Rajasthan Court April 1985 Judgments
Vidya Sagar Rastogi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)331
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. I have perused the order of court below. The only purpose for which the vehicle is required, is identification by the witnesses in court that it was the particular vehicle by which the accident was caused. There is no question of confiscation of the vehicle in a case where there is an offence under Section 304A IPC. The purpose of the identification can be better served in case the colour photographs in cabinate size of the vehicle from different angles is kept on record particularly showing its registration number, as the rest of the details about the chasis and engine numbers are already recorded in the seizure memo. The vehicle Bus No. RNT 162 was seized as early as on 19-10-1984. It had already been given on supurdginama on 22-10-1984 and till date even the trial has not commenced. There is no restriction on plying of the vehicle either and as such it would hardly remain in the same condition as it exists on the day of accident. As mentioned above colour ph...
Tag this Judgment!Heera Nand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN272
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. This special appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 29th March, 1985, dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant in limine.2. The grievance of the petitioner-appellant is that an auction of wholesale and retail-off shops for Indian-made foreign liquor for the financial year 1985-86, was held on 13th March, 1985, for the districts of Sawaimadhopur and Tonk. The list of retail shops for the excise-district of Sawaimadhopur included the list of shops of Tonk District also, which was notified by the same notification. Shopwise reserve-price and amount of earnest-money were also mentioned in the notification. The notification mentioned the following particulars for the Tonk and Sawaimadhopur District: TONK DISTRICTName of shop Reserve-Price Earnest-Money(1) Devli No. 1 1,55,000/- 7,800/-(2) Duni 88,100/- 4,410/-(3) Tonk No. 1 4,15,300/- 20,770/-(4)...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN175
K.S. Lodha, J.1. By this revision, the petitioner Gopal Lal has challenged the proceedings Under Section 110 C.r P.C. instituted against him by the learned Executive Magistrate, Ladnu.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. and have gone through the record. It is agreed that the main revision may finally be disposed of at this stage.3. On 18.1.85, the S.H.O., Ladnu filed a complaint Under Section 41/110 Cr. P.C. against the petitioner Gopal Lal in the Court of the learned Executive Magistrate, Ladnu, stating therein that the non-petitioner Gopal Lal was a bad character, quarrel some person and was in the habit of making false complaints and also used to quarrel with people and beat them. It was further stated that a case Under Sections 451 and 325 I.P.C. was registered against him on 17.9.84 on the report filed by one Loonkaran and that there were other entries in the Rojnamacha of the police station wherein his illegal acts as a wagebond had been re...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Raj Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)60
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal by plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff filed a suit for Rs. 28,560/-.2. According to the plaintiff, the defendant-respondant. Ramprasad, took a loan of Rs. 21,000/- on 2-6-64 from the plaintiff appellant at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and executed a promissory note and a receipt in token of the receipt of the amount mentioned therein. The defendant-respondent had taken this loan from the plaintiff-appellant for purchasing a house from Shrimati Bhagwan Devi. The house was in fact purchased by Shri Ram Prasad from Shrimati Bhagwan Devi and a sale deed was duly registered on 3-8-64 and the amount as well as the cheque obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff was delivered to Shrimati Bhagwan Devi on that day. Since the defendant-respondent did not repay' the amount despite demands a telegraphic notice was sent to him on 24-7 67 to pay the amount along with interest. It is noteworthy that no reply was sent t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kumar Vs. Ganga Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)171
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This revision has been filed by Mahendra Kumar against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali dated 21-7-1984 by which cognizance of offences Under Sections 504 and 167 IPC has been taken against him on the complaint made by Shri Ganga Singh.2. The facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are that the complainant Ganga Singh Singh was selected under the Educated Unemployed Youth Scheme on 27-2-1984 by the Joint Director of the District Industrial Centre, Pali and was recommended for a loan of Rs. 25,000/- setting up a diary, to the State Bank of India, Pali whose Branch Manager is the present petitioner Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain. The complainant was called by the Bank for completing the papers for the loan. It appears that the complainant went to the Bank a number of times but the formalities could not be completed for one reason or the other and the complainant was of the view that the accused was putting obstacles in his way and was delaying...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Shree Sadu Textiles Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)112
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the decree passed by the trial court for an amount of Rs. 4738/-. The plaintiff has filed a cross-objection for an amount of Rs. 7437.54/-.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- as damages on account of illegal discontinuance of supply of electricity. It is alleged that the plaintiff is a company, incorporated under the Companies Act and carries on business of cotton ginnig, pressing, spinning and weaving. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are its officers. The plaintiff company is a consumer of electricity supplied by defendant No. 1 and generated from Bhakra Project. It is alleged that an agreement for supply of energy was entered into between the plaintiff company and defendant No. 1 on 24-2-60. The defendant agreed to supply a load of 750 KW subsequently raised to 850 KW at a schedule rate of two annas per unit till revised by the Board and difference if any to be adjusted. This agreement was to be read a...
Tag this Judgment!Makbool Ahmed and ors. Vs. Bhura Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Raj177; [1987]62CompCas447(Raj); 1985(1)WLN220
S.S. Byas, J.1. Since both these appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act' hereinafter) arise out of one and the same award of the Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara dated Oct. 16, 1979, they were heard together and are decided by a single judgment. By the award aforesaid, the Tribunal directed the owner, driver, conductor and the insurer of the bus to pay a sum of Rs. 32,220/-to the claimants. The liability of the insurer for the payment of compensation was restricted to the statutory one of Rs. 5000/-. The claimants are the parents and widow of the deceased-victim Mustaq Ahmed. They presented a joint application under Section 110-A of the Act before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 80,000/ - as compensation. The case set-up by them is that the deceased Mustaq Ahmed used to live with them in the town of Pur situate not far from the city of Bhilwara. There was a regular city-bus service plying between Pur and Bhilwara. Mustaq Ahmed was a student of First Year Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Hazarilal and Company Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)56
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal as the suit for refund of Rs. 34,179.50/- has been dismissed by the trial court.2. The Civil Suit No. 2 of 1973 was filed by M/s Hazarilal & Company against the State of Rajasthan on 2-1-73, alleging that they are a partnership firm. The partners are Hazarilal, Brijlal and Dalip. The partnership has been registered under the Indian Partnership Act and possesses a certificate of registration. The three partners of the plaintiff firm took a Theka of the country liquor of Bolawali for the year 1969-70. The licence was issued in the name of the three partners. In accordance with the terms of the Theka, the partners deposited a security amount of Rs. 31,790/-and they were required to lift from the Government Godown a fixed quantity liquor after depositing every month a fixed amount. It was also agreed upon that the defendant State shall supply liquor on the tenth of each month at the rate of l/12th of the guarantee amount of issue price. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirath and Company Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)34
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The plaintiff M/s. Bhagirath and Company has filed this appeal against the dismissal of the suit by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The plaintiff is excise contractor, who took licence of 1969-70 for Rs. 2,29,440/- from the defendant. In terms of this licence, an amount of Rs. 19,120/- was deposited as security. The plaintiff's case is that on 28-3-70, the plaintiff deposited Rs. 2,730/- as sales tax and Rs. 1719.56/- as excise duty, but even then the liquor was not issued on the ground that bottles were not available. He has, therefore, claimed the refund.2. The defendant has denied the allegations and the case of the defendant is that the default was of the plaintiff. According to the defendant, it was not responsibility of the defendant to supply the bottles.3. After framing of the issues, the trial court has dismissed the suit.4. The strange and curious feature of the case is that the plaintiff has not led evidence at all.5. Issue No. 2 is the most important is...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Bhatnagar Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)36
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1959 and was then promoted as Head Master of a primary school in the Northern Railway. The school at which the petitioner was working was upgraded to upper primary school with effect from July 1, 1980 and since then the petitioner has been working as Head Master of the upper primary school. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he is performing the work of Head Master of on upper primary school with effect from July, 1, 1980. he has not been paid his salary by the Northern Railway in the pay scale of 550-900 but he is still getting the salary in the lower grade of Head Master of a primary school. The reply given by the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Jodhpur to the representation of the petitioner, on August 23, 1983 (Ex. 17) is that the post of teacher in the grade of 550-990 was not sanctioned in the Division and unless and until the Railway Board sanctioned the creation ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›