Rajasthan Court January 1984 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.
Girwar Dan Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ2; 1984()WLN451
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This criminal revision has been filed by Girwar Dan Laxman Dan and Girdhar Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the party No. 1') against non-petitioner Ram Prasad (hereinafter referred to as 'the party No. 2') challenging the 'order of learned Sessions Judge Tonk dated 16th Aug. 1982, whereby he set aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malpura, dated 24th July, 1982.2. Brief facts leading to this revision are that the party No. 1 submitted an application Under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. against party No. 2 on 16th July, 1982, on the allegations that one Mst. Bhoori had sold agricultural land measuring 29 Bighas 8 Biswas in village Rajpura Tan Tordi Tehsil Malpura in favour of the party No. 1 and also handed over actual possession over the land in question. Subsequently, party No. 2 and Mst. Bhoori collusively wanted to dispossess the party No. 1. On July 15, 1982, they tried to dispossess the party No. 1 by force and on that account there ...
Jagdish Vs. HarinaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Raj91; 1984()WLN112
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1.The petitioner, Jagdish, was declared elected as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Gram Nimodia in the general election held on Dec. 14. 1981. He secured 538 votes against his nearest rival Hari Narain (respondent 1) who polled 531 votes. Other candidates, namely, Kalyan, Nanag, Babulal and Bajrang Lal, polled 15,19,15 and 27 votes respectively. Hari Narain challenged the petitioner's election by presenting a petition to the Munsif (respondent 2). The petitioner who was impleaded as the main respondent in that election petition contested the same. The Munsif framed issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. Two of the issues which were decided in favour of Hari Narain and against the elected candidate (petitioner herein) read as follows:(1) Whether the voters list of Ward No. 8 of the Gram Panchayat Nimodia rantains a list of 53 voters from serial No. 75 to No. 127, who were residents of two gramdan villages, namely, Dhani Shervan and Dhani Lakhavas, and were as ...
Amra Ram Vs. University of Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)149
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Petitioner Amra Ram has filed this Writ Petition on i November 19, 1983 for issuing a direction to the University of Jodhpur, Jodhpur to hold special examination of practical including vivi voce Hydraulics Laboratory, Graphics Statics and Electronics Lab. of the petitioner of B.E. 3rd Year.2. The petitioner is a student of B.E. 3rd year in the M.B.M. Engineering College, Jodhpur. The written examinations of the 2nd Ssmester (Mines) 3rd Year were held from May 16, 19 ...
Birla Jute and Industries Ltd., Chittorgarh and anr. Vs. Rajasthan Sta ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Raj78; 1984()WLN116
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. (petitioner 1 herein) is the proprietor of Birla Cement Works Chittorgarh; and M. M. Goswami (petitioner 2 herein) is the Senior Vice-President of Birla Cement Works Chittorgarh. The petitioners filed this application for issue to the State of Rajasthan (respondent 2) and the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (R.S.E.B.) direction, order or writ including writ in the nature of mandamus directing them to supply continuous electric energy of 10824 KVA to the petitioners' Cement Works at Chittorgarh and to refrain from showing discrimination in favour of M/s. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. Alwar (respondent 4) as is being done pursuant to the letter, dated Dec. 20, 1982. The impugned letter which was addressed by the Special Secretary to the Rajasthan Government in the Industries (GR. I) Department to respondent 4 is as under:I am directed to refer to your representation dated the 23rd November, 1982 regarding power supply to your unit...
Sunder Das Jindal and Company Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1984
Reported in: [1984]56STC89(Raj); 1984()WLN267
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This is a reference made by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, referring to this Court a question of law arising out of its order dated 19th June, 1970, as directed by this Court under Section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Board of Revenue has referred the following question to this Court for its opinion:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant can be said to be a 'dealer' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, for the purposes of the present controversy 2. The assessee-firm M/s. Sunderdass Jindal and Co., Suratgarh, entered into a contract on 31st October, 1964, with the Government of Rajasthan for manufacture and supply of bricks and tiles to the State Government for use in the construction of the Rajasthan canal. A tender notice was published by the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Canal Project, III Desert Division, Suratgarh, invit...
Sohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)26
P.K. Banerjee, C.J.1. In this rule, the petitioner has challenged Exs. 7, 8 and 9 of this petition by which the order of allotment of the quarry in favour of the petitioner was set at naught and non-petitioner No 4 was allotted the quarry.2. The case made out in the petition of the petitioner is that the petitioner applied before the State Govt, for allotment of the quarry being No. 909 on 22-11-1966 and the order was made soon thereafter. Appeal was taken by respondent No. 4 to the State Government and the State Government by an appellate order remanded the case back to the authorities concerned. or the purpose of considering whose application was prior, whether the petitioner's or respondent No 4's It was subsequently found that the application by respondent No. 4 was made on 17-11-76 and the petitioner herein made the same on 22-12-76. It was the argument of Mr. Joshi and it is admitted that respondent No. 4's application was not on the record, but all the tribunals below held that ...
Raghuvir Singh Solanki Vs. Bishan Kumar Tandon and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)145
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act (Act No.? of 1971), filed by petitioner Raghuvir Singh Solanki against Shri B.K. Tandon Assistant Secretary to Government Agricultural Group III, Rajasthan, Jaipur and Shri T.R. Mehra Chief Engineer Ground Water Department, Jodhpur for punishing them for contempt of the Court. The petitioner has stated that by order Anx. 3 dated February 16, 1983 the Government has reverted the petitioner on the substantive post of the senior surveyor with immediate effect and Shri Shakati Singh who is junior to the petitioner has not been reverted by that order and thus the non-petitioners have committed contempt of this Court and they should be punished and each of the non-petitioners may be asked to pay Rs. 15000/- as damages to him. It his also been stated that the petitioner has not received salary for 8 months as the amount of the junior post was offered to him.2. The material facts for deciding this co...
Sanwar Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN183
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. The petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated October 30, a 1982 reversing the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar dated March 13, 1981.2. Brief facts leading to this petition ate that the Food Inspector, Sitaram Sharma submitted a complaint under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred, to as 'the Act') on January (sic)0, 1980 with the allegation that the purchased 600 gram of Khandsari sugar on October 25, 1979 from the shop of the petitioner situated at Sikar. The sugar was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standards of purity. The case was first tried by Munsiff Magistrate, Fatehpur who framed the charge against the petitioner on July, 31, 1980. In reply to the charge accused Sanwar Mal admitted that the sample of sugar was taken from him but it was not adulterated. The case was subsequently tried by th...
ismail Khan and 29 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN585
G.M. Lodha, J.1. All the petitioners mentioned above claim to be the Managers of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Socities in Bharatpur District holding substantive posts and alleged that they are permanent employees. They have now received the orders which are impugned orders issued by the Managing Director, Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur directing their compulsory retirement under Rule 17 of the Krishi Rin Datri Sahkari Samitiyon ke Vyavasthapakon ke Chayan, Niyukti and Seva Niyam, 1977 thereinafter referred to as, `the Rules, 19J7) in pursuance of the decision of the Committee. A specimen copy of the order passed in Ismail Khan's case is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:dk;kZy; nh Hkjriqj lsUVy dksvksijsfVo cSd fy0] Hkjriqjdzekad@_.k@293 fnukad 8&1&83 14&2&83Jh blekbZy [kak O;oLFkkid xzke lgdkjh lfefr fy0 }kjklgk;d vf/k'kk'kh vf/kdkjh i0 lfefr uxjfo'k; & vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr ckcr Afnukad 8&7&83 dks desVh dh cSBd gqbZ A ftl cSBd es vkidk ekeyk izLrqr gqvk...
Bheru Lal Vs. Shanti Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj53; 1984()WLN9
ORDERK.S. Lodha, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs revision against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Udaipur dt. 17-5-83 accepting the defendant's appeal against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Udaipur dt. 19-2-81 and setting aside the ex parte decree passed against the defendant Shanti Lal in a suit for recovery of money.2. The first date of hearing fixed in the suit was 13-9-79. The summons sent to the defendant was returned with the report that he had gone to Bombay. The case was then adjourned to 4-12-79 and summons was sent both in the ordinary course as also by registered post. The summons sent in the ordinary course was returned with the report that the defendant was at Bombay and would not return till 15-12-79. The summons sent by registered post was, however, returned with the endorsement of refusal dt. 20-11-79.3. On 4-12-79 the staff of the Court was on strike and, therefore, the case could not be taken up. It was then taken up on 31-12-79 and adjourned to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »