Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan jodhpur Year: 2014 Page 1 of about 108 results (0.008 seconds)

Feb 17 2014 (HC)

Birdha Ram Vs. Manohar Lal

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Feb-17-2014

..... by both the parties and their respective counsels, wherein a prayer has been made that the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed. the report sent by the learned mediator alongwith the application under order xxiii, rule 1 cpc is taken on record. in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and parties having acted upon the said ..... . during pendency of this appeal by order dated 07.11.2013, the matter was referred to the mediation center attached to this court and parties were directed to remain present before the learned mediator. a report dated 28.01.2014 has been received from the learned mediator, inter alia, indicating that the parties have compromised the suit on consideration of rs.5,80 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2014 (HC)

Prakash Chand Lodha Vs. Judge,labour Court,bhilwara and anr

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Jul-02-2014

..... .d.b.civil special appeal (writ) no.75/2007. prakash chand lodha versus judge, labour court, bhilwara & anr. (alongwith one connected matter) // 5 // from the settlement, as recorded by the mediator, and further, on the submissions as made by the appellants of saw no.75/2007, we are satisfied that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and, in ..... made by way of cheque/demand draft in the name of the wife smt. pushpa devi of the employee writ-petitioner. the terms of the agreement as recorded by the mediator could be usefully reproduced as under:- 1) in both the appeal a request would be made to decide the appeal as per this agreement.2) the respondent employer would make ..... facts and circumstances of the case, a co-ordinate bench by the order dated 09.05.2014 referred this matter to mediation. the mediator has sent his report on mediation, as had taken place on 30.05.2014. in the report, the mediator has pointed out that the parties have mutually agreed to settle the dispute; and in that regard, the employer has agreed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 2014 (HC)

Chairman, Municipal Bprad, Jetaran and anr Vs. Rep. of Tapegachh JaIn ...

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Oct-28-2014

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :judgment: s.b.civil second appeal no.881/2011 chairman, municipal board, jetaran & anr. versus takhatraj & ors.date of judgment :: 28.10.2014 present hon'ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.d.s.rajvi, for the appellants. mr.arvind samdariya, for the respondents. ---- by the court: this second appeal under section 100 cpc is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2011 passed by additional district judge (fast track) no.1, pali, headquarter- jetaran, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2006 passed by civil judge (senior division).jetaran, has been confirmed. the facts in brief may be noticed thus:- the plaintiffs- respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction on 24.07.1985, inter alia, with the averments that a upasara belonging to the tapegach jain samaj is situated at jetaran, wherein, sampat raj mathur was in possession of a bagechi of said upasara; the suit was being filed in representative capacity; the patta of samvat year 1918 was given by the then maharaja of jodhpur takhat singh; whereafter, in samvat year 1938 patta of another land nearby was issued by the then maharaja jaswant singh of 2 jodhpur; the area of land was 2 bigha and was in possession of the samaj for over 100 years.the disputed bagechi was let out by chiefs of the samaj anraj and girdharilal in samvat year 1998 to jugraj khariwal and nathmal for yearly rent of rs.15/-; whereafter, in samvat year 2008, the bagechi was let .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2014 (HC)

Jafar Vs. Mohd. Babu and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Mar-12-2014

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :judgment: s.b.civil second appeal no.378/2011 jafar versus mohd. babu & ors.date of judgment :: 12th march, 2014 present hon'ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.r.k.charan, for the appellant. ---- by the court: this second appeal under section 100 cpc is directed against judgment and decree dated 15.03.2011 passed by additional district judge, deedwana, whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2009 passed by additional civil judge (senior division).deedwana has been dismissed. the facts in brief may be noticed thus : plaintiff mohd. babu filed a suit for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 25.02.1984 against jafar (purchaser).aslam (vendor) and hanif with the averments that land ad measuring 16 bigha 17 biswa comprised in khasr.no.1864 situated at deedwana was in the ancestral khatedari of plaintiff and his brothers aslam and hanif, whose recorded khatedar was their father dulla alias abdulla, who died in september, 1982; whereafter the khatedari should have been recorded in the names of three sons; however, the defendant no.1 jafar got the same mutated in the name of defendant no.2 aslam only, which is ab initio void; all the three 2 sons have 1/3rd share each in the said land; on 25.02.1984 the sale of the land was executed by someone claiming himself to be aslam; at the time of registration defendant no.2 aslam was minor and the said registration was suppressed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 2014 (HC)

Ram Lal Vs. State

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Jan-30-2014

d.b.criminal appeal no.770/2007 1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur. *** judgment ram lal v/s state of rajasthan d.b.criminal appeal no.770/2007 under section 374 (2) cr.pc against the judgement dated 25.8.2007 passed by the additional session judge, raisingnagar district sriganganagar in sessions case no.20/2006. *** date of judgment : 30.01.2014 hon'ble mr.govind mathur,j hon'ble mr.atul kumar jain ,j mr.h.r.bishnoi for appellant mr.k.r.bishnoi, public prosecutor by the court: (per hon'ble mr.jain.j.accused ram lal was convicted on 25.8.2007 in sessions case no.20/2006 relating to fir no.171/2006 of police station, raisingnagar by additional session judge, raisingnagar district sriganganagar under section 302 indian penal code for causing murder of his wife. he was sentenced under section 302 ipc by the said court by life imprisonment along with a fine of rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, an additional simple imprisonment of one year was also ordered by the trial court. d.b.criminal appeal no.770/2007 2 in this appeal, it has been argued on behalf of the accused-appellant ram lal that the judgment of the trial court is against the facts as well as against law, the trial court has not appreciated evidence properly, the trial court has relied upon the interested and relative witnesses of the prosecution side, there are material contradictions in the statement of the sole eye witness smt. soma devi who was sister of the deceased sita devi, ' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2014 (HC)

Sushil Kumar and anr Vs. Special Dis. Judge - 1 and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Jan-21-2014

[1].in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur order sushil kumar & anr. versus special district judge-i, (pong dam oustees cases).sr.ganganagar & others.s.b.civil writ petition no.383/2014 under article 226 & 227 of the constitution of india. date of order: january 21, 2014. present hon'ble mr.justice p.k.lohra, j. mr.b.s.sandhu, for the petitioners.*** by the court: petitioners have ventilated their grievances in the instant petition against the impugned order dated 13th of august 1998 (annex.9) passed by the firs.respondent as well as order dated 9th of may 1992 (annex.6) passed by the sub divisional officer, raisinghnagar and has prayed for annulment of both these orders.besides the aforesaid main prayer, the petitioners have also craved for other ancillary reliefs. scorning the checkered history of the case, the brief facts essential for appreciating the afflictions of the [2].petitioners are that the petitioners.father was an agriculturist owning agricultural land in himachal pradesh, which was acquired for the purpose of constructing pong dam reservoir and in benefit thereof state of rajasthan allotted him the land in indira gandhi canal area by treating him a pong dam oustee in the form of compensation. as compensation, he was allotted 25 bighas of land in 6 bgd tehsil vijay nagar, murabba no.143/337 alongwith a land of plot in abadi area of 6 bgd. the possession of the land was taken over by father of the petitioners and he started cultivation on 25th .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 22 2014 (HC)

Sundar Lal Vs. Kishan Lal

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : May-22-2014

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :judgment: s.b.civil firs.appeal no.164/2013 sunder lal versus kishan lal date of judgment :: 20.05.2014 present hon'ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.shyam s. khatri, for the appellant. ---- by the court: this appeal under section 96 cpc is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2013 passed by the additional district judge no.1, bikaner, whereby, the suit filed by the appellant has been dismissed as barred by limitation. the facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff filed the suit against defendant his nephew seeking cancellation of will dated 31.03.1988 executed by late shri raghunath, father of the plaintiff and grand-father of the defendant, claiming the same to be fraudulent on several grounds indicated in the plaint. it was alleged that there was no reason to execute the will by excluding his ten natural heirs.the will was executed on the date of his death, he was unconscious for about fortnight before his death, the relations between late shri raghunath and satya narayan (father of the defendant) were not cordial etc.a written statement was filed by the defendant, inter alia, contending that the agriculture land, which was bequeath by the 2 said will has been divided into plots and the same have already been sold, rest of the land has been acquired by riico and compensation has been paid to him, however, none of the transferees have been made party to the suit; insufficient court- fee has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 2014 (HC)

Narendra Singh Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Jul-09-2014

[1].in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur order d.b.civil special appeal (w) no.6/2014 narendra singh versus state of rajasthan & ors.date of order :: 09.7.2014 present hon'ble mr.justice govind mathur hon'ble mr.justice atul kumar jain mr.amit vyas & mr.arvind shrimali for mr.d.d.thanvi, for the appellant ..by the court : this special appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 22.10.2013 passed by learned single bench in s.b.civil writ petition no.4612/1999. by the judgment aforesaid, the learned single judge affirmed the order dated 07.9.1999 passed by the revisional authority exercising powers under rule 47 of the rajasthan minor mineral concession rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules of 1986').the revisional authority under the order impugned affirmed the decision of the assistant mining engineer to revise dead rent of the mining lease from rs.6500/- to rs.41,117/- w.e.f.27.6.1993. [2].in brief, facts of the case are that a mining lease for minor mineral marble was granted to late shri ram singh on 27.6.1985 with an annual dead rent of rs.6500/-. the term of lease was of ten years and after expiry of that, the original lessee shri ram singh died on 27.3.1996. the lease after the death of shri ram singh was granted to his son. the dead rent was required to be revised after five years.as such, the revision of dead rent was due in the year 1993. the original lessee shri ram singh died on 27.3.1976, thus, by acting upon .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2014 (HC)

Rameshwar Lal Andors Vs. Jai Prakashand ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Feb-04-2014

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :judgment: s.b.civil firs.apeal no.57/1986 rameshwar lal and ors.versus jai prakash and ors.date of judgment :: 04.02.2014 present hon'ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.manish shishodia, for the appellants. mr.ramit mehta, for the respondents. ----- by the court: this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.3.1986 passed by the additional district judge, chittorgarh, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-defendant no.1 was decreed; sale deed dated 15.6.1974 to the extent of plaintiff no.1's share was cancelled on payment of rs.13,500/- by the plaintiff no.1 to defendants no.1 to 3 within a period of two months; plaintiffs were held not entitled to possession of the suit house from the defendants-appellants; suit filed by the plaintiff no.2 for cancellation of sale deed was held pre-mature and the plaintiff no.1 was held entitled to costs from the defendant no.4. the facts in brief may be noticed thus : the respondents no.1 and 2 plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed 2 and for possession of the suit property against the appellants and respondent no.4 bhagwan lal (their father) with the averments that the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 1.2.1974 from suresh chandra for a sum of rs.26,000/-. the defendants no.1 to 3 were tenants in the said house and a sum of rs.1,000/- were deposited with suresh chandra as earnest money. the rent deed has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2014 (HC)

Hari Ram Vs. Vimla and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Mar-11-2014

s.b.c.w.p.no.1567/2013 hari ram v. vimla & others 1/3 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :: order :: s.b.civil writ petition no.1567 of2013petitioner-plaintiff: v. respondent-defendants: hari ram vimla & others :: date of order: (11th) march 2014 :: present hon'ble mr justice v.k.mathur mr vijay jain, for the petitioner none present for respondents by the court: the present petition has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiff challenging the order dated 06th november 2012 passed by the learned civil judge (jd).tibbi, district- hanumangarh in civil case no.04/2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under sec.65 of the evidence act has been rejected. 2.as per relevant facts of the case, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance with regard to the agreement for sale dated 12th may 1993. as per petitioner-plaintiff, the defendants executed agreement for sale of 1 bigha 11 biswas for consideration of rs.20150/-, obtained the consideration and handed over possession of the land. in pursuance of the s.b.c.w.p.no.1567/2013 hari ram v. vimla & others 2/3 agreement for sale, the sale deed was also executed on 07th october 1993 for 1 bigha 10 biswas and mutation of 1 bigha 10 biswas was recorded in favour of petitioner-plaintiff. the petitioner-plaintiff filed plaint seeking specific performance of unperformed part of agreement for sale dated 12th may 1993 by the defendants, by execution of sale deed for remaining 1 biswa land. in .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //