Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1976Raj1; 1975()WLN520
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Smt. Lalita Devi has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District' Judge, Jaipur City, dated January 24, 1974, dismissing the suit of the petitioner appellant filed under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of the marriage with respondent Radha Mohan2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are in nut-shell as follows :Lalita Devi was married to Radha Mohan at Jaipur on 5th April, 1963. Out of this wedlock she gave birth to four children, out of whom two have already died. The grievance of Lalita Devi against Radha Mohan was that Radha Mohan was addicted to liquor and that he was not doing any work to earn the livelihood to maintain the petitioner Lalita Devi. Her further grievance was that Radha Mohan was a person of loose character indulging in sex with other ladies and that he was in love with one Chandra with whom letters were exchanged by Radha Mohan assuring Chandra to marry her and to keep her as his second wife.La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1977Raj29; 1976(9)WLN458
ORDERRajindar Sachar, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 the petitioners challenges the impugned resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur respondent 2 dated 28-6-1976 granting a temporary stage carriage permit in favour of respondent 3 as well as the order dated 2-8-1976 of the Stale Transport Appellate Tribunal respondent 1 which rejected the revision of the petitioner as not maintainable. 2. There is a route known as Bhil-wara-Jahazpur via Bigod-Kachola diversion via Paged Mandalgarh. Originally the scope fixed on this route was of 3 stage carriages to perform 2 return trips. The Regional Transport Authority sought to increase it to 5 stage carriages to perform 3 return trips in the year 1970 buta revision against that was allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which maintaining the increase of return trips to 3 but reduced the increased scope of stage carriages from 5 to 4. The scope thus fixed on the route came to be 4 stage carriages to perform 3 re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1970Raj48; 1969()WLN111
ORDERB.P. Beri, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complaining against the cancellation of a stage carriage permit under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act and seeks a writ of Certiorari against the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan dated the 23rd January, 1964.2. The petitioner is a transport operator and held one stage carriage permit on Shahpura-Behror route and another on Jaipur-Bikaner route of 235 miles length travelling over the Jaipur and Bikaner regions under the Motor Vehicles Act. The non-temporary stage carnage permit was granted to the petitioner in lieu of compensation as he was displaced on account of nationalisation of Jaipur-Alwar route of which the petitioner held a permit. There is no dispute so far. The petitioner contends that the Jaipur-Bikaner permit was granted to him by the State Transport Authority (hereinafter called the State Transport Authority) whereas the respondents contend that it was the Regional...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj20; 1972()WLN392
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a wife's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. Ganganagar dated 31-1-1968 granting conjugal rights to the husband and directing that the wife snail return and live with the husband.2. The parties were a young couple. They were married according to the Sikh rites on 5-10-1962 at Chak 16, P. S. Tehsil Raisinghnagar. A son was born on 1-7-1964 to the parties. The petitioning husband averred that the wife had gone to see her parents on 28-12-1965, but had thereafter never returned to him. According to him. he went to fetch the wife in the first week of February, 1966. but she refused to come with him without any reasonable excuse. The wife contested the application. She denied that her husband had come to take her away. She pleaded cruelty on his part. According to her. the husband was a drunkard and was not faithful to the wife. He had told her several times that he was not satisfied with her and would marry another girl. The husband...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1978Raj67; 1977()WLN587
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. This writ petition by one Nand Lal is directed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated March 26, 1977, rejecting a preliminary objection that the revision preferred by the non-petitioner No 3, Laxman Kumar Arya under Section R4-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was not maintainable.2. The material facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner held a stage carriage permit on route Kekri-Ghatiyali, which was to expire on Nov. 10, 1976. In due course, the petitioner applied for renewal of the permit on July 8, 1976 under Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The substance of the renewal application was duly published in the Ra-jasthan Gazette dated Sept. 9, 1'976, for inviting objections, if any. The matter for the grant of renewal of the permit came up for consideration at a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, on Feb. 3, 1976. (Sic) (1977) The R. T. A. vide its re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1989Raj115; 2(1989)WLN(Rev)112
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This appeal is against the common judgment of a learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions by which the writ petitions were partly allowed. The common judgment is Jani Bai v. State of Rajasthan, ILR (1980) 30 Raj 306. The State has preferred appeals against the relief granted in the writ petitions while the petitioners have preferred appeals against refusal of remaining reliefs. One similar writ petition has also been connected with these matters. All these matters are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment.2. At the hearing of the above matters only two points were raised. We shall mention these points before stating the material facts and the statutory provisions on which these points arise. The first point relates to the validity of the expression 'since before 1st day of April. 1955' occurring in Rule 7(2) and Rule 2(xv) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 which has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1974Raj63; 1973()WLN762
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. The short point arising for decision in this revision application is whether the petitioner is entitled to exclude the time taken for obtaining copy of the award for reckoning the limitation for making an application for reference under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition. Act. 1953.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of Section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act the applicability of Section 12 of the Limitation Act is not excluded in the present case. It has been argued that the limitation for making such an application is prescribed by a special law namely the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) and this period of limitation as prescribed in the Act is different from the period prescribed by the Schedule to the Limitation Act. The second branch of the argument of the learned counsel is that even though there is no specific provision for such an application under Section 12 of the Limit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1992Raj90; 1991(2)WLC188; 1991(2)WLN78
J. R. Chopra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated February 21, 1991, whereby the learned single Judge whiledismissing the writ petition has maintained the order dated 12-4-1990 for scrutinising and recounting of votes passed by the learned Election Tribunal, Raisinghnagar.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the decision of this appeal briefly stated are: that petitioner Amarjeet Singh, respondent Sampuran Singh and one Jeet Singh contested the elections for the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, 10 T.K. The elections took place on 5-6-1988. It is alleged that in that election, the petitioner secured 552 votes whereas the respondent Sampuransingh received 535 votes and, therefore, the petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, 10 T.K. It is further alleged that one Jeetsingh, who was aggrieved by this declaration of result filed an election petition before the learned Election Tribunal, Raisinghnagar ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1986Raj131; 1986(1)WLN23
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. This petition is directed against Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its concerned officers wherein the petitioner has averred that he being the brother of late the Ruler of Jodhpur Maharaja Hanwant Singhji was entitled to the facilities of free supply of electricity and water under the letter of theGovernment of India No. E-4/P/49 dated March 24, 1949. The aforesaid facility was cancelled by the Government of Rajasthan by its letter No. F. 22 (36) GAB 67 dt. Sept. 8, 1967 from April 1, 1967, According to the petitioner after the cancellation of aforesaid facilities from April 1, 1967, the petitioner began paying electric charges regularly. The petitioner further averred that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was constituted in the year 1957 and all the previous dues of Electricity Department of the State Government vested in the Board vide Section 60(1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948 (Central Act No. 54 of 1948) The respondent No. 4 (Assistant Engin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1981Raj157; 1981()WLN450
ORDER1. The four petitions of revision, listed above, arise out of four different suits for recovery of money pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Baran. The suits are based on similarly vorded instruments, known in the commercial circles as Shahjog hundis. The hundis are written in dialectal Hindi. One of the hundis may be translated here, as illustrative of others, as follows:--Written at the auspicious place, Shri Baran; please accept salutations from Shri Panna Lalji Birdhi Chandji to Shri Panna Lalji Birdhi Chandji. We have received here from Mahendra Kumar Aggarwal a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in lieu of this hundi. The amount shall be paid to the Shah (a respectable person) on Phagun Badi 10, 2032 BK, at once according to the custom of Shahjog hundis.Signature2. One of the common preliminary objections raised by the respective defendants in these suits is that the hundis in question are chargeable with duty under Schedule I, Article 13, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereafter ca...
Tag this Judgment!