Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1990 Page 2 of about 32 results (0.009 seconds)

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!

Feb 09 1990 (HC)

Sultania Kanjar Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-09-1990

Reported in : 1990(1)WLN113

by the court1. this criminal appeal is directed against judgment dated 30-1-1980 of the sessions judge, jhalawar where by appellant, sultania has been convicted for the offence under section 302, ipc, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.2. briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 4th april, 1979 at about 8 a.m. an oral report was lodged by ram singh to hari singh solanki, station house officer of camp kali talai with the assertions that, on the intervening night of 3rd and 4th april; 1979, narsingh lal dangi pw9 informed the villagers that some body has broken into his house; thereupon, the villagers who were reciting sacred songs in the praise of god in the mid-night, went to the house of narsingh lal but nobody was found there, so all returned back to their respective house; that, how ever, after a few seconds, madan. singh heard hue and cry from northern side of the village and he armed with 'jeli' went towards that side duly followed by bajrang and moti; and that, they saw some miscreants upon one of them, madan singh inflicted a 'jeli' blow on the hand, but, at that time other miscreants fired gun which hit madan singh thereby madan singh sustained injury and died due to that injury. none of the miscreants were caught by the villagers. on the basis of the aforesaid information, a case was registered for the offences under sections 302/34, 457/511, ipc, at police station raipur, (jhalawar) investigation commenced.3. appellant, sultania, is said to have been .....

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 23 1990 (HC)

Sardara Ram Dangi Vs. District Judge and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-23-1990

Reported in : 1990(2)WLN441

m.c. jain, j.1. this special appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated 1.9.90. where by the learned single judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition.2. the appellant sardararam dangi was appointed as class iv servant on 16.5.80. he passed the 'prathma' examination of hindi sahitya sammelan in the year 1983 and that examination has been recognized or government of rajas than as equivalent to the secondary examination of the board of second any education, rajasthan, ajmer vide ex. 2. rule 10 (2) of the rajasthan sub-ordinate courts ministerial rules, 1986 provides secondary or its equivalent qualification recognized by the state government to be he qualification for the post of lower division clerk, upto 10% class iv employee can be appointed as lower division clerks in accordance with circular of the high court, if peons have put in five years service and possess the requisite qualification for appointment of the post of lower division clerks. there is a further roster system applicable in accordance with which the vacancies have to be flied up to from the reserved quota of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. the petitioner's claim is that he is eligible for promotion to the post of lower division clerk as he fulfills the requisite qualifications and other conditions. he further claims his promotion on the basis of scheduled caste quota. the petitioner made representation in this regard but with no consequence. the petitioner, therefore, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 1990 (HC)

Surja Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-01-1990

Reported in : 1(1990)WLN(Rev)289

m.c. jain, actg. c.j. 1. this petition is directed against the order of the deputy commissioner colonisation, rajasthan canal project dated 7-5-76 (ext. 2), of the order of the additional commissioner colonisation dated 19-2-1977 (ex. 3) and of the order of the board of revenue dated 27-12-1979 (ex. 4).2. the petitioner was allotted 25 bighas command land by the assistant commissioner colonisation, raisinghnagar vide order dated 26-9-72. thereafter, according to the petitioner 5 bighas 18 biswas land ceased to be command land and became baraini, so he submitted that he may be allotted 3 bighas 7 biswas command land in place of the land, which has ceased to be command land. this, prayer of the petitioner was rejected by all the three revenue authorities. the petitioner's claim, according to the authorities, was a belated one.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under rule 4 of the rajasthan colonisation (allotment and sale of government land in the rajasthan canal colony area) rules, 1975, the petitioner's original application for allotment shall be deemed to be pending and is required to be heard and decided under and in accordance with the aforesaid 1975 rules and as such the petitioner is entitled to allotment of 3 bighas 7 biswas command land.4. the stand of the government is that the petitioner is only entitled to adjustment of price under rule 17(5).5. for the proper appreciation of the controversy in question, it is essential to read the relevant part of .....

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!

Jan 19 1990 (HC)

Chhagan Kanwar and ors. Vs. Pep Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-19-1990

Reported in : 1991ACJ162; 1990(2)WLN495

milap chandra, j.1. this appeal has been filed by the claimants under section 110-d, motor vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter to be called as 'the act') for the enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated july 23, 1988 passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal, jodhpur, awarding rs. 70,000/- as compensation. the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. on december 26, 1984 at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased gangadan was returning on his moped from diesel training school, northern railway, bhagat ki kothi, jodhpur. he was going on his correct side of the road. the truck no. gty 4359 dashed him from his back side. as a result thereof, he sustained serious injuries. his colleagues immediately shifted him to the railway hospital, jodhpur. due to his serious condition, he was referred to mahatma gandhi hospital, jodhpur. despite best efforts of the doctors, he could not be saved and died on december 29,1984. the appellants filed a petition under section 110-a of the act claiming rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation. the respondents filed their written statements traversing all the allegations of the claim petition. after framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of rs. 70,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, against the owner, insurer and driver of the said truck.3. it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 1990 (HC)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roop Kanwar and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-01-1990

Reported in : 1991ACJ74

milap chandra, j.1. this appeal has been filed against the judgment of the workmen's compensation commissioner, jodhpur dated 16.2.1985 by which he has awarded rs. 25,200/-as compensation and rs. 12,600/- as penalty with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 23.3.1981. the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. bhagwan singh, husband of roop kanwar, respondent no. 1 and father of sarwan singh, respondent no. 2 and keshaw kanwar, respondent no. 3, was a cleaner in the truck no. rsn 5900, owned by hari singh, respondent no. 4. on march 23,1981, its driver tulchha ram took it to the workshop of kasim khan, pw 3 for certain repairs. when it was being put in the garage of the said workshop, its stone-pattis fell down over bhagwan singh. as a result thereof, he received serious injuries, he was immediately taken to mahatma gandhi hospital, jodhpur and he remained there for about four months for his treatment. on 8.7.1981, he filed a claim petition under rule 20, workmen's compensation rules, 1924 before the workmen's compensation commissioner, jodhpur for the recovery of rs. 23,520/- as compensation with costs, interest and penalty against hari singh, owner of the truck and united india insurance co. ltd., jodhpur, insurer of the truck.3. the owner of the truck hari singh filed his written statement admitting that the claimant bhagwan singh was a cleaner on his truck no. rsn 5900, he was getting rs. 200/-per month as pay, the truck was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1990 (HC)

Kikar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-12-1990

Reported in : 1990(2)WLN482

k. bhatnagar, j.1. appellant, kikar singh was tried for the charge under section 302, ipc by the additional sessions judge, raisinghnagar. vide judgment dated 17.4.84 he was held guilty for the charge and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two year's rigorous imprisonment. kikar singh, feeling aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, has preferred this appeal in this court.2. succintly narrated, the prosecution case is that on 22.5.83 at 2.15 p.m. nagaur singh (pw 1) lodged an oral report at police station anoopgarh to the effect that agricultural land in 16 bud, murraba no. 241/420 was purchased by his father from budh singh and was in the cultivating possession of his family. adjecent to that field there was the field of kikar singh. ten or fifteen days prior to the incident, kikar singh threw the earth from the 'doli' (the strip of land dividing the two fields) in the field of complainant which led to hot altercation between him and jeet singh. jeet singh told kikar singh that in case he had any doubt about the measurement of the land he may get it measured from the patwari. that annoyed kikar singh and he told that he will definitely got it measured on getting, opportunity. on 22.5.83 at about 11 a.m., the informant, his brother balore singh, his brother-in-law balvinder singh and his father, deceased jeet singh were stacking grass in the field, kikar singh and his son pappu (accused tried by the court .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 1990 (HC)

Shree Singhvi Brothers and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-09-1990

Reported in : (1990)83CTR(Raj)229; [1991]187ITR219(Raj)

jasraj chopra, j.1. by this writ petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order annexure 13 dated may 31, 1988, whereby the waiver petition filed under sections 273a and 273a of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), has been rejected. a direction has also been sought for reconsideration of the waiver petition by the non-petitioners or, in the alternative, the petitioners have claimed waiver of the penalty amounting to rs. 29,600 imposed against them under section 271, vide order annexure 6 dated march 12, 1987, they have further sought relief by way of quashing of the order, annexure 15, dated december 12, 1988, the notice annexure 16 dated february 15/24, 1988, the order annexure 21, dated march 23, 1989, and the complaint annexure 20 pending in the court of the chief judicial magistrate (economic offences), jaipur.2. the facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are : that petitioner no. 1, m/s. shree singhvi bros, is a registered partnership firm and petitioners nos. 2 and 3, shri kushal singh and laxmansingh, are its partners. it is alleged that a search was conducted at the business premises as well as at the residential premises of the partners under the provisions of section 132 of the act on may 6, 1981. during the course of the search, 65 kgs. of silver was found, out of which 16 kgs. of silver/silver ornaments were treated as .....

Tag this Judgment!


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