husband Kalia had gone to Gujarat. After two days of Kalia's departure to Gujarat, she was sleeping all alone in her house. In the mid-night she heard some noise in the house and saw that one person was taking the gram in his thela. She thought that the thief has come and therfore took out an axe and gave an axe-blow on the neck of that person on account of which he died. Thereafter, she lit the match stick & found that, that person was none-else but her husband Kalia. She was terribly frightened at this and therefore, buried the dead body in the house and did not tell it to anybody in the village. Dhuli said that she has come to tell this incidentstory to Vira only.3. Vira on this, sent Dhuli to the house of Babuji ...
Gram Panchayat Vs. Iswar Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN194
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Defendant No. 1, who is petitioner has filed this revision under s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated July 19 1978 passed by the District Judge, Balotra, by which he decided issue No. 18 relating to limitation and held that the suit of the plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 to 6 is within limitation under Section 79(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (No. XXI of 1953) (for short 'the Act' here in after).2. The plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 to 6 instituted a suit for declaration, injunction, possession and mense profits in their capacity as trustees of the Oswal Community of Jasol. It was instituted on October 12, 1976. The petitioner and non-petitioners No. 7 to 12 were defendants in the suit. There is a piece of land measuring about 737 7/9 Sq. Yds. within the Panchayat boundary of village Jasol. It is alleged that this land belongs to the Oswal Community. Originally, the aforesaid land was owned by Thakur Madho Singh of Jasol. He orally ...
Tahal Singh and anr. Vs. Shammi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-1983
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC102
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner dated May 1, 1979, awarding a sum of Rs. 30,000/- by way of compensation to the claimants, respondent Nos. 1 to 7 against the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 8 but dismissing the claim against the insurance company, respondent No. 9.2. The case of the claimants, who are respondent Nos. 1 to 7 before this Court, is that Hari Ram, was the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 7, and while he was going on foot on November 16, 1972 near the gate of the Sadul Textiles Mills at Sri Ganganagar, he was hit by bus No. RJK 8027, which was being driven by respondent No. 8, Teja Singh negligently and at an excessive speed. According to the case of the claimants the bus first struck against a cyclist and thereafter Hari Ram, who was going on foot on the road, was run over and then the bus struck against a small culvert as a result of which the c...
Manphool Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN199
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Niyajuddin accepts notice on behalf of the State. Both the parties submit that the case may be decided at the admission stage. The contention of the petitioner is that the proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar & notice issued by him under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) may be quashed. Petitioner is at liberty to tile objection before the Tehsildar and it is premature to hold whether the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of Section 22 of the Act or not. The prayer of the petitioner that the notice issued under Section 22 of the Act may be 'quashed is rejected.2. The second prayer of the petitioner is that he is eligible under Rule 13(5)(b) of the Rajasthan Colonisation Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) for the allotment of the Land. Rule 13(5)(b) provides that where an adult son of the cultivator land-holder is eligible for allotment of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›