Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1985 Page 1 of about 75 results (0.012 seconds)

Jan 23 1985 (HC)

Mangi Lal Vs. Mewar Textile Mills Staff Consumers Co-operative Society ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-23-1985

Reported in : 1985(2)WLN336

..... law or justify the objectives of part iv that is the dileceatic question:history itself is a tension between heritage and heresy, which law in its groping way seeks to mediate. when lincon proposed that slaveholders be compensated for freeing their slaves he was thinking as he characteristically did, as a lawyer. although franklin ruesovalt's legal training was far less .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 1985 (HC)

Hakam Singh Vs. Assistant Collector (Ceiling) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-15-1985

Reported in : 1985WLN(UC)254

surendra nath bhargava, j.1. petitioner was holding agricultural land in tehsil ganganagar and so also his wife jasnailkaur. petitioner filed a declaration in the ceiling law and the assistant collector (ceiling) by his order dated march 30, 1977, found that the petitioner was having total land of 103 bighas and 10 biswas whereas under the law he was entitled to retain only 62 bighas and 7 biswas of land and found 41.2 bighas of land in excess of the said ceiling limit.2. petitioner preferred an appeal (annx. 2) before the collector, sri ganganagar, and the additional collector, sri ganganagar, by his order dated 27-2-78 affirmed the earlier order and dismissed the appeal.3. appeal filed before the board of revenue (annx. 4) was also dismissed by the board of revenue by order dated 7-5-79 and it is against these orders, the present writ petition has been filed.4. the state has not filed any reply to the writ petition.5. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the definition of bonafide transferee as mentioned in the ordinance was modified when the act came to be enacted which shows the intention of the legislature. he has further submitted that the courts below have seriously erred in ignoring recitals of the sale deed and has placed reliance on 1971 sc 102e smt. rani v. smt. shantabala. he has further submitted that since no notice has been issued to the transfrees whose particulars were mentioned in the declaration, which amounts to violation of principles of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1985 (HC)

Laxman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-20-1985

Reported in : 1986(1)WLN685

milap chand jain, j.1. the appellant laxman singh, his brother ram singh and his mother mst. rampyari were tried for the offence under sections 447, 307, 380/451 read with sections 34 and 109, ipc by the learned sessions judge, merta, who by judgment dated september 3, 1974 convicted the appellant laxman singh of the offence under section 302, ipc and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to a fine of rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. he was also convicted of the offence under section 307, ipc and was sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs. 100/. in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. he was also convicted of the offence under section 447, ipc and was sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. all the sub-stantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. he was acquitted of the offences under sections 451 and 380, ipc.2. the other two accused persons were convicted of the offence under section 447, ipc and were sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment. both of them were acquitted of all other charges.3. the prosecution case, in brief, is that 20 bighas land of khasra no. 16 situated in village parevadi, was in the khatedari of shivbux(deceased) and was in his cultivatory possession. there was a dhani' in the northern portion of the field and shivbux was residing in that dhani along with his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1985 (HC)

Keshra Ram Vs. Jodha Ram

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-29-1985

Reported in : 1987(2)WLN824

guman mal lodha, j.1. there two matters arise from same judgment. one is leave to appeal by the state of rajasthan and other one is revision petition by the complainant, but in both of them the acquittal of the accused persons-respondents has been challenged. it is not necessary to mention in details, the fact s of the case because, it is admitted that the dispute relates to an agricultural land and both the parties sustained injuries. it is also common ground that main bone of the dispute was regarding possession of the agricultural land. jodharam claimed the adoption to gangaram s/o lachhi and the deceased who was a supporter of lachhi is said to be hired labour called for cultivation.2. the trial court after a detailed discussion of the entire evidence produced in the case, in paras 24 and 25, summed up that from the evidence of the sarpanch and the patwari coupled with mutation order it is proved on record that the disputed land was in possession of jodharam accused-party.3. regarding the judgment of the s.d.o. on which reliance is placed by shri g.c. chatterjee the learned public prosecutor and shri a.k. gupta the learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, it is common ground that on the relevant date, there was a stay order of the revenue board. naturally, the revenue board being highest in the hierarchy of the revenue authorities, the judgment of the s.d.o. in favour of the complainant can be of no value or credence in order to ascertain possession on that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 01 1985 (HC)

Hardayal Vs. Jaya Singh

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-01-1985

Reported in : 1985WLN(UC)44

g.m. lodha, j. 1. this is a defendants' appeal in a suit which has been decreed by the trial court.2. the plaintiffs have instituted this suit on 29-3-67 with the allegations that the defendant no. 1 along with his brother gurdayal defendant no 5 had 28 bighas 16 biswas land situated at chak 28gb, tehsil annopgarh comprised in square no. 22 to 22 and 26 and 27 measuring 12 bighas 3 biswas, 1 bigha 9 biswas, 1 bigha, 9 bighas 6 biswas and 4 bighas and 18 biswas respectively and 8 bighas 13 biswas situated at chak 31gb comprised of square no. 60/29 and 61/30 measuring 5 bighas and 3 bighas and 3 bighas 13 biswas respectively. the defendant no. 1 was the mukhtiyaraam of defendant no. 5 through a registered mukhtyarnama dated 3-7-54 and under the said mukhtyarnma the defendant no. 1 had rights of mortgage, sale and management of the land for cultivation. the defendant no. 1 had let out the aforesaid land to the plaintiff no. 1 in smvt. 2012 and since then the plaintiffs are in possession of the said land. the defendant no. 1 represented to the plaintiffs that he intends to sell the land to which the plaintiffs agreed and on 23-6-64 the defendant no. 1 entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to sell the said land for a sum of rs, 23350/- at different rates mentioned in the agreement and at the time of execution of the agreement a sum of rs 6000/- was paid by the plaintiff to defendant no. 1 by way of earnest money and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration of rs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1985 (HC)

Shanker Lal and 7 ors. Vs. Authorised Officer and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-19-1985

Reported in : 1986WLN(UC)288

milap chand jain, j.1. these writ petitions are directed against the order of the government dated october 13, 1978 passed by the deputy secretary to the government of rajasthan (revenue department), jaipur under section 15(1) of the rajasthan imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings act, 1973 (for short 'the act'), where by, the petitioners' ceiling cases were reopened on the ground that the orders of the authorised officer, hanumangarh dated april 15, 1976, the additional collector, sri ganganagar dated june 26,1976 and of the board of revenue dated september 18, 1976 are not according to the provisions of the act and are against the interest of the government and there are mistakes apparent on the face of the record in the order of the board of revenue.2. these writ petitions have come up on a reference made by the learned single judge as the question involved, are questions of great importance.3. we may advert to some relevant facts. the agricultural land was original held by one gheru lal maheshwari in village meharwala and jalalabad. gheru lal adopted shri bal chand son of shri banshi lal. after that adoption, he was blessed with a son shri jagannath. seri gheru lal died in the year 1921. after his death, his entire agricultural land devolved in moiety on his two sons shri bal chand and shri jagannath and were recorded in their names. shri bal chand had four sons. shri jagannath died issueless in 1921. but before his death, he adopted deen dayal, son of shri bal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 1985 (HC)

Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Anand Laxmichand and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-08-1985

Reported in : 1985(2)WLN177

narendra mohan kasliwal, j.1. this court by order dated 6th october, 1976, had given a direction to the board of revenue to state the case and refer the following question of law:whether section 12 of the rajasthan safes tax act enables the assessing authority to re-assess the dealer where the turnover has been assesseed at too low a rate ?2. the facts of the case are that acto (assistant commercial taxes officer) ward-ii. circle-i, jaipur issued notice under section 18 of the rajasthan sales tax act, 1954 (here in after referred to as the act) to the assessee for the assessment year 1964-65 on the ground that the assessee's turn-over of rs. 34,406.08 relating to the imitation pearls was taxed at a lower rate of 1% while if ought to have been taxed at rate of 6%. the acto levied tax of rs. 2,061.06 on the turn-over of mitation pearls at 6% and after allowing the adjustment of tax already paid at 1%, directed the assessee to pay the balance of rs. 1,780.30.3. the assessee filed an appeal before the deputy commissioner (appeal-1); commercial taxes, jaipur, who vide his order dt. 22nd december 1960, dismissed the appeal.4. the assessee then filed a revision before the board of revenue under section 14(2) of the act. the learned single member of the board of revenue held vide order dated 13th september, 1971 that the words 'too low a rate in any year' in section 12 of the act qualify the assessment of registration fee or reservation fee, but do not qualify the words 'assessment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1985 (HC)

Pratap and 2 ors. Vs. Ratan Lal and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-04-1985

Reported in : 1985WLN(UC)617

vinod shanker dave, j.1. this petition arises out of an order passed by the learned sessions judge, sawaimadhopur, dated november 18, 1983, whereby he dismissed the revision petition preferred against an order of sub-divisional magistrate, sawaimadhopur in proceedings under section 145 cr. pc on application under section 146 cr. pc.2. the facts giving rise to this case are that ratan lal non-petitioner moved an application under section 145 cr. pc on july 19, 1982 before the sub-divisional magistrate, sawaimadhopur wherein it was alleged by him that the land mentioned in para 1 of his application popularly known as beela hali kothi is situated in village kajmana, police station choth-ka-barbada. it is alleged that this land has been in possession of his father since last 50 years and he had been cultivating the same. it was alleged that his father had spent a huge amount for making it cultivable and as prior to it, it was barren land. he alleged that by a mistake in s.y. 2009 it was wrongly entered in revenue records in the name of ram sukha and pratap. as his father had been cultivating it without any objection, he never knew about it. his father expired in samvat 2015. thereafter he had been cultivating the land and stated that the names of the non-petitioners have been wrongly entered into the revenue record. they having nothing to do with this land. it was alleged that in 1976 the tehsildar, sawaimadhopur, while doing the mutation wrongly entered the names of pratap and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1985 (HC)

SaiffuddIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-23-1985

Reported in : (1985)48CTR(Raj)197; [1985]156ITR127(Raj); 1985(2)WLN685

s.k. mal lodha, j.1. the income-tax appellate tribunal, jaipur bench, jaipur ('the tribunal'), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court;' whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on the true interpretation of section 22 of the income-tax act, 1961, the tribunal was justified in upholding the inclusion of the entire income from property in the hands of the assessee, shri saiffuddin ?'2. the assessee, saiffuddin, is an individual. the assessment years in question are 1971-72 and 1972-73. the sources of income of the assessee are from the house property and share income from m/s khan mohd. katha trading co. and m/s mohd, hussain anwar ah. the assessee purchased a plot on which, subsequently, park view hotel was constructed, for rs. 53,200 from the u.i.t., udaipur, in the financial year 1963-64. he withdrew the aforesaid sums in four equal instalments of rs. 13,300 from m/s. khan mohd. katha trading co. on december 18, 1963, april 8, 1964, november 10, 1964, and february 18, 1965. these sums were debited to a separate account in the name of the assessee in the books of the said firm. a sum of rs. 59,760 was spent on the construction of park view hotel, which was started in october, 1967, and was completed in september, 1968. the entries in the books of account of the firm were reversed in the assessment year 1968-69 by crediting the account of the assessee by rs. 53,200 and debiting the account of the assessee and alleged two owners, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 1985 (HC)

Kedar Nath S/O Bhagchand Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-23-1985

Reported in : 1985(2)WLN560

1. kadarnath, the appellant accused, has filed this appeal challenging his conviction ordered by the learned additional sessions judge, ajmer, under section 302 and section 377, ipc. the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of rs.000/- and in default of payment of fine, to rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 302 ipc, and under section 377, ipc he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of rs. 1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. one, aryaneder alias suman of ajmer, young boy of 13 years of age, went out of his home along with the accused-kedar in the evening of 24-6-75 at about 5.30 p.m. telling his mother that he would be returning after 10 minutes. however, he, as the ill-luck would have it, never returned back. daramsingh, the father of the deceased, when returned from the dispensary, was asked by his wife to search about suman. dharamsing made a search but could not find his son suman. suspecting that the boy might have met with some accident and might be lying in the hospital, at about 2-00 a.m. in the night dharamsingh went to the jawahar lal nehru hospital, ajmer, but could not get any information. at about 5 a.m. he went to the house of kedar who told him that suman was not with him. dharamsingh alleged to have come disappointed from all possible places where in the circumstances, the boy-suman, could have been found or, the information .....

Tag this Judgment!


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