Rajasthan Court September 1983 Judgments
Sukh Singh Gehlot Vs. the Manager, Automobile Co-operative Workshop Lt ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)270
D.P. Gupta, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against a no dispute award passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated June 10,1974,2. The petitioner alleged in the writ petition that he was working as a helper in the Automobile Cooperative Workshop Ltd., Jodhpur but his service was terminated by the respondent No. 1 with effect from October 21, 1971. The State Government made a reference regarding the validity of the termination of the petitioner's service to the Judge, Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur by its notification dated February 7, 1972. On March 2, 1974 the learned Judge of the Labour Court fixed the next date of hearing on the matter as April 17,1974 for recorning the evidence of the petitioner and he also decided to hold the camp of Labour Court at Jodhpur on the aforesaid date. But the Judge did not hold the camp of his court at Jodhpur on April 17,1974 and on that date, while sitting at Jaipur, he passed an order to the effect that both the parties were ...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Budhi Vs. Balmukand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN629
S.S. Vyas, J.1. This is a vendor-defendant's appeal from the judgment and decree of the karued Additional District Judge (1), Alwar dated October 14, 1982, by which the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a contract of sale in respect of immovable property viz. Khatedar Rights in the agricultural lands was decreed with costs.2. Plaintiff Balmukand brought a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale against the defendant in the court of District Judge, Alwar on August 9, 1980 the case set up by him was that the defendant is a Khatedar tenant of the seven fields described in para 1 of the plaint. On July 1, 1979, she made an agreement with the plaintiff to sell her Khatedari rights of these fields to him for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and executed agreement (Ex. 1) on the same day in his favour. The price was paid to her in full by him at that very time and she put him in possession of the fields. As per terms of the agreement, she was to obtain 'no dues certificate' from t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Lal Vs. Shyama and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN704
S.S. Vyas, J.1. This is a landlord's revision petition against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Gangapur City dated January 29, 1983 by which is allowed the tenants' appeal and set aside the order of the learned Munsif, Karauli dated August 4, 1981 striking out their defence against eviction.2. The plaintiff-landlord brought a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the tenants in respect of the suit premises in the court of Munsif Karauli. One of the grounds made to seek the eviction was that the tenants had neither paid or tendered the amount of rent due from then for more than six months. They, therefore, committed the default in payment of rent under Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'). The suit was resisted by the tenants. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif provisionally determined the amount of rent in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shri Devi Vs. Kashiram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj94; 1983()WLN528
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of an order dated 23-5- 1983 passed by Munsif City, Jodhpur, in Civil Execution Case No. 51 of 1979, whereby the learned Munsif ordered that the applicant before the executing Court Smt. Shri Devi will not be evicted from the premises in question forcibly, in case if, is found that she is in possession of the property in her own right. The other objection by Smt. Shri Devi in her application, was decided against her.2. In order to appreciate the controversies, which this Court is required to resolve in the present revision petitions, it would be proper to recall a few relevant facts. One Ramchandra obtained at decree for eviction against his tenant Asuram on 11-5-1974. He levied execration of the decree. During the pen-dency of the execution, he sold the house property to Kashi Ram and Smt. Kamla Devi by a registered sale deed dated 26-3-1981. The transferees were substituted as decree-holders in place of Ramchandra by the exe...
Tag this Judgment!Sub-divisional Officer and anr. Vs. Madanlal Son of Shri Nathilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN602
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. The respondent has filed a suit against the appellant for declaring that the requisition and the certificate for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,822.44, issued by the appellant under the Public Demand Recovery Act are invalid and liable to be cancelled. The trial Court decreed the suit for its order dated 24 4-196(sic). The appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed vide order dated 15-9-1977. A second appeal No. 404/1971 came to be filed and was pending. During the pendency of the appeal, Madanlal - the sole respondent expired on 9-4-977. No efforts were made to bring his legal representatives on record. When the case came up fir hearing. No body appeared for the respondent and the appeal was heard ex-parte and allowed. Therefore, the recovery was also made from the legal representatives. The legal representative have Jed the present application submitting that the judgment of this Court dated 8-12-1971, whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgments of the...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Vs. Hansraj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Raj19
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dt. Aug. 23, 1980, passed by the Munsif, Hanumangarh, in execution case No. 21/1976, whereby on the report of the Assistant Nazir and on the application of the decree-holder, passed an order for issue of warrant of possession and for possession to be delivered to the decree-holder of the premises in question with the aid of police.2. Before considering the revision petition on merits, it would be useful and profitable to note some material facts showing the context and the background in which the present revision petition came to be filed.3. The decree-holder Hansraj instituted a suit No. 140/1970 for arrears of rent and eviction of the defendant Kashiram and others from the suit shop, which was decreed by the Munsif on 16-4-1973 and on appeal by Kashiram, a compromise decree was passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, on Sept. 21, 1973, whereby the defendant Kashiram was allowed time up to June 30, 1976,...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Vs. Roshanlal Son of Nandlal Mehta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN516
M.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 6.1.1983, whereby after recording the statements of PW. 1 Roshanlal and PW. 2 Durga shankar, the case was posted for recording remaining evidence of the plaintiff. The grievance of the defendant-petitioner is that the counsel for the defendant-petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine PW. 1 cross-examination was closed and in respect of PW. 2 it was stated that the counsel for the defendant does not want to cross-examine. The defendant-petitioner has submitted the certified copy of the statements of PW. 1 Roshanlal and PW. 2 Durgashankar. A perusal of the statement of Roshanlal would reveal that the defendant's counsel started cross-examination. After putting 3-4 questions in cross-examination, the learned Munsif recorded in the statement that the defendants's counsel is not proceeding with the cross-examination and had busied himself in looking into the file and wasting the time unnecessarily, then he proceeded to clo...
Tag this Judgment!Chandmal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)287
K.S. Lodha, J.1. All three revisions arise out of the same case and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The facts giving rise to these three revisions briefly stated are that a theft had taken piece in the temple of Ambaji situated in Pratap garh. In the night between 17th and 18th of January, 1975. This was discovered by Pujari Ram Chandra on the Morning of 18-1-75 when he went in the temple and found that the western door of the temple was lying open and some clothes etc. were lying scattered He thereupon informed Shri Shambhu Nath, who is the manager of the temple Thereafter a report was lodged by Ram Chandra at P.S Pratapgarh on l8-l-78 vide Ex. P. 2. The list of the stolen pro erries was also submitted separately on the same day. The police registered a case Under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and started investigation. Accused Mangi Lal was arrested on 30-5-78. While in police custody, Mangilal gave information vide Ex. P. 16A on 3-5-75 to the effect that out o...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Vs. Bhanwari Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN646
G.M. Lodha, J.1. A reference has been made by Hon'ble Single Judge on 16th July, 1981 mentioning that there is a conflict of opinion between two single Bench judgments of this Court and, therefore, it is necessary that the conflict must be resolved by the larger Bench. The two decisions referred to relate to interpretation of Rules 234 and 235 of the General Rules (Civil) of Rajasthan. The first judgment is in Suresh Kumar Sharma v. Idol Laxmanji Maharaj 1973 RLW 160 and the second decision is of Mool Chand Soni v. Virendra Kumar 1980 RLW 121.2. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant Mr. U.N. Bhandari has appeared for the respondent and submitted that the view taken by this Court in Mool Chand Soni v. Virendra Kumar (supra) is correct and should be approved by this Bench Now.3. It would be proper to mention the facts mentioned in the reference order in order to appreciate the controversy raised and the genesis of the dispute, which have given rise to this reference.4. A Judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Poosaram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1848; 1983()WLN786
S.S. Byas, J.1. This joint appeal by accused Poosaram, Kojaram and Deeparam is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated July 16, 1977 convicting the appellants under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34, IPC and sentencing each of them to five years rigorous imprisonment.2. Put briefly the prosecution case is as follows:Accused Kojaram and Deeparam are the real brothers, while accused Poosaram is the son of accused Kojaram. They are residents of village Baru P.S. Bap, District Jodhpur. The deceased-victim Bhakhraram aged about 20 years was also a resident of this village. He was related to them at some distance. But the relations between them were not happy. A few days before the occurrence, accused Poosaram had lodged report Ex. D/1 against the deceased-victim and some other persons at police station, Bap for an offence under Section 323, I.P.C. The accused also drove their catties in the field of the victim nearly a month before the incident.3. O...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »