Rajasthan Court January 1987 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.
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN223
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is defendant-tenant's second appeal in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment.2. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant was a tenant in the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. He committed default in payment of rent and, therefore, the suit was filed on 14-9-1973 by the plaintiff being suit No. 55/73 on the ground of default in payment of rent for 25 months. Since the defendant deposited the arrears of rent under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, l950, (here in after to be referred as 'Rent Control Act') the suit was dismissed on 28-6-1978. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant paid rent only upto May, 1978 and did not pay any rent thereafter. The present suit was filed on 24-3-1979 on the ground of default in payment of rent for nine months and also on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity.3. On service of the plaint, the defendant filed an application under Section 13(4) of ...
Gopal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN223
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.I have heard learned Counsel for the accused petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor who is assisted by Mr. Rathore advocate for the complainant. ( will not like to express any opinion on merits of this case but taking into consideration the material on record without saying as to whether the names of Saroj and Anr. has been rightly mentioned as eye witness or not as Mr. Rathore says that a complaint was made against that SHO that these two witnesses are relations of the accused and in order to give benefit to the accused persons, their names have been introduced by eye witnesses, taking into consideration the fact that from the statements what so ever worth they are for the present it can be said that there are two different versions of the incident and therefore, I accept the bail application and direct that both the accused petitioners Gopal and Jagdish shall be released on bail provided each of them shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs....
Chagan Lal Vs. Shyam Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN400
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. Petitioner Chhaganlal has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash an inteslocutory order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar on May, 19 1982 regarding the interim custody of a tractor No. RJO 1217 and its trolly No. RJO 1218 pending the conclusion of the inquiry and trial of a case registered at Police Station, Jhalarapatan on first information lodged by Smt. Basanti Bai wife of Laxmi Narain.2. Facts, in brief, as alleged in the petition are that Smt. Basanti Bai wife of Laxminarain lodged a First Information report on April 20, 1982 at Police Station. Jhalara Patan alleging that eight months prior to that, the aforesaid tractor with its trolly were purchased in the name of her son Shyam Lal. While this tractor and trolly were engaged in transporting Bajri from the river Kali Sind, the same was snatched away from its driver by Jagdish who is son of the petitioner Chhaganlal. On this report the Police registe...
Bapu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN859
1. This appeal by the accused Bapu Lal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar dated 4th March, 1986 by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. l,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that on 13th December, 1984 at 11.30 p.m. Mst. Dhapu Bai PW 1 lodged a report at police station Aklera. It was submitted in the report that her father had come to meet her at about 6-7 p.m. The accused Bapu Lal came with a lathi in his hand and started fighting with her father. Thereafter, the accused struck 2-3 blows on the head of her father. When the informant went to rescue her father then she was also given beating. At that time the accused Devia and Motia also came on the spot and told Bapu accused to beat her father and to throw him in a ditch. Thereafter, Dhoolia, Kalu, Kanahiya son of Bhanwar Lal Mee...
Uchi Alias Gopal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN531
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is a criminal appeal under Section 374(3) Cr. P.C. against the judgment dt. 26-7-1978 of learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer convicting and sentencing the accused appellants as under:Uchi alias GopalUnder Section 452 I.P.C. 2 years RI and a fine of Rs. 200/- and indefault of payment of fine further 1 month'Rigorous Imprisonment;Under Section 324 for 2 years RI and a fine of Rs. 200/- incausing simple hurt to default of payment of fine, furtherBheronlai 1 month' RI;Under Section 324 for 2 years RI and a fine of Rs. 200/- and incausing simple hurt to default of payment of fine, 1 months RI;ShivratanUnder Section 27 of One years' RI and a fine of Rs. 100/-inArms Act default of payment of fine 15 days RI;Under Section 394 5 years RI and a fine of Rs. 300/- indefault of payment of fine, further 2months RI;Manna alias Brahma PrakashUnder Section 324 2 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 200/- inrea d with Section 34, I.P.C., 114. default of payment of fine, further RI forI.P.C....
T.N. Sahmai Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN759
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order rejecting the restoration application of the restoration application. The matter relates to reference under Land Acquisition Act. On 6th January, 1979 when the reference proceedings were to be taken, the case was dismissed in default, as no one appeared. An application for restoration was submitted on 6th January, 1979 and was fixed for hearing on 19th May, 1979. As ill-luck would have it the earlier history was repeated on 19th May, 1979 again.2. On the same day on 19th May, 1979, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the restoration application mentioning that when the case was called he went to get or call his counsel Shri H.C. Dhandhia and when he came back he found that the case has been dismissed in default. The petitioner filed an affidavit along with this application for restoration. The non-petitioner chose not to file counter affidavit or reply but even then the Chief Judicial Magistra...
Mangi Lal Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)216
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. Petitioner Mangilal, while working as a Conductor with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, was charge-sheeted for carrying six passengers without tickets on 12-9-78 on Nathdwara-Mawli route in Bus No. 3373. After enquiry, he was found guilty of the charge and the punishment of removal from service was inflicted upon him by the Disciplinary Authority by order dated March 5, 1980. He filed an appeal, but without success. Thereafter, the matter was taken by the Labour Welfare and Conciliation Officer. However, no settlement could take place. Therefore, the Conciliation Officer reported the matter to the State Government under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act for making reference to the Labour Court. However, the State Government refused to make a reference by its order Annx 10. Aggrieved of this, the petitioner has approached this Court. The State Government has observed in its order Annx. 10 that the punishment has been inflicted after ca...
Harjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Guddi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)225
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsels at length and perused the relevant provision of Order 5, Rule 9 to 19 and also perused the law cited by both the learned Counsel.2. This revision petition is preferred against the order of District Judge, Ganganagar dated 1-10-86, by which he accepted the application of non-petitioner Mst. Guddi and set aside the ex parte decree dated 24-8-81.3. The petitioner filed an application against non-petitioner for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 16-3-1981. Notice was sent to the non-petitioner but she did not appear so an ex parte order was passed on 3-7-1981. Thereafter on 24-8-1981 ex parte decree for divorce was passed against the non-petitioner Mst. Guddi. Then Mst. Guddi submitted an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC on 10-5-1982 requesting that she had no knowledge about the notice of the divorce application and prayed that the ex parte decree, passed against her, be set aside. The application was acce...
Ram Naresh Sharma Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)219
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first is that the Disciplinary Authority has not met the obser-vasions made by the Enquiry Officer while reporting that the guilt was not proved against him, and has improperly come to the conclusion that the charge was established against him.3. I have gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer and also the order of the Disciplinary Authority. I am satisfied that the Disciplinary Authority has reversed the finding of the Enquiry Officer by taking into account the circumstances mentioned there in. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has not taken into consideration the circumstances pointed out by the Enquiry Officer.4. The only other argument is that after remand by this Court, although the particulars of the previous punishment inflicted upon the petitioner had been supplied to him the appellate authority did not take into cons...
Kesa and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Raj120; 1987(1)WLN193; 2(1989)WLN(Rev)446
Bhatnagar, J. 1. The five writ petitions referred to this Bench involve a question of considerable importance inasmuch as the relevant statute is the expression of the anxiety of the Legislature to implement the ideals of the framers of the Constitution. 2. India is a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic. The Consitution of India secures to all citizens justice, social, economic and political. The directive principles of State Policy in Part-IV of the Constitution embody the aims and objects of the State under the republican Constitution that it is a 'Welfare State'. Those directives are implemented by Legislation. Article 39 of the Constitution enumerates certain principles of policy to be followed by the State. For the economic uplift of the citizens it directs that the State shall in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally have the right to an adequate means of livelihood; that the ownership and control of the material re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »