Rajasthan Court November 1984 Judgments
Kartar Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN179
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This application Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by Kartar Singh with the request that the order of' the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Padampur, dated 31-3-83 may be set aside and the proceedings pending before him may be quashed.2. The facts giving rise to this application briefly stated are that the non-petitioner No. 2 Jugraj Singh filed a complaint against the petitioner Kartar Singh and Ors. for offences Under Sections 468, 423, 120B, 199, I.P.C. etc. It was alleged that the complainant and the accused Kartarsingh were brothers. They had an elder brother Saudagar Singh. Saudagar Singh used to live with the complainant and before a few days of his death, Kartar Singh had taken away Saudagar Singh to his house on the pretext that he will get him treated. However, there he forged a Will purporting it to have been executed by Saudager Singh in favour of the minor sons of Kartar Singh. The other accused persons and the complainant are said to be par...
Tag this Judgment!Kartar Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)594
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Katar Singh with the request that the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Padampur, dated 31-3-83 maybe set aside and the proceedings pending before him may be quashed.2. The facts giving rise to this application briefly stated are that the non-petitioner No. 2 Jugraj Singh filed a complaint against the petitioner Kartar Singh and others for offences under Sections 468, 423, 120B, 199, IPC etc. It was alleged that the complainant and the accused Kartar Singh were brothers. They had an elder brother Saudagar Singh. Saudagar Singh used to live with the complainant and before a few days of his death, Kartar Singh had taken away Saudagar Singh to his house on the pretext that he will get him treated. However, there he forged a will purporting it to have been executed by Saudagar Singh in favour of the minor sons of Kartarsingh. The other accused persons and the complainant are said to be parties ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kaur Vs. Darshan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1984
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)101
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were initiated by the non-petitioner Darshan Singh, against the petitioner Mahendra Kaur, his wife. The latter filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (here in after to be referred as 'the Act') on 16-4-1984 praying therein that as she has no source of income, her husband should be directed to provide her interim maintenance allowance and expenses for the litigation. Mahendra Kaur supported the contention of the application by swearing in an affidavit of the same date. On 28-5-1984, Darshan Singh filed reply to the application and denied the contention of his wife that he possessed 25 bighas of land in Chak No. 12 CDR, yielding an income of Rs. 60,000/-. He stated that he was possessing only 2 bighas of land in Chak No. 12 CDR and from its income he was maintaining even himself with difficulty. He substantiated his contention regarding the measurement of his land by filing a ...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Lal Ojha Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)499
Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, c.J.1. In this rule the petitioner has challenged the order of seniority as also the provisional list published on the ground that Rule 171(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 be declared ultra-vires and illegal and that the petitioner should get seniority computed as per the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 and for other reliefs namely, restraining the respondents from effecting the reversion of the petitioner from the post of Naib Tehsildar to post the of Inspector (Land Records) and for quashing the order of reversion. Mr. Mridul argued that in consequence of his prayers in (a) and (b) the petitioner may not be reverted.2. The facts leading to the rule are as follows. The petitioner was appointed as Amin on October 2, 1954 and was promoted as Surveyor with effect from August 14, 1957 in the Consolidation Department after passing the Surveyhr examination. It Appears that every time the seniority lis...
Tag this Judgment!R.J. Engineering and Iron Re-rolling Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1984
Reported in: 1985(4)ECC243; 1986LC205(Rajasthan); 1985(22)ELT782(Raj)
Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, C.J.1. This rule is directed against an order made by the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise Jodhpur, affirmed by the Appellate Officer and thereafter by the Central Government. All of them held that the application having been made beyond the period of limitation, the application cannot be entertained. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner moved this Court to obtain the present rule.2. In a short compass the facts are that the petitioner wrote to the Departmental Authorities whether he is liable to pay excise duty if he manufactures the products from steel ingots or out of cut or broken steel ingots which according to him, by Notification No. 206/63, dated 30th November 1963, amended by notification of 1965, is free from excise duty. '3. In reply to the said letter the petitioner was given to understand that he must pay the excise duty and that the notification does not hold good It appears, it has been held by the Allahabad High Court i...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mohan Lal and ors. and Ram Swaroop and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1984
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC334
S.S. Byas, J.1. By his two Awards dated April 4, 1978, one passed in M.A.C. No. 39/74 and the other passed in M.A.C. No. 43/74, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Bhilwara directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 8000/- to respondent Ramswaroop and a sum of Rs. 6000/- to respondent Mohan Lal as compensation for the injuries sustained by them in one and the same accident. Since the questions of fact and law involved in both the appeals are common, they were heard together and are disposed of by a single judgment.2. Briefly stated, the facts and circumstances leadings to these appeals are as follows.3. The claimants Ramswaroop and Mohan Lal were travelling in bus No. R.J.R. 9515 on April 6. 1974 which was proceeding from Bhilwara to its destination to Ajmer. On its way at a place between mile-stone 13 and 14, the R S.R.T.C. bus No. 9761 came from the opposite direction. Both the buses were running at a fast speed and when they happened to pass by the side of each other, their sides go...
Tag this Judgment!Registrar of Companies Vs. Jai Agro Industries Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1984
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas358(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the Registrar of Companies' (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') under Section 439(5) read with Clauses (c) and (f) of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the winding up of M/s. Jai Agro Industries Ltd., respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), on the ground that the company has not been carrying on business for more than a whole year and has lost its substratum.2. The company was incorporated in the Union Territory of Delhi on July 21, 1969, and, subsequently, it changed its registered office from the Union Territory of Delhi to the State of Rajasthan. The main object with which the company was incorporated was to acquire and take over the existing agricultural and horticultural activities carried on by the Jaipur Udyog Ltd. and to carry on business of farming, horticulture, floriculture, sericulture, etc. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Jai...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Rameshwarlal and Munni Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1984
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC281
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. A brutal, shameless, daylight repa on 'social and substantial justice' by none else but the State, is the genesis, of this 'Frivolous and vaxatious' 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 anti-thesis and anti-climax 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's Compensation Act, jurisdiction, for a most unequitable relief, depriving the deceased family of this taken mon...
Tag this Judgment!Nakoo Singh Vs. Songir
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)423
S.S. Byas, J.1. This civil second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, whose suit for recovery of possession over immovable property was decreed by the trial Court but was dismissed is appeal by the lower appellate court.2. Plaintiff Nakoo Singh instituted a suit for recovery of the possession over the house described in para 1 of the plaint, situate in the town of Jaisalmer against the defendant in the Court of Munsif, Jaisalmer on April 20, 1968. The case set-up by him in that the house in dispute was declared an evacuee property and later on it was put in the compensation pool. It was sold by the Managing Officer, Jaisalmer. In that auction it was purchased by Govind Ram on July 19, 1967 for a sum of Rs. 1500/-. Afterwards, Govind Ram sold this house to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1700/- on Feb, 9, 1968 and executed sale deed in his favour. The house in dispute is in possession of the defendant. He hid no lawful authority to remain possession of it. His possession was unauthor...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar and Etc. Vs. R.T.A. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj130
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. These writ petitions raise some common questions of law, so, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. i may state a few relevant facts giving rise to the above writ petitions.3. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (for short 'the RTA') by its resolution dated March 9. 1976 revised the scope of Nagaur, Sujangarh, Ladhu, Khiyala and Ladhu amalgamated route and fixed stage carriages to perform 8 return services. Again the R. T. A. increased the scope from 22:8 to 30:12 vide its resolution dated August 25, 1982. The RTA invited the applications under the vacancy of 8 stage carriage permits vide notification dated October 18, 1982 published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra Part VII, dated November 4, 1982. Against the resolution of the R. T. A. dated August 25. 1982 whereby the scope wasincreased, one of the existing operators, Shri Satya Narain son of Shri Mangharam r/o Sujangarh, Dist. Churu filed a revision petition No. 124/82 before t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »