Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-04-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Raj39; 1981()WLN233
1. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge, dated June 29, 1981.2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity as well as on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The plaintiff-landlord filed an application under Section 13 (6) of the Rajasthan, Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 1-9-78 for striking off the defence against eviction. The learned District Judge. Alwar by his order dated 23-7-79 allowed the application and struck off the defence against eviction. The defendants filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act in this Court, which came UD for consideration before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal by his judgment, dated June 29, 1981- The defendants have filed the present appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge. A preliminary objection was raised by the le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-12-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Raj170; 1981()WLN53
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. Petitioner's Tender, State's Pleasure and peoples' treasure, the juxtaposition of these trio postulates are on test and trial. Administrative discretion is to be put to judicial post morterm on the touch-stone of 'rule of law'.2. The new dimensions of scope ofjudicial review in the field of administrative law, by celebrated decisions of the Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (AIR 1979 SC 1628) and Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (AIR 1980 SC 1992), having smashed the VETO power of the administrative wing of the State, proverbially known as the 'BUREAUCRACY' in matters of State Contracts, Tenders, Licences, Quotas and Permits; flood gates have been opened for citizens for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution and claiming the enforcement of 'ubi jus ibi idem remedium'.3. Overt and covert disregard, flagrant violations of the laws, norms and fair play principles, by those who are trustees and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-31-1981
Reported in : [1983]140ITR95(Raj)
Sidhu, J.1. Kistoormall and Gyanmal, sons of Kanmal Nahta, filed the present writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on March 17, 1967, against the ITO, Central Circle-I, Jaipur, Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan, at New Delhi, and the Union of India, respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, for bringing up and quashing the notices, Ex. H-I to H-5, dated March 21, 1963, issued to their father, Kanmal Nahta, deceased, by the ITO, Special Investigation Circle-A, Jaipur (hereafter called 'the Jaipur ITO'), under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereafter called 'the new Act') for the assessment years 1946-47 to 1950-51, and for an injunction restraining the respondents from taking any proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the said notices.2. A few facts, which are material for the decision of this petition, may be recapitulated here. Kanmal Nahta, who died on June 26, 1964, was an assessee within the jurisdiction of 3rd ITO, C-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-11-1981
Reported in : AIR1983Raj27
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1) instituted a suit for redemption of mortgage dated April 14. 1954. The suit was filed against the legal representatives of the deceased mortgagee Ratanlal. The appellants (defendant-petitioners) are sons of Ratanlal. The suit was contested by the defendants (petitioners). Their case was that they had undertaken the repairs with the concurrence of the plaintiff-mortgagor in the years 1958-1961, 1965 and .1971. They obtained receipts for the amounts spent by them on repairs from the plaintiff-non-peti-tioner No. 1. These receipts were filed along with the written statement and the amount involved is Rs. 5,500. The receipts produced by the defendant-petitioners were unstamped. The learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur, by his order dated Nov. 12, 1980, held that by virtue of Section 35 of the Stamp Act as existed then. these receipts cannot be admitted in evidence. The defendant petitioners filed a writ petition under Articles...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-24-1981
Reported in : 1981WLN223
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi dated 31-4-1980, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 250/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has argued only one point. His contention is that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the offence falls within the purview of Section 304, IPC and not under Section 302, IPC. His contention is that the incident took place at the spur of moment and, that there was no pre-meditation for committing this offence. It has been further contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that he is an old man of 72 years of age and that a lenient view may be taken. It was also contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that the injured did not get medical aid properly and that if the blood could be supplied ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-16-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Raj176; 1981()WLN214
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated November 23, 1979 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, in execution case No. 8/1977, whereby the judgment-debtor petitioner's objection, regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to execute the decree, was rejected.2. The suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed by the trial Court on January 13, 1969 and the said decree was affirmed in the first appeal and second appeal on May 23, 1974 and April 29, 1975 respectively and a compromise was arrived at between the parties in the Supreme Court and a decree in pursuance of compromise was passed on November 17, 1976. Thereafter, the decree-holder submitted an application for execution in the Court of Munsif, City Jodhpur onMarch 18, 1977. In the execution application, the judgment-debtor submitted his objections under Section 47, C. P. C. read with Section 151 C. P. C. on April 5, 1977. The execution application as well a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-15-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Raj139
ORDER1. A number of writ petitions have been filed challenging the validity of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (Act No. 11 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Arguments hare been heard in the above two writ petitions. The above two writ petitions raise some common questions, so I think it convenient to dispose them of by this order.2. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 481 of 1980 filed by Sanwalram, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar by his order dated July 23, 1971 (Ex. 1) decided his ceiling case holding that he has no land in the excess of the ceiling area. The petitioner Sanwalram's case was decided under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Ceiling Law') and the proceedings were also taken against the petitioner Sanwalram under the Act and the Authorised Officer (Ceiling) Raisinghnagar by his order, dated July 11, 1975 (Exhibit 2) dropped the proceedings of ceiling ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jun-30-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Raj30; [1983]54CompCas333(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by Smt. Gyarsi Devi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claimant' against the award, dated 18th December, 1975, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal') in Civil Miscellaneous (M. A. C.) Case No. 2 of 1971. In the case aforesaid, the claimant had claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of death of her son. Om. The Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 30,600 as compensation to the claimant against Bashir Ahmed, respondent No. 2, but has dismissed the said claim as against Sain Das, respondent No. 1, and the New India Assurance Company Limited, respondent No. 3.2. The aforesaid claim relates to an accident which took place on 16th Aug. 1970 at about 5.15 p. m. at Ramganj Chopar in Jaipur City. The case of the claimant is that at the time of the accident, the deceaced Om and Om ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-04-1981
Reported in : 1982CriLJ526
ORDERM. C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner is a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service and is at present serving as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali. According to him on 14-9-1979 a criminal case Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, and 323, I.P.C., was registered at the Police Station, Sirohi, against 11 students and their bail application came up for consideration before the petitioner on 18-9-1979 when he was posted as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi. While disposing of the bail application, certain observations were made by the petitioner with regard to the investigation and a copy of the order was sent to the District Magistrate. In that case the two accused Harbat Singh and Laxman Singh were sons of some Police Sub-Inspector, Shri Zalam Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 5, showed his personal interest in that case and he wrote a letter to the Chief Medical Officer, Sirohi, for constituting a Medical Board and in the case diary one pistol was shown to have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-16-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Raj269; 1981()WLN354
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J. 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Shri Inder Dev Arya, has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction against the non-petitioners, namely, the University of Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the University) and the State of Rajasthan, directing them to give admission to the petitioner in the M.B.B.S. course of 1980-81,2. This writ petition has been filed in the following circumstances:--3. In the State of Rajasthan, there are five medical colleges at Jaipur, Bikaner Udaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer. All the five medical colleges are run by the State Government. Admissions to the aforesaid Medical Colleges are made after making a joint selection through a Selection Committee (Admission Board). For the guidance of the Selection Committee in the matter of admissions to the said colleges, the State Government has issued instructions which have been described as Rules for Admission to Medical Colleges i...
Tag this Judgment!