Rajasthan Court July 1986 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.
Amir Chand Vs. Harji Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN118
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This revision is directed against the order of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas dated 30th May, 1986.2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed 7 issues out of which issues No. 2 and 4 read as under:...3. The petitioner had submitted before the trial court that the above mentioned 2 issues should be decided as preliminary issues. Learned trial court by the impugned order dismissed the above prayer of the petitioner.4. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that under Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, there is a bar to file any suit with regard to any evacuee property. It is contended that the property in question has already been declared as evacuee property and in that regard the petitioner has filed a number of documents before the trial court. It has thus been submitted that the case itself can be disposed of on the ...
Anand Prakash and ors. Vs. Abdul Kayum and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN627
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 20, 1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 1 Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1979 affirming the judgment and decree dated July 9, 1979 passed by the Additional Munsif, No. 1, Jodhpur, where by the plaintiffs suit for eviction was decreed.2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for eviction in respect of the suit shop on the basis of reasonable bonafide need, which was decreed by the trial court. The defendants went in appeal and the appeal was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur who, by his judgment dated 7, 1981 dismissed the appeal. The defendants then preferred Civil Second Appeal No. 118 of 1981 in this Court and this court by judgment dated September 11, 1981 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment of the first appellate court dated April 7, 1981 and gave directions to the first appellate court. The operative portion of the judgment reads a...
Loola Alias Basir S/O Sameer Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN705
Gopal Krishan Sharma, J.1. This is an unfortunate matter where the order of this High Court has been disobeyed and flouted by the Sessions Judge, Alwar.2. A case under Section 302 IPC was pending against the petitioner in the Court of Sessions Judge, Alwar, in which the petitioner was refused to be released on bail. A bail application was moved to this Court; and OP 4-4-1986, Hon'ble VHF Dave, J, while dismissing the bail application directed the trial Court to complete the trial within two months. A letter in this regard was despatched by the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) Jaipur Bench, Jaipur on 5-4-1986. When the order was passed on 4-4-1986 the prosecution had examined six witnesses upto 12-2-1986. Looking to the fact that six witnesses had been examined. Hon'ble v. Dave, J. did not think it proper to release the accused on bail but he directed the trial Court to complete the trial within two months. The trial Court had no option except to carry out the order of this Court and it was its...
Amerjit Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)596
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Amarjit Singh has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar convicting him under Section 376, IPC and sentencing him to seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.2. Learned Counsel for the accused, candidly and fairly submitted that so far as the factum and allegation of rape is concerned, it cannot be challenged. However, he submits that the accused himself is a youth and educated and was a diploma-holder of Engineering, belonging to Scheduled Caste. He invited my attention to the facts and circumstances of the case for his prayer that the sentence should be reduced from seven years to two years.3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned Counsel for the appellant, on the ground that in the case of rape, the sentence should be adequate and no reduction in this case is required.4. ...
Amir Mohammed Vs. Gafoor Ahmed Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: 2(1989)WLN(Rev)443
I.S. Israni, J.1. This is Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(a), CPC against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Baran dated 10-11-1975 in civil suit No. 10/75, by which it was held that the suit is triable by the revenue court and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff appellant for presenting the same in proper court.2. The plantiff appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed in the court of Additional District Judge, Baran regarding the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 279, measuring 10 Bighas and IS Biswas, which belonged to him and was in his possession. It was further asserted that the defendant-respondent No. 3 Samiran had no right to sale the disputed land in favour of defendant-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by executing a sale deed in their favour on 22-4-1974, which was got registered on 24-4-1974. It was prayed that a decree for cancellation of the above mentioned sale deed be passed in favour of the appellant. A preliminary...
Smt. Lad Bai Vs. Kalyan Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN302
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11-1-1975 passed by Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur confirming the judgment and decree passed by Additional Munsif, Sawai Modhopur.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment of the first appellate court should beset aside on the simple ground that it decided the appeal without hearing learned Counsel for the appellant. It appears from the judgment and the record that Shri Abid Ali, Advocate was engaged by the appellant Smt. Lad Bai to conduct her appeal before the first appellate court. Mr. Abid Ali was present before the first appellate court on 19-8-1975 when the case was adjourned for arguments on 19-9-1975. Counsels for the parties were present on 19-9-1975 also but since learned Counsel for the appellant was busy, he sought one more adjournment and the first appellate court fixed the case for hearing on 1-11-1975, with the observations that no fu...
Smt. Ashma Bai and anr. Vs. Yaqub Ali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)400
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated May 31, 1974 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, whereby, Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1971 was allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, Udaipur dated August 5, 1971 dismissing the plaintiff's suit were reversed and the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction was decreed.2. The plaintiffs-respondents instituted the suit against the defendants Sadiq Ali and Tayab Ali sons of Ismail with the allegations that the parties belong to one family. They have got house No. 13/56 in the City of Udaipur. The parties are in possession of their respective shares in that house. The plaintiffs alleged that the land measuring 38 x 12-1/2 feet situated towards the west of the house belongs to the plaintiffs, which is shown in plan (Ex. 1) as ABCD. The plaintiffs alleged that they have got a right to go to their house through this open land. There is a joint chowk towards the east of the ...
Shyam Sunder Pathak Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)368
1. The petitioner Shyam Sunder Pathak filed a writ petition No. 1128/1985 in which he made the following prayers:(a) accept the writ petition;(b) quash the result pertaining to the Long Case (one) Clinical Test for Final MBBS held in the year 1985, whereby the petitioner had been awarded a 'Zero' mark out of 60 (Annexure-7) by issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order, direction or writ as this Court may think fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;(c) declare the action of the University of Rajasthan of making another reference to Shri Bharathi and to Academic Council as ultra vires of the powers of the University and of no consequence what ever in the eye of law;(d) issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate order, direction or writ directing the University to award at least 50% marks in the Long Case (one) Clinical Test or average of the marks obtained by him in other subjects or such marks as this Hon'ble Court may think fit and just in the circumst...
Lodha Fabrics Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: 1987(10)LC590(Rajasthan)
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. This petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal No. 854/1986 Lodha Fabrics Pali v. State of Rajasthan and two Ors. appeals decided on 4.7.1986.2. Admittedly, the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal which the petitioner has not availed so the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the aforesaid grounds. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that prescribed time for filing the appeal is already over and the appeal would be beyond limitation and it is likely that delay may not be condoned. So it may be directed that question of limitation may not be raised by the department. Reliance is placed on a decision given by the High Court of Gujarat in Ambica Mata Yarn Manufacturing Co. Baroda v. Superintendent of Central Excise Range-IV Baroda and Ors. reported in 1982 Excise Law Times at page 224.3. In view of the above, it may be stated that although appeal cannot be preferred after the expiry of the period of limitation...
E.S.i. Corporation Through the Regional Director Vs. Jaipur Enterprise ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN383
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the E.S.I. Corporation against the judgment dated 19-9-1975 passed by the learned Employees State Insurance Court, Jaipur in case No. E.S.I. 8/74 allowing the application filed under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, (here in after called 'the Act') by the respondent.2. A demand notice of the ESI Corporation was issued to pay contribution on the amount of Rs. 20,462/- paid as wages to the labourers during the period between 18-12-1972 to 29-1-1973 and 30 1-1973 to 30-4-1973. It was alleged that the labourers to whom the above amount was paid; were not connected with the manufacturing process of the factory, and were employed only casually for construction work of the factory. The applicant respondent raised a plea that the contribution has been rightly demanded because the labourers were engaged in manufacturing process of the factory and were engaged by the principal employer for the work. After hearing both the parties ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »