Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1978 Page 1 of about 37 results (0.010 seconds)

Jul 12 1978 (HC)

Praveen Kumar Vs. the Board of Secondary Education for Rajasthan and a ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-12-1978

Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)180

..... permitted to appear at the high school examination of the board and no candidate who is less than 16 years of age will be allowed to appear at the intel mediate examination of the board.the petitioners in the case challenged the regulation on the ground that it was violative of the article 14 of the constitution. the argument was based .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1978 (HC)

Banshilal Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-23-1978

Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)12

m.l. joshi, j.1. the petitioner was appointed as ldc on 16th of february, 1945, in the erstwhile state of mewar. on the integration of the state into the united state of rajasthan his services were transferred to the state of rajasthan. it is net in dispute that the petitioner completed 25 years qualifying service on 9-2-70. the petitioner was compulsorily retired on 11-12-72 vide ex. 1 on receiving the not fee of the order of compulsory retirement the petitioner served a notice of demand of justice but did not receive any reply to the notice. he, therefore has moved this court under article 226 of the constitution of india prating for a writ or direction for quashing the order of compulsory retirement (ex. 1).2. the case of the petitioner succinctly put is that the petitioner's efficiency-bar grade was closed but later on by order ex. 2 the petitioner was permitted to cross the efficiency bar from 1-4-68 by order dated 9-10-1971. according to the petitioner this fact is an ample proof that the petitioner's services were recognized by the nor-petitioner no. 2 who is his appointing authority. it has been further averred that from november 1971 the petitioner has been serving under the sub-divisional officer shahpura who has given a certificate to the effect that the petitioner's work under him bad been satisfactory and there was no complaint of any kind against him so far his work was concerned. on the basis of the above averments the petitioner has contended in his petition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 1978 (HC)

Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. the Collector

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-24-1978

Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)263

m.l. joshi, j.1.this is a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india by smt. savitri devi praying for issuance of a writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari for quashing the order of the collector sriganganagar ex. 4 and further restraining him from taking further proceedings in pursuance of ex. 4.2. the material facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are as under: the petitioner is a khatedar of agricultural land. formerly the petitioner had 42 bighas 15 biswas of land in her khatedar in pursuance of award dated 27-11-59. a settlement parcha was also issued in favoir of the petitioner which is ex. 2. at that time one shri gurdeosingh has raised dispute regarding the part of land mentioned in schedule b of the writ petition which was given to the petitioner under the award. shri gurdeosingh filed a writ petition in this court which was registered as s.b. civil writ petition no. 1990 of 1973. in that case shri gurdeosingh obtained ad interim order but later on the same was vacated on 11-3-74. it may also be noted here that one shri gurjarsingh had also filed a suit regarding a part of the land measuring 7 bighas out of land mentioned in schedule b in the court of additional collector, sriganganagar. that suit was decreed. the petitioner filed an appeal before the revenue appellate authority, bikaner which is still pending. the petitioner stated that shri gurjarsingh is in illegal possession of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 1978 (HC)

Rameshwar Prasad Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-13-1978

Reported in : 1979CriLJ484; 1978(11)WLN568

k.s. sidhu, j.1. the appellant, rameshwar prasad trivedi, has been convicted by the learned special judge, jaipur, under section 161 of the i. p. c. and under section 6(1)(d) read with section 5 (2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1947, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of rs. 200/- or, in default, further simple imprisonment for one month separately under each count. the two sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. the case of the prosecution, which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the appellant, as aforementioned, is that on nov. 5, 1973, while the appellant was posted as sub-divisional magistrate-cum-revenue court, gangapur city, he accepted payment of rs. 500/- as illegal gratification for his promise to show favour to a party in two revenue suits pending in his court that day.3. it is alleged that ram singh, p. w. 2, a resident of village keshgarh, tehsil nandoti, district sawai madhopur, was involved as a party to two cross cases under section 107, cr. p.c pending in the court of the appellant as a sub-divisional magistrate at gangapur city, district sawai madhopur, in oct. 1973. kamaldas advocate, p. w. 3, had been retained as a counsel by ram singh in that litigation. the dispute, which gave rise to the said security proceedings between ram singh and his supporters on one side and one jag-dish gujar and his supporters on the other, was over possession of certain agricultural lands. jagdish gujar had filed a revenue suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1978 (HC)

Asha Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-18-1978

Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)293

s.c. agrawal, j.1. petitioners nos. 1 to 4 in t bas writ petition claim to be transferees of certain agricultural land measuring 30 bighas 13 biswas from petitioners nos. 5 and 6 under registered sale deed 12-1961. pooran, the father of the petitioner nos. 5 and 6 was originally recorded as khatedar tenant in respect of the said land and after the death of pooran his rights were inherited by petitioners no. 5 and 6 the said land which is claimed to have been purchased by petitioners nos. 1 to 4 was acquired for the constructions 12 ghagger flood scheme in 1965-66 and in exchange there of murrabba no. 84/349 (12 bighas) and murabba nos. 84/350 19 bighas in chak no. 19 s.p.d. were given to petitioners nos. 5 and 6 and thereafter petitioners nos. 1 to 4 obtained possession of the said land and began cultivating the same. petitioners nos. 1 to 4 applied for effecting mutation of the aforesaid fields in their names but the by colonization commissioner, rajasthan canal project respondent no. 2 herein, declined to do so and in his order dated 18th may 1966, he observed that the field appears to have been purchased by the applicants (petitioner nos. 1 to 4) and he directed that if the same had been purchased in contravention of the provisions of the rajasthan tenancy act, proceedings for their dispossession may be taken against them under section 175 of the rajasthan tenancy act, ) 955 thereafter the assistant colonization commissioner, respondent no. 3 herein, passed an order dated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1978 (HC)

Ram Deo Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-09-1978

Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)92

p.d. kundal, j.1. this is an application under, section 438 cr.p.c for issue of a direction that in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant ram deo may be enlarged on bail, against whom a case under, section 450/467 ipc is under investigation.2. it has been contended on behalf of the accused-applicant that on 15-1-1977, a sale deed for a sura of rs. 1,500/- was executed by ramdhan in favour of the applicant with respect to khasra no. 276/2, measuring 2 bighas situate in village naya gaon, tehsil gangapur city. it was further contended that on 16-6-1977, ramdhan moved an application before the tefrsildar, gangapur, that he had paid rs. 500/- to the accused ramdeo add has got the tend bearing khasra no. 276/- retransferred his name and also got a separate deed executed in his favour. ramdhan ten filed a civil suit against the petitioner applicant ramdev in the court of munsif, gangapur on 2-11-1977 and prayed that the sale-deed alleged to have been effected in his favour. ramdhan them filed a civil suit against the petitioner applicant ramdev in the court of munsif, gangapur on 2-11-1977 and prayed that the sale-deed alleged to have been executed in his favour, the of ramdev be cancelled and if any mutation has been effected in his favour, the same may be declared inoperative and ineffective. an application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 the code of civil procedure was also moved along with the plaint. the court issued notices to the other side for 3-11-1977 as the defendant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 1978 (HC)

Gopilal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-27-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Raj74

ordern.m. kasliwal, j. 1. the petitioner was elected as sarpanch of the gram panchayat udaipura tehsil sikrai district jaipur. on 10th feb. 1978, he was administered oath of the office of sarpanch. respondents nos. 3 to 12 are the panchas of the above gram panchayat duly elected. respondents nos. 13 and 14 are the members of the gram panchayat by co-option. a vote of no confidence was passed by the panchas in a meeting held on 23rd sept. 1978. out of 13 panchas 11 panchas voted in favour of the no-confidence motion and two panchas, out of whom, one was the sarpanch himself, voted against the no confidence motion. shri chiranji lal sharma, officiating tehsildar, sikrai, who presided over the meeting, declared the no confidence motion to be passed against the petitioner. the petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the motion of no confidence passed in the meeting held on 23rd sept. 1978. the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that only respondents nos. 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 and 13 bad taken the oath in the manner prescribed under rule 63 of the election rules on 8th may, 1978 and the rest of the respondents namely 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 have not taken the oath as yet. as such the panchas, who had not taken tbe oath, had no right to take part in the meeting on 23rd sept. 1978 and further the respondent no. 3, wbo had also not taken the oath, had no right to move a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. it is further contended that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 1978 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. M.R. Mitruka

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-02-1978

Reported in : 1978CriLJ1440; 1978(11)WLN96

dwarka prasad, j.1. these proceedings arise out of a letter written by the respondent as president of the rajasthan judicial service association to hon'ble the union home minister, central government, new delhi in respect of the alleged corruption in judiciary of rajasthan. the letter appears to have been brought to the notice of hon'ble the then chief justice of this court, shri v. p. tyagi, who on dec. 20, 1977 sought the opinion of the advocate-general whether a notice for contempt of court could be issued on the basis of the allegations made in the letter. the advocate-general, rajasthan, relying upon the decision of a full bench of the orissa high court in registrar, orissa high court v. barada kanta mishra : air1973ori244 gave his opinion that the contents of the letter contain an attack on the judiciary and as such it was a fit case in which a notice of contempt could be issued.relying upon the opinion of the advocate-general, the then chief justice while passing an administrative order regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, on dec. 24, 1977 (which was a holiday), also directed that a show cause notice be issued to the respondent why proceedings for contempt of court may not be started against him for addressing such a letter to the home minister, the matter has come up before us in pursuance of the notice issued on the basis of the aforesaid order passed by the then chief justice. it may not be out of place to mention here that no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 1978 (HC)

S.C. Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-10-1978

Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)58

d.p. gupta, j.1. the petitioner entered the service of the state of rajasthan as a computer grade ii in the irrigation department on november 21, 1957. he was confirmed on the aforesaid post by the order dated june 21, 1963 with effect from january 1, 1954 which is obviously a mistake as the petitioner could not have been confirmed with effect from a date prior to november 21, 1957 when he entered government service. but then, by another order dated november 29, 1973, the confirmation of the petitioner was altered to april 12, 1961. the petitioner passed a.m.i.e. examination, which is equivalent to a degree in engineering in the year 1963 and thus he had become eligible for appointment to the the post of assistant engineer. he approached the chief engineer irrigation, soon after passing the a.m.i.e. examination requesting him that the petitioner should be promoted to the post of assistant engineer as he had become eligible for the same. the chief engineer, by his letter dated november 7, 1963 intimated the petitioner that his case for promotion to the post of assistant engineer would be considered by the promotion committee when the same would next meet. however, pending selection by the departmental promotion committee, the petitioner wan promoted as a temporary assistant engineer (civil) by the order of the chief engineer, irrigation, rajasthan dated march 16, 1964 for period of four months of until persons selected by the rajasthan public commission were available.2. it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 1978 (HC)

Rajputana Mining Agencies and Ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-22-1978

Reported in : (1979)10CTR(Raj)127; [1979]118ITR585(Raj)

dwarka prasad, j.1. these 15 writ petitions raise common questions of fact and law and as such it would be convenient to dispose of them by a common order.2. the petitioners are the shareholders of m/s. associated stone industries (kotah) ltd., ramganjmandi (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). the company was incorporated in the erstwhile-princely state of kota on january 17, 1945, as a public limited company for carrying on the business of quarrying and polishing stones. the then maharaja of kotagranted a lease to the company on may 2, 1945, for a period of 15 years beginning from october, 1944. the company distributed dividends to its shareholders, including the petitioners, for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1960-61. the ito, kota, who was the assessing authority in respect of the petitioners did not gross up the dividends received from the company by the petitioners as shareholders thereof under section 16(2) of the indian i.t. act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), at the time of the original assessment of the petitioners on the ground that the company did not pay income-tax which it was liable to pay within three years. the petitioners in civil writ petitions nos. 132 of 1963 and 133 of 1963, filed appeals against the aforesaid orders passed by the ito, kota, before the aac of income-tax, jaipur, who held that the dividends paid by the company to the petitioners should be grossed up under section 16(2) of the act and credit for the tax should be .....

Tag this Judgment!


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