Rajasthan Court October 1984 Judgments
Lalloo Vs. Smt. Bachi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Raj49
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment and decree dt. 2nd May, 1981 passed by the District Judge, Tonk, allowing the application filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Act and, passing the decree in favour of the respondent wife, namely Bachi.2. The marriage took place on Alkha Feej Svt. 2030. The dissolution of the marriage is claimed by the wife Smt. Bachi on various grounds including the ground of cruelty. The application was seriously contested by the husband-appellant. Issue No. 1 was framed in respect of desertion and, Issue No. 2 was in relation to cruelty.3. The trial Court came to the conclusion on the appreciation of the evidence of both the parties that the desertion was not proved but the cruelty was proved.4. In this appeal, Shri Narendra Jain, appearing for the husband Lalloo has submitted that the approach of the trial Court was perverse inasmuch a...
Tag this Judgment!Jalam Singh Vs. Smt. NaraIn Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN32
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. In these two special appeals an identical question relating to court fees has been raised and as such that matter is disposed of by a common order. 2. Both appeals arise out of a suit for partition which was partly decreed by the trial court. Both parties filed appeals which were heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court, who by his order dated February 1, 1984 dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and allowed the defendant's appeal, with the result that the plaintiff's suit was dismissed in its, entirety. Now, the plaintiff has filed both the Special Appeals against the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated February 1, 1984. Court fee of Rs. 10/- has been affixed on each one of the two appeals and the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that court fee is payable on these appeals iup accordance with the provisions of Article 3(iii)(2)(a) of Schedule II of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (Act No. XX...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Raghav Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Raj13; 1985(1)WLN437
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J. 1. An unfortunate feud between the husband & wife has resulted in this matrimonial dispute. The respondent husband has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging therein that he has been a good scholar in bindi literature but got an illiterate wife, who smokes and is habitual for committing thefts so also abusing him. The cruelty was alleged against the wife appellant and, the desertion was also alleged but, the wife-appellant denied all these allegations. It was alleged that it was father-in-law of the respondent husband who managed and paid for his education and this education has proved to be curse because now having been educated at the cost of the wife, he started giving abuses for illiteracy of the lady-wife. It was alleged that the husband was not giving good treatment to the wife.2. The evidence was recorded and before that, petition for divorce was amended and the same was allowed a...
Tag this Judgment!All India Loco Running Staff Association Northern Railway and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN137
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These three writ petitions involve identical questions and they were heard together. It will be convenient to dispose them of by a common order.2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2277/83 has been filed by All India Loco Running Staff Association, Northern Railway, Jodhpur, through its General Secretary, Shyam Lal Sharma, against (1) the Union of India and (2) the Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur sacking to quash the order Anx. 1 dated March 1982 and for a direction against the non-petitioners to restore all the benefits of which the workmen referred therein have been deprived by the said order.3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2343 of 1983 has been filed by Air India Loco Running Staff Association, Western Railway, Bikaner through its Divisional Secretary, Radha Krishna Sharma, praying that Anx. 1 dated March 2, 1981, may be quashed and the non-petitioners may be directed to restore all the benefits of which the workmen have been...
Tag this Judgment!Foremost Dairies Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Raj116; 1985(1)WLN43
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. Both the above writ petitions are disposed of by one single order as identical questions of fact and law are involved in both the cases.2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in these cases I would refer to the pleadings made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 603/1984.3. This petition has been filed by M/s. Foremost Dairies Limited, a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') and by petitioner No. 2, who is a share-holder of the company. Originally the writ petition was filed on June 12, 1984, challenging the Rajasthan Milk (Export Control) Order, 1984 dated May 9, 1984, published in the Rajasthan Gazette Part IV (Ga) dated May 10, 1984, which was brought into force with immediate effect and was to cease to be in force on the first day of September, 1984. After the filing of the writ petition, the State Government has issued similar notifications from time to time extending the period up ...
Tag this Judgment!Malu Khan Lalu Khan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1984
Reported in: [1986]157ITR457(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ' the Tribunal ' herein), has referred the following questions for our decision :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that on account of violation by the partners of the firm of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956, a firm valid in law has not come into existence in view of the provisions of Section 23 the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ? 2. If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the benefit of continuation of registration granted to the applicant firm earlier by the Income-tax Officer could be cancelled by him under Section 186 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of assessment year 1967-68 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holdin...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chandra Johari Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1984
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ496Raj
V.S. Dave, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated September 27, 1982, summarily dismissing the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 809 of 1982.2. A notice to show cause was issued in this appeal on January 6, 1983. Thereafter the respondent led a reply to the special appeal. Since the matter involves an important question of law, with the common consent of both the parties the arguments were heard in detail in the main appeal, at the admission stage.3. The appellant was working in the respondent Bank and was posted at M.I. Road Branch in the month of January, 1979, and was assigned the duties of shroff and godown keeper. The appellant alleged that he attended his duties on 10th and 11th January, 1979 and his attendance was marked in the register on both the days and according to the Bank authorities the appellant absented from duties on both the days without permission. The case of the Bank further was that the appellant on January 10, 1979 e...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Through Executive Engineer Pwd (Bandr) and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN449
G.M. Lodha, J.1. A brutal, shameless, daylight rape on 'social and substantial justice' by none else but the State, is the genesis, of this 'frivolous and vexatious' appeal.2. A poor homage to social justice is well depicted by this appeal where 'mighty State' has filed this frivolous appeal against the unfortunate parents of Babulal, the workman who died in harness on 16th October, 1975. The socio-economic pragmatic approach exhibited by labour laws, expressly provides for compensation. It is customary and traditional for the State or its functionaries, on such occasions to act on humanitarian grounds and grant ex-gratia monetary relief to the deceased's family. But as an antithesis and anticlimax of it, the State contested the claim of compensation first. To add fuel to fire, when awarded, it has challenged it now by invoking, in an appeal Under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, appellate jurisdiction, for a most unequitable relief, depriving the deceased's family of this token...
Tag this Judgment!Minerva Shiksha Samiti Vs. Smt. Mithlesh Kumari D/O Chaudhari Bhagwan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN1
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur passed on 18-7-84 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for grant of mandatory injunction.2. Petitioner Minerva Shiksha Samiti is running a school having more than 350 students in the disputed premises, which was taken on rent from the mother of the non-petitioner in July, 1978 at the rate of Rs. 100/-P.M. The rent was gradually increased to Rs. 180/- P.M. The non-petitioner started harassing the petitioner and therefore, it had become necessary for the petitioner to file the present suit on 9-7 82, for permanent injunction restraining the non-petitioner from interfering with the peaceful possession of the disputed property. Along with the plaint the plaintiff had also filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. An Ad-intenm order was passed by the trial Court on 9-7.1982 and since the non-petitioner refused to acc...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Ramawat and 2 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)534
ORDERThe admission of the following students to I M.B.B.S. Course were wrongly made because of bonafide clerical mistake. The names of the students did not appear in the admission list for M.B.B.S. Course. Therefore, the admission of these students made under order No. 1(3)C/No/JU/83/12668-61 dated 7th November, 1983 Miss Asra Sayeed; No. F. 1(3)G/HC/JU/83-84/12786-68 dated 9-11-83 only Vijay Ramawat and No. F. 1(3)G/MC/JU/83/13345-50 dated 25-11-83 Ashok Kumar Rathi is hereby cancelled with immediate effect and they can collect their fees.Int. No. Roll Name of candidate Father's name470 5387 Vijay Ramawat S.N. Ramawat471 5434 Asra Sayeed (Miss) S.M. Sayeed474 10124 Ashok Kumar Rathi P.D. RathiSd/-Principal ControllerReliance in this connection was placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on Geeta Misra v. Utkal University AIR 1971 Ori. 276, K.R. Shivdatta v. Government Medical College AIR 1972 Mysore 135, Anil Kumar v. University of Allahabad : AIR1973All442 , Pritamdas v. Sta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »