Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1973 Page 1 of about 19 results (0.012 seconds)

Aug 16 1973 (HC)

Permanand and anr. Vs. Smt. Anandi Bai and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-16-1973

Reported in : AIR1974Raj65; 1973()WLN643

..... the band of another person, or that if another person does sign it on the addressee's behalf the presumption is thai it never was delivered to the addresser himself mediately of immediately for instance', if a servant in the addressee's house saw a notice handed in by the postman carried to the addressee, and handed to him that servant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1973 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Raghunath Singh

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-09-1973

Reported in : AIR1974Raj4; 1973()WLN424

jain j.1. this appeal by the defendant state arises out of the original civil suit no. 16/62, instituted by the respondent raghunath singh, for the recovery of rs. 70,151.32 as damages for breach of contract and which has been partly decreed by the senior civil judge no. 2 jaipur city, on 28-2-1966.2. briefly put, the plaintiff raghunath singh's case is that he was in anted a minor mineral lease for lime-stone of the mines, known as dawa and seelva in tehsil nokha. district bikaner. rajasthan, consisting of an area of 40 acres for a period of five years on an yearly dead rent of rs. 6195/- on the terms and conditions given under the raiasthan minor mineral concession rules, 1955. this mining lease was granted by the director of mines and geology government of rajasthan. udaipur. the sanction was conveyed to the plaintiff by the assistant mining engineer, bikaner. by his letter, dated 4-7-1957 (ex. 26). the deputy director (administration) of mines and geology also communicated this fact to him by his letter, dated 5-7-1957 (ex. 25). the plaintiff then deposited an amount of rs. 1550/- by wav of security with the assistant mining engineer, bikaner. on 8th august. 1957. he also completed the other formalities regarding demarcation etc. of the area in question. by letter, dated 9-10-1957 (ex. 5). the plaintiff was also informed to commence his work. plaintiff raghunath singh further deposited rs. 1550/- on 28th october, 1957, as another part of the security deposit amount. he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1973 (HC)

Dhanni and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-31-1973

Reported in : 1973CriLJ1336; 1973()WLN153

lodha, j.1. the above two appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned sessions judge, bharatpur dated 2-5-1970 by which he convicted dhanni under section 302 of the indian penal code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. the co-accused tota. nasira, juma, subhan and patri were, however, acquitted of all the charges. aggrieved by his conviction dhanni has filed appeal to this court which has been registered as d. b. criminal appeal no. 337/70. so also dissatisfied with the order of acauittal passed in favour of the other five accused, the state has filed appeal and the same has been registered as d- b. criminal appeal no. 768/71. at this stage, we may mention that during the pendencv of these appeals. tota has died. consequently, the appeal filed by the state affainst tota has abated and we are therefore, only concerned with the five accused, namely dhanni, nasira, juma, subhan and patri.2. there is a field khasra no. 476 called 'bandhwala khet' situated in village chulhera. this field originally belonged to shivram. the prosecution case is that in samwat 2025 shivram sold away this field to bholisin? p. w. 3 and the deceased gabdu used to cultivate it as a tenant of bholising. it appears that there was a dispute between bholisins on the one hand and the accused tota on the other regarding the ownership and possession over this field. on 7th december 1968 at about 9 in the morning, it is alleged by the prosecution that p. w- 2 govind singh and p. w, 5 nathisingh, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 1973 (HC)

Hetram and anr. Vs. Bhader Ram and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-03-1973

Reported in : 1973(6)WLN981

s.n. modi, j.1. this appeal by the plaintiff hetram and his minor brother sahabram is directed against the judgment and decree of the additional district judge, ganganagar, dated 31-5-71 dismissing the suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits.2. the disputes to agricultural land measuring 16 bighas 2 biswas which is a part of khasra no. 167messuring 32 bighas 6 biswas in villag dilmana, tehsil suratgath, distt. ganganagar. by a deed of sale dt. 9-9-59 which was registered on 10-9-59,gangaram alias nandram, the father of the plaintiffs, sold the disputed land measuring 16 bighas 2 biswas to the defendant-respondent bhaderam for rs. 10304/-. on 25-10-68 the plaintiffs brought the present suit alleging that the entire khasra no. 167 belonged to their grand-father arjunram and on the death of arjunram it devolved upon their father gangaram. they further alleged that the sale-deed dated 9-9-59 executed by their father was entirely without consideration and no amount whatsoever was paid for the land. it was further alleged that the land being undivided ancestral property, their father gangaram had no power to sell it. they also pleaded that their father had no debts to repay and consequently, the sale was without any legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. it was also mentioned in the plaint that both the plaintiffs hetram and sahabram were minors at the date of the sale transaction. on these allegations, the plaintiffs prayed that the sale-deed in question be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1973 (HC)

Capstan Meter (India) Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-20-1973

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 limitation act the case would still fall under section 12 (2) of the said act. the argument proceeds that an application for making a reference under section 18 of the limitation act would fall within the ambit of the word 'appeal' or 'review'. in support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon burjorjee v. special collector. rangoon air 1926 rang 135; nagendra nath v. suresh air 1932 pc 165, raja kulkarni v. state of bombay, air 3954 sc 73, shankar v. krishnaji air 1970 sc 1 parduman singh .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 1973 (HC)

Thanaram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-07-1973

Reported in : 1973(6)WLN587

v.p. tyagi, j.1. thanaram, pradhan of the panchayat samiti, luni, has filed this writ petition under article 220 of the constitution against the state of rajasthan and the assistant secretary (inquiries), block development and panchayat department of the government of rajasthan, praying that the order passed by the state government on 15th of march, 1972, suspending the petitioner from the office of pradhan be quashed2. the petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned order mainly on the ground that shri parasram maderna, who was the minister incharge, has passed the impugned order with a malafide intention as the petitioner was suspected by him of having opposed during the general election the official candidate of the congress from the luni assembly constituency and, therefore, to wreck vengeance the impugned order was passed by the minister on the eve of his laying down the office of minister holding the charge of the panchayat department.3. shri parasram maderna was not a party to this writ petition. the petitioner, however, by his application dated 5th of august, 1972, prayed that shri maderna be impleaded as a party but that application was rejected on 14th of august, 1972 as the case was rips tor hearing after the arguments were heard at length, learned additional advocate-general made a request to the court to allow him to file the affidavit of shri maderna to deny the charges of mala fides levelled against him. permission was, however, given by the court to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 1973 (HC)

Mehtab Chand Golcha and ors. Vs. the Official Liquidator and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-08-1973

Reported in : 1973(6)WLN902

kan singh, j.1. the appeal before us is by shri mehtab chand golcha and others, who are standing trial in this court for offences under section 454(5) of the indian companies act, 1956, hereinafter to be referred as the act. they raised an objection before the learned company judge that section 454(5a) of the act was ultra vires the constitution being violative of article 14 thereof by his order dated 25th april, 1973, the learned company judge rejected the objections holding that section 454(5a) of the act was ultra-vires.2. the present appeal is directed against this order. the question that is confronting the appellants at the very thresh hold is whether the order is appealable and the appeal lies within this court the learned counsel bases his right of appeal on section 483 of the act, which we may read:appeals from any order made, or decision given, in the matter of the winding-up of a company by the court shall lie to the same court to which, in the same manner in which, and subject to the same conditions under which, appeals lit from any order or decision of the court in cases within its ordinary jurisdiction.the learned counsel maintains that this section is wide enough to confer a right of appeal on an aggrieved party against any order made or decision given in the rnatter of winding-up of a company and is not conditioned by any other limitations except regarding the procedural matters like that of filing the appeal within the period of limitation or payment of court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 1973 (HC)

Lt. Col. Maharaj Himmatsingh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-20-1973

Reported in : AIR1973Raj254; 1973()WLN107

beri, j.1. these appeals are directed against a iudgment of the learned single judge dated july 27, 1972, but. it is based on the reasons given in the iudgment dated april 18. 1972 in 492 writ petitions, relating to lands occupied by persons in raiasthan canal area.2. the appellants' case is that the jagirdar of sattasar sranted in 1948. large chunks of land to the appellants and issued 'sanads' to them. the sattasar jaeir was resumed under the raiasthan land reforms and resumption of jagirs act (act vi of 1952] on august 15. 1954. the appellants paid all amounts due against them by wav of land revenue on the said lands from the vears 1948 to 1955 and they became khatedar. tenants within the meaning of the word in the bikaner state tenancv act. the appellants also contend that the revenue or rent have been realised from them for the period from 1953 to 1962.3. on october 15, 1955, the raiasthan tenancy act. 1955 (hereinafter called 'the tenancv act') came into force. under section 15 thereof, any person who was a tenant became a khate-dar tenant entitled to the rights under the tenancv act and the appellants claim that thev acauired such rights. thev further contend that their khatedari rights were confirmed by the commissioner. bikaner. by his order dated october 21. 1957. the appellants further say that the lands which were given to them by the sanad was 'baniar' (barren) and the appellants reclaimed and cleared the land for cultivation and started cultivation in the vear .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 1973 (HC)

Garg Book Co. Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-16-1973

Reported in : 1973(6)WLN609

b.p. beri, c.j.1. messrs garg book co., jaipur, hereinafter called 'the assessee') sold to the university of rajasthan and the board of secondary education, rajasthan, printed roll lists during the assessment period from 1.4.61 to 31.3.62 and urged before the sales tax officer that what the assessee sold was 'book' and therefore it was exempt trom payment of tax under section 4 read with entry 10 of the schedule to the rajasthan sales tax act, 1954, (hereinafter called 'the act'). the sales tax officer negatived the contention. the assessese, however, succeeded before the appellate authority but failed before the board of revenue. a request for reference was made to the board of revenue, but the board declined it. the assesses therefore moved this court and obtained a direction for the board of revenue to refer the following question for answer:whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case. the 'roll registers' of the university of rajasthan and the board of secondary education, ajmer, are exempt from payment of sales tax by virtue of section 4 read with serial number 10 of the schedule of the rajasthan sales tax act?2. mr a.k. bhandari appearing for the assessee urged that the term 'books' having been not statutorily defined it should be given its literal meaning as contained in various dicionaries and when tested on that touchstone what the assessee supplied wee books which are exempt from tax. he also submitted that in any event the expression 'exercise book' is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1973 (HC)

Vijay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-21-1973

Reported in : 1973(6)WLN385

p.n. shinghal, j.1. the petitioner was serving as head constable in police lines, sirohi, when he was placed under suspension on february 22, 1964. the superintendent of police ultimately passed an order (ex. 1) on june 10, 1965 reverting him to the post of constable for a period of six months and forfeiting half his salary for the suspension period. the deputy inspector general of police thereupon issued a notice (ex-2) to the petitioner on april 12, 1966 to show cause why the penalty should not be enhanced in view of the gravity of the charges against him. the petitioner contested that notice on the ground, inter alia, that an action for the enhancement of the penalty had not been initiated within six months, it was not permissible to enhance the penalty. the deputy inspector general, however, enhanced the penalty by order ex.3 dated july 26, 1966 by reducing the petitioner to the rank of constable for a period of two-and a-half years. he however allowed him the maximum pay of the constable's grade & further directed that, after the completion of the period of his reversion, he would get the same pay which he was getting on the date of the order. the petitioner preferred an appeal to the state government, which was referred to the rajasthan public service commission. the commission expressed the view that there was no force in the appeal, and it was dismissed by the government by order ex 4 dated january 29, 1968. he has now approached this court by means of the present .....

Tag this Judgment!

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