Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1982 Page 1 of about 28 results (0.009 seconds)

Feb 23 1982 (HC)

Mathuralal and anr. Vs. Mandattsingh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-23-1982

Reported in : 1982WLN(UC)173

..... , appropriate action was not taken at the appropriate time, the provisions of the election law which have got to be construed strictly, must work with indifference to consequences, immediate or mediate. on the part of the officers also, it will vitalise & invigorate a healthy democratic practice if, charged with the electoral duties, demanding high probity, they neither exhibit rank remissions nor .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1982 (HC)

Urban Improvement Trust and ors. Vs. Maharana Pratap Smarak Samiti

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-03-1982

Reported in : 1982WLN(UC)119

m.b. sharma, j.1. the above two special appeals under section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance are directed against the order dated july 30, 1971 of a learned single judge of this court under which, the learned judge allowed the writ petition filed by maharana pratap smarak samiti, udaipur (for short, 'the smarak' samiti' here in after). the facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals are as follows:2. a body known as shri pratap sabha, udaipur, was constituted in the year 1941 and was registered in udaipur under section 5 of the societies registration act (no. vii of 1941) of the then mewar state and a certificate of registration (ex. r2) was issued by the additional secretary of the state council. according to the constitution of the aforesaid body, it was to function through five sub-committees: one of them being 'maharana pratap smarak samiti'. the smarak samiti was assigned the functions of raising a befitting memorial for maharana pratap by erecting his statue on the back of his famous horse 'chetak'. the state government, vide order dated may 19, 1955, granted land bearing khasra no. 267 measuring 139 bighas 17 biswas, known as 'moti magari' in the town of udaipur. the original order was issued by the state government on october 31, 1955. the terms of the grant were as follows:^^ mn;iqj es vkjkth uecj 267 dks eksrh uxjh ukd tehu e ls 139 ch?kk 17 fclok tehu izrki lhkk dks egkjk.kk izrki lekjd cukus ds fy, fu%'kqyd fueu 'krkksz ij nsus dh lohd`fr jktlfkku .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1982 (HC)

Shesh Mal and ors. Vs. Harak Chand and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-15-1982

Reported in : AIR1983Raj109

dwarka prasad, j.1. this second appeal arises out of a suit for possession, which has been dismissed by both the courts below.2. it is no longer in dispute that the house property, which is subject matter of litigation between the parties belonged to the joint hindu family of sheshmal. it has been mentioned in the plaint that the said house situated in village devria, tehsil jetaran in the district of pali, was the ancestral house of the plaintiffs. according to the plaintiffs themselves sheshmal migrated to maharashtra and started residing in village chandai in district aurangabad, in the state of maharashtra. the plaintiff's case is that the house in dispute was lying vacant, but five years prior to the institution of the suit the defendants, who were related to the plaintiffs as they came from the same stock, unlawfully entered the disputed house and occupied the same without any right. thereafter, the defendant-respondents also obtained a patta in respect of the disputed house from the panchayat devria on march 8, 1959. the plaintiffs filed the suit on october, 21, 1964 and prayed therein that the possession of the house in dispute be restored to them and they may also be awarded mesne profits at the rate of rs. 10/- per month, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent on the amount of mesne profits.3. the defendants, harakchand and ganpatraj, did not contest the suit and ex parte proceedings were taken against them. only defendant sugan chand resisted the suit and took two .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1982 (HC)

Girdhar Singh and anr. Vs. Anand Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-28-1982

Reported in : AIR1982Raj229; 1982()WLN246

n.m. kasliwal, j.1. this is a civil appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the learned additional sessions judge no. 3, jaipur city, jaipur, dated 2-8-1972 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned civil judge, tonk dated 10-8-1967 dismissing the suit for declaration and possession.2. brief facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiffs-appellants (minors) filed a suit through their guardian mathura lal on 22-10-1967 with the allegations that their father nand singh died four years ago at village phuleta, tehsil aligarh. the plaintiffs were minor at that time and after the death of nand singh had acquired khatedari rights in the agricultural land left by nand singh and were heirs of other properties left by nand singh. initially the suit was filed against anand singh and mst. chhatra kanwar widow of nand singh, but subsequently, mst. phhol kanwar daughter of nand singh was also added as defendant no. 3 by the order of the court dated 10-9-1964. it was alleged that there was agricultural land in the khate-dari of nand singh in village phuleta. the defendant anand singh and mst. chhatra kanwar in collusion got the agricultural land mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint sold by mst. chhatra kanwar in favour of anand singh for an amount of rs. 7.000/-. the sale deed was got executed on 20th november, 1959 and was registered on 24-4-60. mst. chhatra kanwar had no right to sale and get registered the aforesaid land belonging to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 1982 (HC)

State Vs. Madan Singh

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-30-1982

Reported in : 1982WLN(UC)354

dwarka prasad gupta, j.1. this appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the judicial magistrate, sirohi dated june 6, 1980 acquitting the accused madansing in respect of an offence under section 182 i.p.c.2. madan singh had filed a first information report on may 9, 1976 in the police station, sirohi to the effect that shanti devi along-with one other person unlawfully entered the premises of the complaint and hurled abuses upon h m and threw stones at aim. during investigation, the station house officer, sirohi found that the relations between shanti devi and madansingh were strained and proceeding under section 107 cr. p.c. were initiated by shanti devi against madansingh which were ultimately dismissed by die court. the police officer found on investigation that this much was proved that shanti davi while standing at the door hurled abuses at madansingh and an offence under section 504 i.p.c. was made out against her but there was no reliable evidence to support the theory that shan devi threw stones at madan singh and as such the offence under section 336 i.p.c. or under section 448 i.p.c. was not prima facie established. the s.h.o., sirohi, therefore, gave a final report on july 29, 1976 which was accepted by the judicial magistrate sirohi on august 16, 1976. it was mentioned in the final report by the s.h.o., sirohi that as the allegations made by madansingh about burling abuses by shanti devi and thereby intentionally insulting madan singh with an intent .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 1982 (HC)

Smt. Gulab Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-14-1982

Reported in : 1982WLN(UC)144

mahendra bhushan sharma, j.1. one kalu ram stood surety for madan lal an excise contractor who was given country liquor contract on guarantee system in the year 1975 for a shop in borunda. in relation to the dues against said madan lal with regard to the aforesaid liquor contract the house of kaluram the surety was at attached under ex. 1 dated august, 30, 1976. the petitioner who is the widow of said kalu ram has filed the writ petition in this court for quashing the attachment of her house by the respondents and from restraining the respondents from recovering any amount from the petitioner's properties on the basis of certificate issued against madan lal the liquor contractor,2. the facts relevant for appreciating the controversy in this writ petition are these:3. licence for country liquor shop situated in borunda, tehsil bilara for the year 1975-76 on guarantee system was given to one madan lal and kalu ham since deceased husband of the petitioner smt. gulab stood a surety for the said madan lal for the amount of rs. 15,010/- and executed a surety bond in favour of the state. there was a shortfall in the guarantee amount to the extent of rs. 4008. 41 ps. for the months from april, 1975 to august, 23, 1975 and besides that as a result of re-auction of the country liquor shop of borunda there was a loss of rs. 5443/- the liability of madan lal, the licensee, was determined to the extent of rs. 58051.41 ps. the district excise officer, jodhpur determined the aforesaid .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 1982 (HC)

Sita Ram and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-22-1982

Reported in : AIR1982Raj256; 1982()WLN234

ordern.m. kasliwal, j.1. as identical questions of law are involved in these cases it would be convenient to dispose of these cases by one common order.2. according to the petitioners, they are residents of village moongaska in the vicinity of city of alwar. acquisition proceedings of 189 bighas 10 biswas of land was taken by the respondents and in pursuance thereof a notification under seclion 4 of the rajasthan land acquisition act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') was issued on 11th march, 1981. a notification dated 7th august, 1981, published in rajasthan gazette part i (kha) dated august 13, 1981, was issued under sections 6 and 17 (4) of the act. according to the petitioners they were served with individual notices under seclion 9 of the act when they came to know about the 'and acquisition proceedings. the acquisition proceedings are challenged mainly on the ground that:(i) notification under section 4 (1) was not published in accordance with requirement of section 45 of the act nor was it served on the petitioners. (ii) no notice under section 4(5) was issued and put by the competent authority nor such notice was served on the petitioners; (iii) the state government did not apply its mind on the question of urgency and dispense with the provisions of section 5-a without any basis; (iv) the state government did not apply its mind to the question whether the land was waste or arable; (v) the acquisition proceedings were started in the year 1971 also for the purpose .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1982 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Taj Mohd.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-25-1982

Reported in : 1982WLN231

guman mal lodha, j.1. this is a criminal appeal against the judgment of the judicial magistrate, first class, jhunjhunu dated the 31st october, 1974, by which the trial magistrate acquitted the accused respondents, namely taj mohd. and yasin, under section 56(a) of the rajasthan excise act, 1950.2. the facts of the case as narrated by the appellant in the memorandom of appeal and reiterated during the argument are as under:3. the prosecution case in brief is that one vishser singh gram panchayat, jasarapur, dev road, incharge out post sarhad sent a report on 29th march, 1970 to the effect that the accused taj mohd s/o ahmed bux resident of gram jasarapur and another accused yasin s/o jumerdi khan s/o jasarpur p.s. khetari are selling liquor illegally and these are dealing in illicit liquor that the liquor is loaded in their jeep. it was further stated there in that there is no contract for selling liquor for the said village. on this information bhagwan singh head constable incharge out post narhad seized the illicit liquor from the accused persons and thereafter the challan was filed in the court of judicial magistrate first class, jhunjhunu. the respondents-accused were charged under section 54(a) of the rajasthan excise act, 1950.4. the prosecution produced four witnesses, namely, nathu singh (pw 1), jawala prasad (pw 2. bhagwan singh (pw 3), babulal (pw 4) who supported the prosecution case, but the accused produced in defence the special permit in the name of one shri .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 1982 (HC)

H.S. Chauhan and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-06-1982

Reported in : 1982WLN321

guman mal lodha, j.1. high sounding, well-intentioned, radical directive of 'participation of workers in management' of industries, an important golden relic of 42nd amendment has with stood scrapping by and scrutiny of 44th amendment and is still enshrined as article 43a of the constitution. whether this directive accepted and honoured or kept as a decoration and illumination of statute only, is a question on which legislature and, not judiciary, can adjudicate.2. the echo of this article which was a red letter day for the workers (kamgars) in consonance with preamble proclaiming inter alia 'justice social, & economic and equality of status and opportunity for the lowest in the ladder may now be first heard in the following historical directive of part iv:43-a. the state shall take steps, by suitable legislation or in any other way, to secure the participation of workers in the management of undertakings, establishments or other organisations engaged in any industry.3. cost work norms of development officers, whether in consonance with the above directive has assumed new dimensions of debate. whether officers are workers and whether instead of bilateral or tripartite agreement fixing the cost work norms, ensuring work by the legislative fiat uni-laterally is a befitting tribute to article 43a is yet another billion dollar question in this constitutional post mortem.4. high stakes involved are of the service condition- of about 10000 development officers who prefer to call .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 1982 (HC)

Kesardeo and ors. Vs. Hariram and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-23-1982

Reported in : 1982WLN730

dwarka prasad gupta, j.1. this first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff's whose suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it was barred by limitation.2. the case of the plaintiffs was that bhagwandas and madan gopal, who were the ancestors of the parties, jointly purchased some land and constructed temples of pitreshwerji and hanumanji and such land and a well, a tank and a 'bagichi' were also made. according to the plaintiffs, the descendents of both bhagwandas and madangopal jointly defrayed the expenses incurred in the maintenance of the aforesaid temples and other structures constructed over the land upto samvat 2000. thereafter the plaintiffs suggested that the parties may manage the aforesaid properties by turns, but the defendants postponed a decision in the matter and did not pay any attention to the suggestion made by the plaintiffs but continued to manage the temples and other properties unilaterally in their own manner, which resulted in mis-management of the properties. according to the plaintiffs, they were thus deprived of their right of management and supervision of the religious endowment. according to the plaintiffs, ultimately on december, 21, 1961 the defendants refused to allow the plaintiffs to take .part in the management and supervision of the joint properties of the temples of pitreshwarji and hunmanji etc a suit was filed on january 12, 1962 in the court of senior civil judge, churu in which the plaintiffs prayed .....

Tag this Judgment!

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