Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-12-1977
Reported in : 1977WLN357
D.P. Gupta, J.1.This is an appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the wife's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called 'the Act).2. The respondent filed a petition for divorce before the District Judge Jodhpur in which a decree for divorce was passed on January 4, 1977. The appellant Smt. Priti Parihar filed an appeal in this Court against the aforesaid decree. Along with the appeal she also filed an application under Section 24 of the Act praying for grant of interim maintenance and expenses of the appeal. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 15-4-1977. directed the respondent to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 200/- per month by way of maintenance pendente lite and also awarded her a sum of Rs. 400/- by way of expenses of the appeal. This order has been challenged by the wife in this appeal.3. A preliminary objection has been raised in respect of the maintainability of the appeal and it, has been urged by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-28-1977
Reported in : 1977WLN(UC)137
M.L. Joshi, J.1. These two writ petitions challenge the validity of the levy as the octroi on the petroleum products by the Municipal Council Jodhpur sell from depot of the Indian Oil Corporation at Jodhpur, hereinafter called the respondent No. 2 to its retail outlets viz Dangiavas and Mogda. The petitions are based on almost identical facts and involve common questions of law and so they are being disposed of by a single judgment.2. As the facts and points involved in both the writ petitioner are almost similar it will be sufficient to narrate facts from writ petition NO. 17/76 Parekh Automobiles v. Municipal Council Jodhpur and Anr. as the decision in this case will govern the decision in the another writ petition also.3. The petitioner Parekh Automobiles Co., has a retail outlet for the sale of petroleum products at Dangiavas. The petitioner has been allotted retail outle by the respondent No. 2 for sale of petroleum products such as diesel oil, mobile oil etc. at Dingiavas which i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-13-1977
Reported in : 1977WLN341
D.P. Gupta, J.1. These five writ petitions have been presented by cloth dealers of Pipar town situated in the district of Jodhpur. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Municipal Board, Pipar was realising octroi duty on all varieties of cloth formerly at the flat rate of Rs. 2/- per quintal but by a notification issued on May 6, 1971, octroi duty is now charged at the rate of 1% on he cost price of the cloth brought in the town of Pipar by the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is that the revised rate of octroi duty on cloth levied at 1% of the cost price is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution being discriminatory, as in several other cities and towns of the state of Rajasthan like Bikaner, Parbatsar, Jaipur, Karanpur, Ganganagar, Jodhpur and Pali the octroi duty is still levied on the basis of weight of cloth imported and there is no rational basis for this gross disparity nor there is any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-13-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Raj208; 1977()WLN302
S.N. Modi, J. 1. This first appeal by the vendee Kala Devi is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City dated September 20, 1973 decreeing the suit of the respondent Radha Kishan for pre-emption. 2. The dispute relates to a portion of the residential house situated in Mohalla Chowkari Ghat Darwaza, near Math Ka Kuwa, Jaipur City described in para 1 of the plaint. This entire house was owned by vendor Geeta Devi and the respondent pre-emptor Radha Kishan. In pursuance of the agreement executed by Geeta Devi on 22-3-1970 in favour of the appellant's husband Vishan Das (D. W. 4), Geeta Devi sold her share in the house for Rs. 18,601 in favour of the appellant vendee Kala Devi vide registered sale deed dated June 18, 1970. 3. It is common ground between the parties that before the sale of the disputed property, the vendor Geeta Devi did not give any notice as prescribed under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966 (hereinafter re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-08-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Raj72
A.P. Sen, J. 1. This writ petition has been referred to a Full Bench at the instance of the State Government because it involves a question as to the validity of the appointment of Shri Raghukul Tilak as Governor of Rajasthan.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the writ petition, shortly stated, are that during the period of Emergency, the petitioner, who holds a substantive rank of a Reader in Political Science in University of Rajasthan, was appointed as Officiating Director, Institute of Correspondence Studies, on Sept. 29, 1975 by the then Vice-Chancellor Dr. G.C. Pande, respondent No. 2. His services were placed on deputation from the Department of Political Science and in due course the post was advertised. On the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose, which was duly approved by the Syndicate, the petitioner was appointed as Director, Institute of Correspondence Studies, on probation, for a period of one year in the pay-scale of Professor in the U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-12-1977
Reported in : AIR1979Raj44; 1977()WLN332
A.P. Sen, AG. C.J.1. This is a reference to the Division Bench for reconsideration of the correctness of the decisions of Jagat Narayan J., in Rajeshwar Dayal v. Padam Kumar Kothari (1969 Raj LW 546) : (AIR 1970 Raj 77) and reiterated by him in Kedarnath v. Pana Devi (1972 WLN 501) 8 (AIR 1973 Raj 24) holding that an application by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint seeking to introduce a new ground of eviction viz., on the ground of default based on Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, be allowed under Section 153 or Order 16, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where such ground arises after the institution of a suit for the eviction of the defendant on one or more of the grounds set forth in Section 13 (1) of the Act, inasmuch as that would be tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to include a cause of action which had not accrued on the date of the suit,2. The parties stand in the relationship of l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-30-1977
Reported in : 1977WLN379
Kalyan Dutta Sharma, J.1. These two appeals-one filed by Sangram Singh and another preferred by Madan Singh son of Ugam Singh and Laxmi Narain alias Laxman arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Sessions judge, Jaipur City, on 19th February, 1973, in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1971 convicting and sentencing each of the three appellants in the following manner: 1. Sangram Singhi) Under Section 120B r/w Five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.Section 457, I.P.C. 200/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for two months.ii) Under Section 120B r/w Three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.Section 330, I.P.C. 200/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for two months.iii) Under Section 120B r/w Two years, R.I.Section 411, I.P.C.iv) Under Section 120B r/w Two years' R.I.Section 414, I.P.C.v) Under Section 109 r/w S. Five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.457, I.P.C. 200/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for two monthsvi) Under Section 109 r/w Three years' ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-17-1977
Reported in : 1977WLN(UC)413
M.L. Jain, J.1. The facts of this writ petition are that M/s Bikaner Clays & Chemicals, Bikaner respondent No 3 made an application on 8-1-1970 for mining lease for red ochre and fire clay in an area of 412 hectares near village Indokabala, District Bikaner. Since in the same land, one Shri A M Bengani had applied on 14-8-68 for mining lease for Fuller's earth in an area of 412 79 hectares, the Assistant Mining Fighter, Bikarer, by his letter dated 30.1.70 in formed the respondent No 3 that the area applied for by them conflicts with some sanctioned and applied for area and as such the fire area is only 342-35 hectares He enclosed a report in 5 copies for signatures of the respondent No 3 and return within 3 days Ore more letter was issued by the Assistant Mining Engineer Bilarer on 19- 11-1970 saying that as a matter of fact, the free an a was only 252 52 acres Ir reply to this letter, the respondent No 3 wrote to the Astistant Marirg Frgireer Rlaner that they had accepted and desinge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-29-1977
Reported in : 1977WLN(UC)230
M.L. Jain, J.1. This order will dispose of two writ petitions Nos. 1009/1976. and 1970 of 1976.2. On 20-8-1971, Mining Engineer, Jodhpur issued a public notice that a minor mineral quarry Kali Beri No. 108 of stone had become Khalsa and was available for grant for Rent-cum-Royalty lease, perhaps under Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1956. In was also directed that applications for allotment of the said quarry will be received upto 21-9-1971. Hansraj made an application on 21-9-1971 and it is conceded on all hands that the lease was sanctioned by the Mining Engineer in his favour. He was directed by a letter dated 1.1.1972 issued by the said Mining Engineer that he should contact the foreman; have the quarry demarcated and complete other formalities within 15 days and if he failed to do so, his application was likely to be dismissed. The quarry was got demarcated on 3-4-1972. Hansraj alleges that thereafter he attended the office of the Mining Engineer several t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-30-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Raj52; 1977()WLN604
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J. 1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the notifications dated 5th November, 1976 (Annexure 4), dated 16th February, 1977 (Annexure 5), and notice dated 25th March, 1977, (Annexure 6) and further for restoration o the possession of the disputed land, if the petitioners are dispossessed during the pendency of the writ petition.2. A joint writ petition was filed, by Om Prakash, Rajendra Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Smt Sushila, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Suchitra Devi in respect of Khasras Nos. 419, 420, 421, 422 and 423 (old) corresponding to new Khasras Nos. 516, 517, 518, 519 and 520 respectively, admeasuring 3 Bighas 4 Biswas, 5 Biswas, 1 Bigha 7 Biswas, 5 Brwas, and 2 Bighas 8 Biswas respectively. This writ petition when came up for hearing an objection was taken on behalf of the non-petitioners that the joint writ petition was not competent as the petitioners have no common and joint interest in all the Khasras mentioned above. Lear...
Tag this Judgment!