Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1990 Page 1 of about 32 results (0.009 seconds)

Feb 26 1990 (HC)

Mohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-26-1990

Reported in : 1992CriLJ449; 1990(1)WLN119

i.s. israni, j.1. this criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated june 16, 1982, passed by learned special judge, a.c.d. jaipur, in special criminal case no. 24/1979, by which the accused appellant was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under section 161 i.p.c. and also to a fine of rs. 500/-. in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to under further simple imprisonment for three months. under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act 1947, the accused appellant has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of rs. 500/-. in default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo three months further simple imprisonment. both the substantive sentences are to run concurrently. !2. it will suffice for the purposes of this appeal to state that on november 9, 1978, complainant vishambhar dayal resident of village borni, tehsil kishangarhbas, district alwar, lodged a report at police station alwar to deputy superintendent of police, a.c.d., alwar, in which it was stated that some years ago, the complainant had purchased some agricultural land in his own name and in the names of his sons and registration of the sale deed was done at tehsil. thereafter all the said registries were given to appellant mohar singh halqa patwar borni for mutation, who demanded rs. 200/- for doing the same. this amount was paid to him last year. it was further alleged that the appellant returned four .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1990 (HC)

Ram Kalyan Vs. Motilal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-18-1990

Reported in : 1990(2)WLN609

m. kapur, j.1. the petitioner in this case has challenged the order of the learned sessions judge, tonk dated january 6th, 1989 by which he accepted the revision petition against the order of the munsif and judicial magistrate, niwai dated april 26th, 1988 by which charge under sections 204 and 466 ipc was framed against the respondents. the respondent no. 1 is the sarpanch of gram panchayat khanddawat, while respondent no. 2 is the patwari of this area and the respondent no. 3 is the ward member of this panchayat. it so happened that on the application of the petitioner for mutation of four khasra numbers on the basis of a will executed by bhagwan das the panchayat met on march 23rd,. 1984 and accepted the application and the entry about mutation was made in the record. however, on the same day this entry was crossed and a remark was made on the reverse that rampratap bairwa had moved an application that he was in possession of the three of the four khasra numbers. on this basis, the application of ram pratap was accepted and necessary entries in respect of three khasra number was made by the patwari.2. the order framing charge is an interlocutory order and it has been held in namichand v. state of rajasthan 1987 (2) rlw 632 that a revision against the order framing charge does not the as this is an interlocutory order. on the basis of this is said that the revision court had no jurisdiction to entertain revision and on this ground the order of the learned sessions judge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1990 (HC)

Smt. Pephi Devi Vs. Legal Representatives of Sumer Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-22-1990

Reported in : 1990WLN(UC)336

milap chandra, j.(a) that writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs;(b) that rights title and interest of the petitioner so accrued vide annexure 1 & 2 & 3 and she be khatedar the said rights should be protected.(c) that an appropriate writ, order or direction be passed to restrain the respondents from disturbing peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land comprising of khasra 284 rakba 231/2 biswas situated in village bapore, tehsil & distt. nagaur as the petitioner has got dhani in the field.(d) that other relief/reliefs with this hon'ble court may deem just and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner which is in possession of the land in question so that justice could be muted out to her otherwise she would be debarred from her valuable rights.(e) that other relief/reliefs with this hon'ble court may deem just and proper may kindly be granted.2. the petitioner has averred in her writ petition in short, as follows. her husband late pema ram nayak (harijan) purchased the abovementioned land from sumer singh rajput (father of the respondents ganga singh and hanuman singh) through sale-deed dated august 22, 1958. its true copy is annexure 1. patta was issued in his name on 1-5-65 whose photostat copy is annexure 2. jambandi of the sambat years 2033 to 2040 was also recorded in his name. a true copy of it is annexure 3. its mutation was effected in his favour on 30-10-77 and true copy of the mutation order is annexure 4. sumer singh filed a suit for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 1990 (HC)

Kalu and ors. Vs. Karnidan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-01-1990

Reported in : 1990(2)WLN181

v.s. dave, j.1. this in an application under section seciton 482. cr. pc against the order passed by learned sessions judge, bundi, on march 10, 1989 by which he dismissed the part of the prayer of the petitioners in revision filed against the order, dated 26th august 1988 passed by the learned a.cm. bundi in proceedings under section 145, cr. pc.2. brief facts giving rise to this petition are that non-petitioner nos. 1 and 2 karnidan and kishan singh aged 75 years and 70 years respectively are real brothers. they filed an application under section 145 cr. pc before learned a.c.m. bundi on 17 august, 1988, wherein it was alleged by them that they are the khatedars and are in cultivatory possession of 15 bighas 15 biswas of land in khasrn no. 75 old khasra no. 25 in village theekariya charans, tehsil in district bundi. this land is known as peeplibala. it was alleged by them that they had given the land for cultivation on aadoli in erstwhile bundi state to rodu, father of petitioner no. 1 kalu, for a period of two years but later on they cultivated the laud themselves. it was alleged by applicant's non-petitioners that non-applicants got the land entered in their name in the revenue record in connivance with the land settlement officers, though cultivatory possession remained with them since last 45 years. it was stated in the complaint that non-applicant petitioners bad filed a suit in respect of this land against rodu son of bholu wherein a receiver was appointed on 25-5- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 1990 (HC)

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

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-01-1990

Reported in : 1990WLN(UC)319

milap chandra, j.1. this first writ petition was filing by a member, municipal council, churu on april 5,1990 for quashing the notice, annexure 1, dated march 31, 1990 issued by the collector churu (respondent no. 2) under rule 3(2), rajasthan municipalities (motion of non-confidence against chairman or vice chairman) rules, 1974 (hereinafter to be called 'the rules'), fixing april 9, 1990 for the consideration of the motion of non-confidence against the chairman of the municipal council, churu, shri ram gopal behad, for restraining the collector, churu (respondent no. 2) and shri kishan singh, pariyojna prabankdhak, anusuchit jati vikas nigam, churu (respondent no. 3) from holding the meeting for consideration of the motion of non-confidence and for quashing the entire proceedings of the said meeting, if it is held. the second writ petition was filed on april 12, 1990 against the same respondents by another member of the municipal council, churu for quashing the non-confidence motion dated march 19, 1990, notice issued in pursuance thereof by the collector, churu and the entire proceedings of the meeting held on april 9, 1990 and for declaration that the said non-confidence motion brought against the chairman could not be legally brought before the expiry of six months from march 20, 1990-the date on which the result of first motion of non-confidence was declared.2. the petitioner's case may be summarised thus. the municipal council, churu consists of 32 members including .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1990 (HC)

indra Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-23-1990

Reported in : 1990(2)WLN37

kanta bhatnagar, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25-9-1985 passed by the learned sessions judge, nonar, by which appellant indra cband was convicted under section 302, ipc and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of rs. 500/-, in default of pay-meat to rigorous imprisonment of six months.2 briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 11-9-1982 at 12.30 a.m. appellant indra cband made a report at police station, rawatsar to the effect that his father phoosa ram has one brother bansbidhar who had two sons viz ratan aged 22 years and jagdish aged 18 years. the houses, agricultural land and shop of phoosaram and banshidhar were joint. bansbidhar mostly remained ill and his wife was blind. jagdish and ratan were for the last few months insisting upon partition and as such it occurred to him (the appellant) that if jagdish and ratan were done away with, the whole property would remain with his family. that, in the main market of rawatsar, there was a hotel run by these persons. ratan and jagdish used to sleep some times at their house and some times at the hotel. in that night both of then, jagdish and ratan had slept on the root of the hotel. about quarter to 12 in. the night, the appellant caused the murder of jagdish and ratan with axe and then came down and confessed the guilt to ramesh photographer where madan hotelwala was also present and then went to lodge the report to the police station.3. bhagwandas p.w. 25, sho, police station, notiar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 1990 (HC)

Rajvendra and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-20-1990

Reported in : 1991(2)WLC439; 1990(2)WLN446; 1990WLN(UC)404

a.k. mathur. j.1. all the batch of writ petitions mentioned in schedule a appended to this order are disposed of by this common order as the basic questions involve in all these writ petitions arc common.2. for the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts contained in s.b. civil writ petition no. 3663 of 1990: rajvendra and ors. v. 'state of rajasthan and ors. arc taken into consideration.3. the petitioners in this writ petition are trained teachrs and they applied for selection to the posts of primary school teachers in pursuance of the advertisement no. 1 of 1988 issued by the zila parishad, sri ganganagar. the selection committee held selections in the month of october 1989 and the petitioners were interviewed by the selection committee. thereafter, the respondent no. 2 issued selectlists in which the names of the petitioners find mention. the petitioners were allotted to panchayat samities, nohar and bhadra. the panchayat samities, nohar and bhadra issued appointment orders in the cases of some of the candidates. however, the appointment orders in favour of the petitioners were not issued. some of the petitioners submitted representations to the respondents and the petitioners were informed that the slate government by order dated 7.3.1990 has directed that till further order no appointment should be made and all the selections should be stayed. a copy of the slate government's order dated 7.3.1990 has been placed on the record as annex. 4. the order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1990 (HC)

Smt. Ramjanki Devi, Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-07-1990

Reported in : (1990)88CTR(Raj)207; [1991]188ITR63(Raj)

v.s. dave, j.1. a common question as to 'whether the petitioners' applications under section 273a of the income-tax act, 1961, has been wrongly rejected by the commissioner of income-tax', is involved in all the above three cases which have cropped up because of the fact that application was moved post search and seizure operation carried on by authorised officers of the income-tax department under section 132 of the income-tax act, 1961, at the residential premises of shri kalianmal jain at house no. 1563, singhiji-ka-rasta, jaipur, on january 12, 1988.2. in order to appreciate the point involved in these cases, it would be relevant to quote briefly the facts of each writ petition. in writ petition no. 4624 of 1989, smt. ramjanki devi is a partner in a firm, messrs. chandmal kalianmal, jaipur, which is an assessee for the last several years. the petitioner, smt. ramjanki, too was assessed for the assessment year 1987-88 showing her total income to be rs. 17,691 which was -assessed under section 143 of the income-tax act on august 31, 1987. then, on january 12, 1988, the aforesaid search and seizure was carried out at the residence of shri kalianmal jain who happened to be the petitioner's father and certain documents were seized. some of the documents seized disclosed that certain gifts were received by the assessee through nathulal, petitioner, in writ petition no. 4625 of 1989, miss sapna, daughter of nathulal's brother, shri mahaveer kumar and smt. ramjanki devi, widowed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1990 (HC)

Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-14-1990

Reported in : 1990WLN(UC)67

m.b. sharma, j.1. some revolver and some live and used cartridges, are said to have been recovered from the premises which are said to be in a possession of the* accused petitioner as a tenant. the above arms and ammunitions were recovered in the absence of the accused petitioner when the amin along with other persons had gone to the spot to hand over the possession of the premises to tae landlord and execution of the decree. the accused petitioner is a student, and is said to be studying in m.a. because the arms and ammunitions have been recovered, i am inclined to release the accused petitioner previous bail, keeping in view his future career.2. consequently, i allow hereby this bail application and the s.h.o/ arresting officer/ i.o., police station bajaj nagar, jaipur is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner madan lai in fir no. 38/90 he be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of rs 6000/- (rs. six thousand) with two sureties in the amount of rs. 3000/- (rs. three thousand) each, to his satisfaction, on the following conditions :(a) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer, as and when required;(b) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court, or to any police officer; and(c) that the petitioner shall not leave .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1990 (HC)

Ramesh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-02-1990

Reported in : 1990(2)WLN43

m.b. sharma, j.1. the main and important question in this revision petition which is directed against the order dated 14th sept, 1989 of the learned sub-divisional magistrate, hindaun, is as, to whether in proceedings under section 147 cr. pc any interim order can'be made?2. mewasi and others filed) an application under section 145 cr. pc in the court of learned sdm, hindaun where in it was stated that in village dhandhawali there is a public pond in khasra no. 893, present no. 1002 measuring two hactrea and since time immemorial the catties of the village were drinking water from the pond the non-petitioners (petitioner complainants) wanted to cultivate their fields from that pond and wanted to obstruct the cattle from drinking water. in safeguarding the pond, the petitioner wanted to make a wall around that pond. it was stated that in case the non-petitioners (petitioner here in) were successful in taking possession of the pond then the cattle of the villgge will be deprived of taking water and may die. it was also stated that there was apprehension of breach of peace. on the said complaint, the learned sdm mentioning that he was satisfied from the contents of the complaint, ordered that it be registered. he also ordered as under:vr% blrxklk ntz gks uksfvl xsj jk[kyku dks tkjh fd;k tkos fd os xzke fks/kkoyh ds rkykc [k-u- 1002 udck 2 gsdvj 8 ,oj es xzke ls eos'kh dks ikuh fiykus ls ugh jksds a bl vkns'k ls dskbz vkifrr gks rks og fnukad 21&8&89 dks u;k;ky; es miflfkr gksdj .....

Tag this Judgment!


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