Rajasthan Court February 1985 Judgments
Miss Suraj Bhutra Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)68
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated July 26,1983 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant in this Court.2. The appellant, Miss Suraj Bhutra, along with four other persons was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on urgent, ad hoc and temporary basis for a period of 6 months from she date she joined her duties, by the order of the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court dated February 2', 1982. One of the conditions, subject to which the appointment of the appellant was made, was that her service was liable to be terminated at any time, without notice and further that she would have to appear in the recruitment test for regular appointment. The appellant was directed to appear at a type test along with 36 other persons by the order dated June 2, 1982. The appellant's case was that although the result of the type test was never declared, yet, by the order dated August 23, 1982 her service was te...
Tag this Judgment!Asgarali Shabab and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1982; 1985(1)WLN230
V.S. Dave, J. 1. This is a reference made to us by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for answering the question referred to Division Bench by the learned single Judge, Hon'ble Sharma J. The question referred is : whether a composite order of attachment of disputed property under Section 146 Cr. P.C. can be passed by the Magistrate while passing the preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr. P.C.2. The aforesaid question arose in a revision petition filed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, whereby he had partly quashed the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, dt. Dec. 20, 1982 so far as the attachment of the property and appointment of receiver was made. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had passed one composite order which was in two parts. In first part he had drawn a preliminary order as required by Section 145(1) Cr. P.C. and in the second part he had passed an order of attachment and appointed a receiver to manage the property. The learned Sessions...
Tag this Judgment!Kewal Kumari and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN772
M.C. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek the grant of family pension.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Dr. D.R. Bhandari, the husband of petitioner No. 1 entered into the service of the Government of Rajasthan as Research Assistant in the Maize Breeding Scheme vide Order dated 29-3-1955 in the Department of Agriculture. In pursuance of the recommendation of the National Commission on Agriculture that all fundamental and applied research in Agriculture and allied sciences be under taken by the University, the Governor of Rajasthan was pleased to order that all research activities be transferred from Agriculture Department to the University of Udaipur with effect from 1-1-1976 and all responsibility for research in Agriculture and allied sciences will vest in the University of Udaipur. As a result of transfer of the Research Wing of the Agriculture Department, the result of transfer of Research Work were transferred to the University, under the order of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The University of Jodhpur Vs. Mahendra Kewalia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)31
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The writ petition filed by respondent Mahendra Kewalia was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated February 5, 1985 following the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Kumar Khatri's case.2. The respondent Mahendra Kewalia had failed in three Units in the IIIrd year B.E. (Mines) Examination of the University of Jodhpur and had also failed to obtain 45% of the total marks at the said Examination held in the year 1983. The case of the respondent was that he should have been allowed to keep terms in the next higher class notwithstanding the fact that he had failed in three units of the B.E. IIIrd year Examination and had also failed to obtain 45% of the total marks at the said Examination. The University did not permit the respondent to keep terms in the IVth year B.E. Class on the ground that besides having failed in three Units, the respondent had also failed to obtain 45% of the total marks at the IIIrd year B.E. Examination.3. In...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Parvati @ Kaushalya Vs. Chhitarmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Raj24
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1st September, 1984, passed by the District Judge, Alwar, in a petition for grant of probate filed by non-petitioner, Chhitarmal.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 1st September, 1984.3. It is alleged that the deceased, Smt. Kishan Pyari executed a will on 2nd September, 1978, in favour of the non-petitioner, Chhitarmal. Chittarmal applied for the grant of probate. Smt. Kaushlya caveator raised an objection under Section 283(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act that she may be allowed to contest the grant of probate on the ground that a part of the property did not belong to the testatrix. It was submitted by the caveator that the dipsuted part of the property was of the ownership of her father and after the death of her father she became the sole owner. An objection was raised by the counsel for Chhitarmal, non-petitioner, that Smt. Parvati is ha...
Tag this Judgment!S.L. Soni Vs. Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN318
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner S.L. Soni, is seeking to challenge the validity of the order (Ex. 5) dated 27th May, 1982 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated.2. The Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (here in after referred to as the 'Respondent Corporation') is a limited company incorporated in 1979 under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. All the shares of the respondent Corporation are held by the government of Rajasthan and all the directors of the respondent Corporation including the Chairman, the Managing Director and the Executive Director are either nominees of the Government of Rajasthan or those appointed by the respondent Corporation in the general meeting.3. Prior to the incorporation of the respondent Corporation, there was a Corporation known as the Rajasthan State Industrial and Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (in short RSIMDC). By an agreement between RSIMDC and the respondent Corporation ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Parvati and Kaushlya Vs. Chhitarmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN263
Dinkar Lal Mehta, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1st September, 1984, passed by the District Judge, Alwar, in a petition for grant of probate filed by non-petitioner, Chhitarmal.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order 1st September, 1984.3. It is alleged that the deceased, Smt. Kishan Pyari executed a will on 2nd September, 1978, in favour of the non-petitioner, Chhitarmal. Chhitar Mal applied for the grant of probate. Smt. Kaushlya caveator raised an objection under Section 283(c) of the Indion Succession Act that she may be allowed to contest the grant of probate on the ground that a part of the property did rot belong to the testatrix. It was submitted by the caveator that the disputed part of the property was of the ownership of her father and after the death of her father she became the sole owner. An objection was raised by the counsel for Chhitarmal, non-petitioner, that Smt. Parvati is having no...
Tag this Judgment!Godhu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)640
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. The petitioner Godhu has been convicted under Section 16/54 of the Excise Act and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to further simple imprisonment of one month by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Balotra on 9-1-1985 and appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra has been dismissed on 21-2-1985. Hence this revision.2. Although in the memo of revision, the conviction of the petitioner has been challenged but at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the Petitioner gave up this contention and only prayed that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner may be granted benefit of probation.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor who has accepted notice, in respect of this contention.4. The case against the petitioner is that on the search of his Dhani on 31-5-1983 by the Excise Inspector a pitcher o...
Tag this Judgment!Ania Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)638
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. The petitioner Ania has been convicted under Section 66(l)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act (here in after called' the Act') and sentence to one year's RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further R1 of three months by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road, by his judgment dated 7-1-1981. His appeal has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, on 5-11-1984. He has filed this revision through jail.2. I have heard Mr. Harish Mathur as Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record.3. The case against the accused-petitioner is that when a search of his house was made by the Excise Inspector Shri Madan Singh on 1-12-1973. illicit liquor contained in an earthen bedia was recovered from his house. It contained about eight bottles of liquor. The usual sample was taken and was sent for chemical analysis. It was found to be illicit liquor.4. Two contentions have been raised before me b...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Vs. Shanti and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC39
S.B. Byas, J.1. This appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred against an award of the Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, dated April 30, 1979, by which the appellant and respondents Chimne Ram, Labu Ram and Bhiya Ram were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,860/- as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased Rawat Ram.2. Briefly recalled' the facts giving rise to this appeal is that Bhiya Ram, Chimne Ram and Labu Ram were the owners of Tractor bearing No. R.S.Q. 4879. Rawat Ram was their real brother whom they had employed as a driver on the said tractor. Thus, Rewat Ram was a paid driver of Bhiya Ram and Labu Ram on the tractor which was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. Rewat Ram was driving the tractor on 22-5-1976 and when it reached somewhere in between villages Devapada and Bhundana it capsized. As a result Rawat Ram fell down and came under the tractor. He sustained multiple injuries ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »