Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1983 Page 1 of about 34 results (0.010 seconds)

Aug 05 1983 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-05-1983

Reported in : 1983WLN402

dwarka prasad gupta, j.1. sanwal dan was formerly the jagirdar of thikana dandusar in district bikaner and his jagir lands were resumed in accordance with the provisions of the rajasthan land reforms and resumption of jagirs act, 1952 and were vested in the state of rajasthan. settlement and record operations in village dandusar started on october 21, 1947 and were completed on may 9, 1948. khasra no. 133, measuring 81 bighas and 13 biswas, was entered in the settlement records in the name of sanwal dan, who was then the jagirdar of dandusar, as 'khudkast', a note was appended that the land in question was held by sanwal dan free of rent, as he was the jagirdar. by a sale-deed dated july 7, 1970 sanwal dan, the ex-jagirdar, sold his rights in khasra no. 133 to respondents no. 4 and 5, bansbidan and motidan. after the sale-deed was duly registered respondents no. 4 and 5 made an application before the tehsildar colonisation, rajasthan canal project, bikaner for mutation of their names in the record of rights in place of sanwaldan. as the land in question was included in a colony, within the meaning of the rajasthan colonisation act, the tehsildar colonisation forwarded the application of respondents no. 4 and 5 with his report to the assistant colonisation commissioner, rajasthan canal project, bikaner, who also held the powers of the additional land records officer under the rajasthan land revenue act 19 6. the assistant colonisation commissioner found that the land was .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 1983 (HC)

Gauri Shanker Vs. Madan Mohan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-10-1983

Reported in : 1983WLN419

dwarka prasad gupta, j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption of a house property situated in the city of udaipur. raghunath had two sons surajmal and gaurishanker. surajmal was the elder son from his first wife, while gaurishanker was the younger one from his second wife smt. bhanwaribai. surajmal executed an agreement to sell the house in dispute in favour of defendant madanmohan for a sum of rs. 18,000/- on december 14, 1968. as surajmal did not execute a sale deed in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement to sell, madanmohan brought a suit for specific performance of the contract against surajmal, which was decreed by the court of senior civil judge, udaipur. surajmal died during the pendency of that suit and in consequence of the decree for specific performance passed in the suit filed by madanmohan, a sale-deed was executed by the senior civil judge, udaipur, in favour of madanmohan on october 26, 1970. gaurishanker thereupon filed a suit for pre-emption on may 18, 1971 on the allegation that he was a co-sharer as there was a joint wall between the house of gaurishanker and the house which was subject matter of sale and the patties of both the houses were made to rest on the joint wall. madanmohan defendant no. 1 contested the suit on the ground that a partition had taken place between the plaintiff and deceased surajmal on november 5, 1954 and since both the plaintiff and surajmal were living separately and were in possession of separate portions of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1983 (HC)

Madan Chand Vs. Urban Improvement Trust and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-03-1983

Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)361

k.s. lodha, j.1. this matter comes up for the consideration of the application of shri vinod chandra, the alleged legal representative of the appellant shri madan chand for setting aside abatement and impleading him in place of the deceased madan chand.2. the suit for injunction restraining the urban improvement trust (u.i.t.) from letting out the land in dispute and also restraining the other defendant shri puran singh from doing anything which might diminish the plaintiff's right of way, air, light, drainage etc. and directing the u.i.t. to sell this land to the plaintiff, had been dismissed by the trial court and the plaintiff's appeal had also failed. the plaintiff has, therefore, come up in' second appeal. the sole plaintiff-appellant shri madan chand admittedly died on 22-5 82. the present application has been filed on 1-3-83. the ground set forth for not bringing the legal representative on record within time, and for setting aside the abatement is that the applicant shri vinod chandra yati, who is the only chela and legal representative of the deceased did not know of the pendency of this appeal till 6-3-83 when he was informed by one shanker lal goel that such a matter was pending before the high court thereupon he sent one shri prabhu lal to contact shri dalpat singh shisodia, advocate and to find out what was to be done in the matter. he was informed by a telegram by shri prabhu lal to reach jodhpur immediately. he received this telegram on 8-3-83. he left for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 19 1983 (HC)

ishar Ram Vs. Padamnath and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-19-1983

Reported in : 1983WLN596

d.l. mehta, j.1. on 11th april, 1983, court directed that the case may be listed on 6th may, 1983 for final disposal at the orders stage.2. on 11th may, 1983, mr. kalla, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, moved an application that the petitioner should be directed to implead the parties, as the necessary parties have not been impleaded.3. looking to the nature of the application, it was considered proper that assistance of some other advocate should be taken by the court, so that interest of non-petitioner no. (sic) may not suffer for want of prosecution in the right direction, and mr. m.r. singhvi was requested by the court to assist the court.4. petitioner moved an election petition before the tribunal, which was partly accepted and election of non-petitioner no. 1 was set aside. however, the petitioner was not declared elected.5. being aggrieved with the second part of the order, the petitioner has moved to this court and has prayed that he should be declared elected.6. brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent no. 1 contested the election and on the result pronounced by the returning officer, respondent no. 1 was declared elected on december 19, 1981. present-petition challenged the election of respondent no. 1 by election petition on the ground that respondent no. 1 was not eligible/qualified to contest the election as he could not read and write hindi as envisaged by section 13 of the rajasthan panchayat act. the petitioner also prayed in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 1983 (HC)

Hukam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-25-1983

Reported in : AIR1984Raj119; 1983()WLN517

orders.k.m. lodha, j.1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution by hukamsingh, seeking the following reliefs:--(1) that no-confidence motion ex. p-10 dated feb. 14, 1983 passed against him may be quashed.(2) that non-petitioner no. 2 collector, pali may be directed to convene meeting in accordance with the provisions of law:(3) that sub-section (8) of section 39 of the rajasthan panchayat and zila parishad act (no. xxxvii of 1959) (for short 'the act' herein) may be declared null and void.2. initially facts first. the petitioner is the sarpanch of gram panchayat digarna and as such is a member of panchayat samiti, jaitaran, which consists of 35 members. he was up-fradhan of the panchayat samiti. juitaran. it has been stated that a no-confidance motion ex. p-2 dated jan. 11, 1983 was presented on jan. 25, 1983 and was delivered to the collector. pali (non-petitioner no. 2). non-petitioner no. 2. collector, pali issued notice to the members of the panchayat samiti. jaitaran on jan. 29, 1983. the notices were also issued to the co-opted members of the panchayat samiti. jaitaran. after receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed s. b. civil writ petition no. 375 of 1983 for restraining non-petitioner no. 2 from holding the meeting. the writ petition was dismissed summarily on fab. 8, 1983 as premature. in that order, it was observed by the learned judge that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all objections before the appropriate authority, and that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 1983 (HC)

Manoranjan Hotel Disco and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-04-1983

Reported in : 1983WLN338

d.l. mehta, j.1. a common question is involved in both the writ petitions so it will be convenient to dispose them of by a single order.2. this writ petition is directed against the order passed by the collector and district magistrate, jodhpur dated 2-3-1983 vide ex. 3. the collector has directed that exhibition of video cassette is against the provision of cinema regulation act. he has further directed that the exhibition should be stopped within 24 hours.3. petitioner's submission is that he is running a restaurant having a capacity of 90 persons at a time and in the restaurant soft drinks, snacks and south indian dishes are served to the customers. the customer is not supposed to take away the material supplied by us out side the hotel. they also provide certain things for the entertainment and comfort of the customers and the amount that is being realized by them is virtually the service charges. their further submission is that the petitioner displays videocassette recorder and displays feature films, cultural films, some time the cassette of hindi & english movies are also displayed. petitioner has further submitted that the videocassette recorder that is being used by the petitioner is licensed under the indian telegraphs act as tv no. 5. he has produced the copy of the licence marked ex. 1. petitioner's submission is that video cassette recorder is nothing but an advanced and more developed shape of television which is capable of receiving signs, signal, images, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 1983 (HC)

Gangaram Vs. Taruram and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-18-1983

Reported in : AIR1984Raj183; 1983()WLN476

agrawal, j.1. this special appeal filed under section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge (d. l. mehta j.) dt. september 9. 1983 in s. b. civil misc. writ petn. no. 1973 of 1983 filed by the appellant whereby the learned single judge dismissed the said writ petition and affirmed the judgment dt. july 27. 1983 passed by the civil judge bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the election tribunal' allowing the election petition filed by taru ram respondent no. 1 and birma ram respondent no. 2 and setting aside the election of the appellant as sarpanch of gram panchayat malasar.2. the election of the sarpanch gram panchayat malasar was held in the month of december 1983 under the notification issued by the district magistrate. bikaner. the nomination papers were required to be submitted on dec. 30 1981 from 8 a. m. to 11 a. m., the scrutiny of the nomination papers was fixed on the same date at 11.30 a. m. and the date of poll was fixed as dec. 14 1981. eight persons, including the appellant. respondent no. 1 taru ram and one pema ram had filed their nomination papers. at the time of scrutiny the nomination paper of pema ram was rejected by the returning officer on the ground that name in the electoral roll did not tally with the serial number and ward number. out of the candidates whose nomination papers were accepted, all the candidates except the appellant and respondent no. 1 withdrew their candidature. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 1983 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Jamnadass Gangadass and Co. and anr. Etc. Etc.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-07-1983

Reported in : 1983CriLJ1766; 1983()WLN224

orderm.c. jain, j.1. the above contempt applications raise a common question of limitation, so they are being disposed of by this common order.2. in the writ petitions filed by the contemners, similar interim orders were passed by this court, whereunder the contemners were required to deliver sixty-five per cent stock of sugar held by them on the date of commencement of the sugar (retention & sale by recognised dealers) order, 1979, on payment of its price @ rs. 323/- per quintal. despite intimation by the state government, as contemplated by the interim orders, the contemners failed to sell sugar to the government, as ordered. the state has moved applications for initiating contempt proceedings against the contemners under section 12 of the contempt of courts act, 1971 (act no. 70 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). on these applications, this court ordered issuance of notices to the contemners. although the applications were filed within one year from the date of commission of contempt, but admittedly the notices were ordered to be issued after the expiry of period of one year from the date of commission of contempt. faced with the question of limitation, applications for amendment of the original applications were moved by the state of rajasthan, whereby it was sought that the applications may be treated to be the applications under article 215 of the constitution and in the alternative under order 39, rule 2-a, c. p. c in same of the applications, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 1983 (HC)

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

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-10-1983

Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)594

s.c. agarwal, j.1. both these appeals are directed against the judgment of the sessions judge, merta, dated march 30, 1974 in sessions case no. 28/ 37. in the aforesaid sessions case five persons, namely, gopa ram and his four sons ramdeen, sangram, dayalram and udaram were prosecuted. all the accused were charged with offence under section 148 cpc. accused sang ram was charged with the offence under section 302 ipc and the other accused persons were charged with the offence under section 302 read with section 149 ipc. accused dayalram was charged with the offence under section 324 ipc and the other accused persons were charged under section 324 read with section 149 ipc. accused ramdeen and budharam were charged with the offence under section 323 ipc, but they along with other accused persons were also charged under section 323 read with section 149 ipc. the sessions judge acquitted accused goparam of all the charges. he convicted accused sangram of the offence under section 304, part ii ipc and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of rs 501/-and default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. accused dayal ram was convicted of the offence under section 324 ipc and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months and to pay a fine of rs. 101/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment of or further period of two months. accused budha ram was convicted for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 1983 (HC)

Sub-divisional Officer and anr. Vs. Madanlal Son of Shri Nathilal

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-15-1983

Reported in : 1983WLN602

s.n. bhargava, j.1. the respondent has filed a suit against the appellant for declaring that the requisition and the certificate for the recovery of a sum of rs. 1,822.44, issued by the appellant under the public demand recovery act are invalid and liable to be cancelled. the trial court decreed the suit for its order dated 24 4-196(sic). the appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed vide order dated 15-9-1977. a second appeal no. 404/1971 came to be filed and was pending. during the pendency of the appeal, madanlal - the sole respondent expired on 9-4-977. no efforts were made to bring his legal representatives on record. when the case came up fir hearing. no body appeared for the respondent and the appeal was heard ex-parte and allowed. therefore, the recovery was also made from the legal representatives. the legal representative have jed the present application submitting that the judgment of this court dated 8-12-1971, whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgments of the two courts below were set aside, was a nullity. the appeal stood abated. therefore, the orders of the two courts below have become final and no recovery could have been made in pursuance of an illegal certificate which had been quashed by a competent court of law. reliance has been placed on 1975 rajdhaai lr 199 (delhi) and 1973 pun 45, which have been digested at page 496 of the quinquennial digest 1971-75, vol. i of air, wherein it has been held that under the inherent powers a decree passed .....

Tag this Judgment!

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