Rajasthan Court January 1985 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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. SarajjuddIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN624
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether Clause (g) of Sub-rule (i) of Rule 78 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 (in short 'the Rules' here after) is invalid or valid on the ground that the provisions thereof are ultra vires of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Single Judge held that the provisions of Clause (g) of Rule 78(0 are ultra vires and invalid because there is no provision in Section 68 of the aforesaid Act empowering the State Government to make Rules to direct any such delegation. The learned Single Judge consequently annulled the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur delegating the power to issue a temporary permit under Section 68 of the Act to the Secretary of the Authority, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 78(i)(g) of the Rules.2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur issued a temporary permit on June 10, 1977 to Kunj Behari on the...
Bhajan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)75
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This application Under Section 482 Cr. PC has been filed by Bhajan Singh against the order of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur by which cognizance of an offence Under Section 408 I P.C. was taken against him.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this application are that there was some disputes in relation to the sale of a cow between Dilawar Singh, Tara Singh and Munshi Singh. A report was lodged to the police station about the theft of the cow and in that connection Dilawar Singh is alleged to have been arrested by the police. The case of the complainant Dilawar Singh is that it was the present petitioner Bhajan Singh who was S.H.O. police Station Kesarisinghpur at that time, who had taken him in custody and had also affected the search of his person and during that search apart from other articles he had also taken 'gold Kada' from his hand but he did not record the recovery of this 'Kada' in the arrest memo and later did not return the sa...
Hardayal Vs. Jaya Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-01-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)44
G.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal in a suit which has been decreed by the trial court.2. The plaintiffs have instituted this suit on 29-3-67 with the allegations that the defendant No. 1 along with his brother Gurdayal defendant No 5 had 28 bighas 16 biswas land situated at Chak 28GB, Tehsil Annopgarh comprised in square No. 22 to 22 and 26 and 27 measuring 12 bighas 3 biswas, 1 bigha 9 biswas, 1 bigha, 9 bighas 6 biswas and 4 bighas and 18 biswas respectively and 8 bighas 13 biswas situated at Chak 31GB comprised of square No. 60/29 and 61/30 measuring 5 bighas and 3 bighas and 3 bighas 13 biswas respectively. The defendant No. 1 was the Mukhtiyaraam of defendant No. 5 through a registered Mukhtyarnama dated 3-7-54 and under the said Mukhtyarnma the defendant No. 1 had rights of mortgage, sale and management of the land for cultivation. The defendant No. 1 had let out the aforesaid land to the plaintiff No. 1 in Smvt. 2012 and since then the plaintiffs are in possession o...
Natha Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-01-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)633
1. Mr. Advani has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.PC on January 7, 1985 praying that the petition may be accepted, that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted. In the alternative, it has been prayed that the arguments mentioned in the petition may be inserted so as to form part of the judgment.2. We have considered the judgment dated December 17, 1984 and also examined the petitions under Section 482 Cr.PC.3. Inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked for the purpose specified in the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. The petition is frivolous and it is hereby dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›