Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1991 Page 2 of about 48 results (0.016 seconds)

Apr 08 1991 (HC)

Smt. Anand Kanwar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-08-1991

Reported in : 1991(2)WLN35

inder sen israni, j.1. in all these 20 writ petitions, a common question regarding lands allotted to various petitioners, who are either ex-servicemen or their heirs, has been raised and a prayer has been made that each of the petitioners should not be dispossessed from the lands in their possession. therefore, all the above-mentioned petitions are decided by one order.2. for the sake of giving facts, which are generally common in all the petitions, reference of writ petition no. 240/83, filed by the petitioner hansraj, has been made. all the petitioners served in indian army and each of the petitioners has been given regiment no., & rank held by them. the petitioners were enrolled in december 1941-42 and served on active war front and were discharged in the year, 1944, after cessation of hostilities. during the war, many of the petitioners served abroad also. prior to april 7, 1949, there existed sovereign state of jaipur (briefly, the then jaipur state) and then his highness maharaja sawai man singh was the ruler of the said state, who wielded all sovereign powers vested in him. he appointed a representative committee to make recommendations for the purpose of rehabilitation of the ex-army personnel vide his order no. 1010/sc dated july 29, 1943. on the recommendations of the said committee, the then government of jaipur state took certain decisions vide order no. 584/sc dated may 20, 1944, which were published in jaipur gazette volume lxii no. 5393 dated june 1, 1944. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 1991 (HC)

Smt. Anand Kanwar and Nineteen ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-08-1991

Reported in : 1992(1)WLC65; 1991(2)WLN318

inder sen israni, j.1. in all these 20 writ petitions, a common question regarding lands allotted to various petitioners, who are either ex-servicemen or their heirs, has been raised and a prayer has been made that each of the petitioners should not be dispossessed from the lands in their possession. therefore all the above-mentioned petitions are decided by one order.2. for the sake of giving facts, which are generally common in all the petitions, reference of writ petition no. 240/83, filed by the petitioner-hansraj, has been made. all the petitioners served in indian army and each of the petitioners has been given regiment no. & rank held by them. the petitioners were enrolled in december 1941-42 and served on active war front and were discharged in the year, 1944, after cessation of hostilities. during the war, many of the petitioners served abroad also. prior to april 7, 1949), there existed sovereign state of jaipur (briefly the then jaipur state) and then his highness maharaja sawai man singh was the ruler of the said state, who wielded all sovereign powers vested in him. he appointed a representative committee to make recommendations for the purpose of rehabilitation of the ex-army personnel vide his order no. 1010/sc dated july 29, 1943. on the recommendations of the said committee, the then government of jaipur state look certain decisions vide order no. 548/sc dated may 20, 1944, which were published in jaipur gazette volume lxii no. 5393 dated june 1, 1944. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 1991 (HC)

Ajit Singh Choudhary and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Etc.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-22-1991

Reported in : 1998CriLJ527

v.s. kokje, j.1. nine persons viz. (1) mahesh choudhary son of veera ram, (2) ajit singh son of prabhu ram jat, (3) rajesh son of nemichand choudhary, (4) shyam singh son of nain singh rajput, (5) rajendra soni son of umaida ram soni, (6) bharat bhusan son of ram bux suthar, (7) rajendra ghanchi son of girdhari lal ghanchi, (8) kau mal sindhi son of teu mal sindhi and (9) dinesh alias pappu gujar son of mohan singh gujar were prosecuted under sections 147, 364, 330, 307 in the alternative 307/149, 342, 302 in the alternative 302/149 and 384 ipc for having caused the death of one deepak agrawal and several injuries to one rajesh jodha.2. on trial, the learned sessions judge convicted and sentenced the accused person as follows:---------------------------------------------------------------accused convicted sentencedunder section ---------------------------------------------------------------mahesh choudhary 147 ipc 1 yr. riajit singh 364 ipc (in rajesh respect of rajesh) 5 yrs.shyam singh 330 ipc 2 yrs.rajendra soni 307/149 5 yrs.kau mal 342 ipc 6 monthsdinesh 302/149 life imp.with rs. 50/- fine.---------------------------------------------------------------3. accused mahesh and ajit were further found guilty under section 364 ipc in respect of deepak agrawal sentenced to undergo 5 years ri. accused mahesh was also found guilty under section. 389 ipc and sentenced to undergo 1 year ri on that count. accused rajendra ghanchi and bharat bhushan were acquitted of all charges.4. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1991 (HC)

Gen. Manager (N. Rly.) Vs. Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-23-1991

Reported in : [1992(65)FLR501]; (1994)IIILLJ754Raj; 1991(1)WLN37; 1991(2)WLN92

jas raj chopra, j. 1. these special appeals are directed against the judgment of thelearned single judge of this court dated 16.10.1990 passed in s.b. civil writ petition no. 3740 of 1990 whereby the learned single judge while dismissing the writ petition by general manager, n.rly, has upheld the award of the learned central industrial tribunal, jaipur, dated 27.10.1989 with the modification that the respondent prahlad ku-mar (workman) will be entitled'to reinstatement with 50% back wages only. 2. aggrieved against this judgment of the learned single judge, these two special appeals have been filed: one by the general manager, northern railway, new delhi and others; and the other by the railway casual labour union. as they are directed against the same impugned judgment of the learned single judge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. the facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these appeals briefly stated are: that the casual labour prahlad kumar was appointed initially as a khalasi on 24.8,1979 by the works inspector, northern railway, hanumangarh junction. later on, he was appointed by the railway traffic inspector, ahallabad on 9.5.1981. it is alleged that he was appointed as t.l.a. and his services were terminated by the railway traffic inspector, ahallabad in the afternoon of 5.8.81 and, therefore, an industrial dispute was raised by the railway casual labour union on behalf of the workman prahlad kumar and that dispute .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 1991 (HC)

Gyan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-26-1991

Reported in : 1991(2)WLN454

milap chandra jain, j.1. this writ petition has been filed against the order (annexure5) of the deputy secretary, revenue (gr. 1) department, government of rajasthan, jaipur dated january 28, 1981 by which 1/5th of the pension payable to the petitioner has been with held under rule 170, rajasthan service rules. the facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition may be summarised thus.2. in the year 1974, the petitioner was tehsildar cum sub registrar, revdar (sirohi). 55 bighas 7 biswas of agricultural land situated in village harni amrapura tehsil revdar (sirohi) was sold by the khatedars devisingh, bhanwar singh and lal chand for rs. 20,000/-to pabudan singh, prabhu singh and bhagwan singh, sons of the petitioner, and three sale-deeds were presented before him for registration and they were duly registered. mutation of the said agricultural land was duly effected in their favour. on october 10, 1975, charge-sheet under rule 16, rajasthan civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules, 1958 was served upon him. the collector, sirohi was appointed as enquirying officer. after taking his reply, examining the nine witnesses of the department and hearing the presenting officer and the petitioner, the collector, sirohi gave his report on april 30, 1978 holding that all charges except one are proved. meanwhile, the petitioner retired on february 28, 1978. thereatfer, show cause notice annexure 1 was issued on october 31, 1979 by the deputy secretary revenue (gr. 1) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 1991 (HC)

Jagdishprasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-12-1991

Reported in : 1991(2)WLN265

g.s. singhvi, j.1. this restoration application has been filed on behalf of the appellant with a prayer to restore the special appeal no. 14/90 to its original number.2. appellant, jagdish prasad had filed writ petition challenging the seniority list of inspectors gr. ii of devasthan department. the writ petition no. 587/79 filed by the appellant was dismiss by a learned single judge of this court vide order dated september 19, 1989. against this order of the learned single judge, special appeal was filed by the appellant under section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance, 1949.3. the appeal was listed in the court on 7.3.90 but the same could not be taken up for consideration when the special appeal was taken up on 19.11.1990 none was present on behalf of the appellant, although the case was called twice. upon this, the appeal was dismissed after examination of the legality of the order passed by the learned single judge. the division bench found that the order passed by the learned single judge did not call for interference in the special appeal.4. in the restoration application, it has been stated that the counsel for the appellant was not available in jaipur as he was out of station for the last one week. he came to jaipur only in the evening of 19.11.90 and he could not appear before the court on 19.11.1990 for the aforesaid reason.5. the question which arises for consideration is whether the application for restoration is at all maintainable when the special appeal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 08 1991 (HC)

Nawrang Singh Vs. Bhanwar Singh

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-08-1991

Reported in : 1992(1)WLC383; 1991WLN(UC)386

inder sen israni, j.1. the petitioner has filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent from rajasthan legislative assembly constituency no. 27, navalgarh, the result of which was declared on march 1, 1990. the respondent has filed premlimiary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition.2. it is submitted by shri v.k. agrawal, learned counsel that an affidavit filed alongwith the petition does not disclose the source of information as required by relevant provisions of cpc. therefore, in eye of law no affidavit has been filed and thus the provisions of section 83 of the representation of people act, 1951 (for brevity of 'act, 1951') have not been complied with. it is also submitted that verification of the petition has not been done as required under section 83 of the act, 1951. it is also pointed out that material facts & material particulars as required under provisions of section 83 of act, 1951 have not been disclosed, therefore, no cause of action has arisen for filing this petition. it is further pointed out that copies of documents which formed integral part of the petition have been filed with the petition, but copies of such documents not been given to the respondents. the learned counsel has lastly raised the objection regarding presentation of the election petition. it has been contended that the petition could have been presented only at jaipur bench and not at jodhpur. therefore on this ground also the petition is liable to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1991 (HC)

Nem Kumar Tholia Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-07-1991

Reported in : [1992]194ITR371(Raj)

orders.c. agrawal, j.1. in this reference, made under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), at the instance of the assessee, the income-tax appellate tribunal, jaipur bench, jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal'), has referred the following questions for the consideration of this court:'1. whether the tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty provisions which govern the levy of a penalty in a case are those which exist on the date on which the return is filed and that the law as in force on the first day of the assessment year will not govern the levy of penalty ? 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstnaces of the case, the tribunal was justified in applying the law of penalty contained in section 271(1 )(c) as it stood on april 10, 1969, after the date on which the returns for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 were filed ?' 2. this reference relates to the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68.3. the assessee carries on business in purchase and sale of jewellery, precious stones and antiques. in respect of the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee filed a return declaring an income of rs. 3,295. the income-tax officer, by his assessment order dated december 18, 1969, assessed the assessee's income at rs. 25,000. in the said assessment order, it was also directed that penalty notice under sections 274/271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the act may be issued. in respect of the assessment year 1967-68, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 03 1991 (HC)

Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jun-03-1991

Reported in : 1992CriLJ810; 1991(1)WLN476; 1991(2)WLN577

r.s. verma, j.1. the question referred to this bench is:whether under section 397(2), cr. p.c. the expression 'interlocutory order' covers the framing of the charge during the trial or not.2. the petitioner before us is accused of sheltering pakistani nationals in contravention of sections 13 and 14 of the foreigners act. suffice for the purposes of this discussion that the learned trial magistrate, after having taken due cognizance of the aforesaid offences, framed charge against the, petitioner for the aforesaid offences on 22-4-89. the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. however, he filed a revision petition before this court under section 397, cr. p.c. against the order framing the charge. the office raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition. the matter was placed before a learned single judge of this court. learned counsel for the petitioner urged before the learned single judge that the objection had been raised by the office on account of a division bench decision of this court in nemichand v. state of rajasthan 1988, cri lr (raj) 148. he contended that the division bench judgment was based on the judgment of the supreme court in v.c. shukla v. state air 1980 sc 962 : 1980 cri lj 690. he further pointed out that v. c. shukla's case was decided on the basis of the provisions of the special courts act, 1979 and the ratio laid down in that case could not apply to interpretation to the provisions of section 397, cr. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 1991 (HC)

Manak Chand JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-28-1991

Reported in : 1991(1)WLN552

d.l. mehta, j.1. petitioner, manak chand, public prosecutor, filed this writ petition before this court on 16th july 1990 and prayed therein that the respondents maybe restrained from terminating the services of the petitioner as public prosecutor, ajmer district or, in the alternative not to terminate the services of the petitioner till 30th june, 1993. it was also prayed that a new appointment is made during the intervening period, then the court should declare that the present public prosecutor that who has been appointed vide order dated, 9-2-90 (annex. 9), shall continue to hold the office of public prosecutor till the expiry of his term of appointment. during the intervering period shri vasant vijay vargiya was appointed as public prosecutor as such, the writ petition was amended by the present petitioner and further prayer was made that appointment of shri vasant vijay vargiya may be declared illegal and the present petitioner should be allowed to hold the office of public prosecutor till 30th june, 1993.2. state government issued wireless meassage to the district magistrates of 14 districts requesting them to send the panel of public prosecutors and additional public prosecutors for the sessions courts and additional sessions courts existing in their respective jurisdiction. district magistrate, ajmer, forwarded the panel of five persons vide his letter no. 590 dated 10-7-90. it seems that the district magistrate has not forwarded the recommendations made by the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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