Rajasthan Court July 1984 Judgments
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Gopi Nath Gaur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)211
G.M. Lodha, J.1. We have heard Mr. Calla, Government Advocate at length and have also perused the judgment dated 15-10-1974.2. Since we are in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge, it is not necessary to mention the entire facts again.3. The only point pressed by Mr. Calla is that the respondent Gopinath Gaur was removed from service by the private management of the Johri Multipurpose Higher Secondary School before it was taken over by the State. The learned Single Judge in the detailed comprehensive judgment has held that there was no termination order of Mr. Gaur. Mr. Calla could not contest this finding seriously and all that he argued was that though there was no written order of termination it must be presumed so because in the list which was given by the management to the State at the time of transfer, the Management did not mention the name of this particular teacher in it. Mr. Calla further pointed out that the earlier history narrated in the judgment shows th...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Mazid Vs. Abdul Mazid
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)219
S.S. Byas, J.1. is a plaintiff s civil second appeal who lost his money suit in the trial as well as in the appellate court.2. Plaintiff Abdul Majid instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3650/- against the defendant Abdul Majid and his father Mohammed Hanif on the foot of promissory note Ex. 3 and receipt Ex. 4. The case set up by him is that both the defendants executed Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 in his favour for consideration. The amount recited in them has not been paid back to him by the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Mohammed Hanif passed away. The defendant contested the suit and denied the execution of Ex 3 and Ex. 4. The plaintiff was called upon to prove the execution of Ex. 3 and Ex. 4. The parties led evidence in the trial Court. The defendant also examined a Handwriting Expert to show that Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 are forged documents. The trial court held that Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 were not executed by the defendants. The plaintiff went in appeal which was hear...
Tag this Judgment!Poosa Ram Vs. Ghasi Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)217
S.S. Byas, J.1. This civil second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff who won his suit in respect of a right of way in the trial court but lost it in the first appellate court of Civil Judge, Merta Headquarters Nagaur.2. The respondents did not put appearance despite service of notice on them. As such the appeal was heard in their absence.3. Plaintiff Poosa Ram instituted a suit against the defendants Ghasiram and Sheodan in the court of Munsif, Deedwana in respect of a right of way The case set up by him is that the enclosure bearing Khasra No.486 situata in village Dhingsari is of his ownership and possession. 1 here runs a public wav adjacent to his Bara which has been duly recorded to be a public way in therevenue records. This public way bears Khasra No. 483. The plaintiff has been regularly using this public way to go his aforesaid emclosure. The defendants closed this public way and included it in their enclosure. The public way thus stood compeletly blocked. The relief claim...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Isabell Singh Vs. Ram Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj30; 1984()WLN696
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. This is a petition by a mother under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus directing production by the respondents of her minor daughters, Jeanna and Lisa, before the Court, and for an order granting their custody to her. She has also prayed for permission to remove the children from India to the United States of America.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition may be shortly stated here. The petitioner, Isabell Singh, was born of Jewish parents in Romania on June 26, 1939. At the age of 18, she acquired, the citizenship of the United States of America and still retains that nationality. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, and a Masters' degree in Library Science from the Kent State University, Kent Ohio. The respondent. Ram Singh, is a Hindu by religion and an Indian citizen, who obtained his B.A. from Chirawa College, Chirawa, Rajasthan, in 1967, and M.S. from the Birla Institute of...
Tag this Judgment!Suzan Mal Vs. Bhanwar Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)195
S.S. Byas, J.1. This is plaintiff's civil second appeal who lost their suit in respect of easementary right of light and air in both the courts below.2. The lower appellate court of the District Judge, Partapgarh recorded his findings as under:1. two appartures - one in a room of first floor and the other in a room of second floor of the plaintiff's house opening in the West towards defendant's house existed for last more than 20 years through which the plaintiffs have been receiving air and light without any interruption2. the defendants constructed a stair-case in that side of the house3. there is a space of nearly 2' 2' in between the stair-case of the defendants and the aforesaid two appartures of the plaintiffs and4. the plaintiffs have failed to show that by the defendant's constructing the stair case, they (plaintiffs) have suffered any substantial damage within the meaning of Section 33 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 (hereinafter called 'the Act').3. Mr. Shishodia, appearing ...
Tag this Judgment!Narnauli Jewel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR293(Raj)
Kasliwal, J.1. Both the above cases are disposed of by one single order as they arise out of the same order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated September 22,1973.2. Brief facts as set out in the statement of the case are that M/s. Narnauli Jewel Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), filed its return of income in respect of the assessment year 1968-69 declaring its status as a firm on July 2, 1968. According to the partnership deed which was filed along with the application for registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm was constituted on November 14, 1967. The following persons were declared in the said deed as partners :(i) Smt Gyan Devi--Mother--share 30% (ii) BalKrishanAgrawal--Son--share 35% (iii) Chandra Mohan--Son--share 35% 3. The aforesaid partnership deed was registered with the Registrar of Firms on December 2, 1967, and an account of the firm was opened with the Bank of Baroda, M.I. Road, Jaipur, on November 23, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Umed Singh and ors. Vs. Devi Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN548
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This revision has been filed by the complainants Umed Singh, Mohan Singh and Madho Singh against the order of the learned Addl Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, rejecting the application of the Public Prosecutor for additional evidence under Section 311 Cr.P.C.2. The accused non-petitioners are facing trial for offences under Sections 307, 323 I.P.C. and under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that the accused persons on account of a quarrel in respect of a bada attacked the complainant party with swords. Davi Singh is alleged to have given a sword blow on the hand of Madho Singh and the other accused persons are said to have given sword blow to other complainants. The injured Madho Singh was admitted to the military hospital and the other injured persons were taken to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. The evidence of the prosecution had come to an end and the accused persons have also already been examined and their defence evi...
Tag this Judgment!Mansingh Deora Vs. Daulat Rathi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN558
S.S. Byas, J.1. Accused Mansingh Deora has filed this revision for qunshing order of the learned Judicial Magistrate (3), Jodhpur dated November 19, 1982, by which cognizance for offences under a Section 323 and 504, I.P.C. was taken against him and he was summoned to take trial thereunder. The contention of the accused is he being a public servant, cognizance of offence could not be taken against him in absence of the requisite section under Section 197, Cr.P.C.2. It would be proper to briefly recapitulate facts giving rise, to revision. On October 12, 1982 the complainant Daulat Rathi submitted a complaint in writing in the Court below stating therein that the accused was the Chairman of Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur. On October 10, 1982 the Trust invited the bidders to make bids in the auction of a site for the Cinema House. This site is known as Manji ka Hattha situate on Mandore road, Jodhpur. A number of families reside on this site by raising Kattcha structures. The auction o...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Ram Vs. Maharaj Ekling Singhji and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj236
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This appeal hasbeen filed by the plaintiff against the judgment dated August 20, 1973 of the learned single Judge by which the appeal filed by him under Section 96. C.P.C. was dismissed on the ground that it was not properly constituted.2. The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for declaration under Order XXI, Rule 63, C.P.C averring that the amount of Rs. 13,788.14, which was attached in execution cases Nos. 56/66. 75/66 and 63/66 of the court ofCivil Judge, Udaipur is not liable to attachment as it was also prayed that the attachment so made should be set aside. Defendant No. 1 Maharaj Ekling Singhji was the judgment-debtor. In this appeal he was impleaded as respondent No. 1. He died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record who are also respondents. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that there was a decree against defendant No. 1 for Rs. 5,973.95, which was obtained from the court of Civil Judge, Udaipur ...
Tag this Judgment!Umed Club Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)215
P.K. Banerjee, J.1. This rule is directed against an order passed under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Act of 1964. The order was made by the Join Director who is the prescribed Authority under the Act.2. The case made out in the petition is that Umed Club, Jodhpur, is a public property and, therefore, is not liable to pay any tax under Section 6 of 1964. In particular in view of Section 6(e) and (f), the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax for the land and building which is, according to the petitioner, being used for public purpose and for common purpose of the community.3. Mr. Calla however, on the other hand, contended that this is a Club of some citizens and does not come within the mischief of either Section 6(e) or (f) of the Act. More over it is contended the as soon as the notice was given the petitioner rushed to the Court and, therefore, he could have waited till the State Government made am exemption under Section 21 of the Act.4. To that Mr. Mehta, on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »