Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1993 Page 1 of about 29 results (0.010 seconds)

Jan 07 1993 (HC)

Hari Singh Vs. Ram Kumar and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-07-1993

Reported in : AIR1993Raj204; 1993(1)WLC454

..... .w. 4. whereas the defendants have been examined themselves as ram pal as (d.w. 1) and shri humam singh (d.w. 2) and mularam (d.w. 3) who were mediators and responsible for the compromise between the parties. the learned trial court after hearing the arguments and considering the record of the case has come to the conclusion that some .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1993 (HC)

Hangami Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-15-1993

Reported in : 1993WLN(UC)105

rajendra saxena, j.1. heard.2. by the means of this writ petition the petitioners has prayed that the circular no. 2(4) raj./4/90/37 dated 13/12/1991. (annex. 4) issued by the dy. secretary to the government, revenue (gr. 6) department rajasthan. jaipur addressed to all the collectors be quashed and the respondents be directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the disputed land and not to restrain them from performing seva-puja of the deity of temple rikhebdeo situated in village antalia tehsil asind, district bhilwara.3. it is alleged by the petitioner that they are agriculturists by profession and are also pujaris of he deity of temply thakurji rikhebdeo and that agricultural land bearing khasra no. 603 measuring 19 bishwas and khasra no. 1242 measuring 8 bighas 3 bishwas situated in village antali has been recorded in the khatedari of the said deity and petitioner hangamilal has been shown as pujaris thereof. in jamabandis samvat 2036 to 2039 and 2041 to 2044, this land has been shown in the cultivatory possession of the deity through the pujaris. it is further alleged that the patwari by his certificate dated 19.6.1992 has testified that in kharif samvat 2049, this said land was cultivated by petitioner no. 2 prabhu dayal, who is the son of petitioner hangami lal, the pujari of the deity.4. the dy. secretary to the government, revenue (gr. 6) department by his circular letter dated 13.12.1991 (annex. 4) has impressed upon the collectors and the settlement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1993 (HC)

Aad Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-14-1993

Reported in : 1994(3)WLC569; 1993WLN(UC)359

rajesh balia, j.1. the petitioners are the khatedars of lands in square no. 54 and 55 and killas no. 1, 2, 4, 9 and 10 in square no. 61 of chak 23-hmh, tehsil-hanumangarh. the collector vide his order dated november 17, 1971 (annexure/1) sanctioned a way in favour of the petitioners through the land situated at stone n. 100/291 parallel to canal for going to aabadi of chak 23-22 hmh. in pursuance of the said order the way was opened and mutation was made in the revenue-records. the land admeasuring 5 bighas situated at no. 100/291 at chak no. 23 hmh was allotted to respondents no. 3 and 4 in december 1982.2. on june 17, 1983 on behalf of respondents no. 3 and 4 an application was moved before the s.d.o. hanumangarh alleging that the present petitioners, by securing cancellation of already existing way have got a new way sanctioned in their favour through their land and has opened its way on june 12, 1983. they prayed that the newly opened way be closed.3. in reply to the said application it was stated that the petitioners had got the way opened through the land in dispute long ago vide order dated november 17, 1971 passed by the collector, sri-ganganagar, who was competent authority in this regard and the way is in existence since then. after obtaining the allotment of land, through which the way existed in his favour, the applicants-respondents no. 3 and 4 had cultivated the same partly blocking the way, therefore, on june 12, 1983, the blocked way was got opened. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 1993 (HC)

Ratan Lal Soni Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-29-1993

Reported in : 1994(1)WLC679; 1993WLN(UC)194

k.c. agrawal, c.j.1. this writ petition, under article 226 of the constitution of india, has been filed by ratanlal soni, who claims himself to be a journalist and editor of 'jung ke khilaf jung', a hindi weekly published from jaipur, in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, he narrated the purpose of filing the writ petition and the same.the present writ petition is being submitted as a public interest litigation to show as to how public authorities are making gross and wholesale violation of law.2. in paragraph 10(a) of the writ petition, the petitioner alleged that the hindi daily rajasthan patrika in its issue dated 21.8.1989 published a news item that the jaipur development authority (hereinafter to be refereed to as 'the j.d.a.') approved schemes of three housing cooperative societies ignoring all the relevant rules and regulations in that behalf. relying on the rajasthan patrika of the aforesaid date, the petitioner claimed that the approved plan of these housing cooperatives involved lands of crores of rupees and these plans were earlier disapproved, but now in order to give advantage to these societies, the plans have been approved. he alleged that the ulterior motive disclosed by the rajasthan patrika was an eye opener.3. these three societies were (i) subhash sindhi grah nirman samiti (hereinafter to be referred to as the sindhi samiti), (ii) ramjupura grah nirman sahkari samiti') (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the ramjipura samiti') and (iii) meena colony grah .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 1993 (HC)

Foja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-28-1993

Reported in : 1993CriLJ2657; 1993WLN(UC)47

b.r. arora, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated may 30, 1985, passed by the sessions judge, jalore, by which the learned sessions judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant foja ram for the offences under sections 302 and 324, i.p.c.2. the incident which led to the prosecution of the appellant took place on october 23, 1983, at about 7.30 a.m. in the house of the accused in village samrau where the accused appellant murdered his wife smt. sunder kaur. the report of the incident was lodged at police station, sanchore, by pw 4 harsan - the sarpanch of the village - at about 9.30 a.m. the case of the prosecution is that accused and the deceased used to quarrel with each other on flimsy grounds. the quarrel took place in the night of october 23, 1983, and in the morning, the accused took up a farshi and inflicted injury on the head of sunder kaur by asking that she administered poison to him in the night. the handle of the farshi broke and thereafter the accused took-up a lathi, which was lying nearby, and inflicted four more injuries on the head and neck of the deceased sunder kaur. sunder kaur succumbed to these injuries. the prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses. pw 1 popat is the son of the accused, pw 2 miss dadam is the daughter of the accused, pw 3 jetha is the milkman who was passing by the lane when the accused was giving beating to the deceased, pw 5 hansa and pw 6 bhanwar lal are the two eye witnesses of the incident, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1993 (HC)

Surjan Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-30-1993

Reported in : 1994CriLJ1776

r. balia, j.1. this is an appeal against judgment of conviction passed by learned sessions judge, jalore dated 22nd february, 1985, in sessions case no. 11/83, by which the accused-appellant surjan was convicted under section 302, indian penal code and under section 27 of the arms act, and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of rs. 1000/-, or on failure to pay fine to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment, under section 302, ipc and 2 years rigorous imprisonment under section 27 of the arms act.2. the accused surjan son of ganesh, was found guilty of having committed murder of one ram chander, at about 10.00 a.m. on 20th december, 1980, in the field of dharma, by causing injuries by gun-shot by a double-barrel gun.3. the proceedings commenced with lodging of a written complaint by one kana ram, pw3, at about 5.00 p.m. on 20th december, 1980, at police station, sanchor. in brief, the prosecution case, as spelt out in the first information report, is that, while in his 'dhani' near village khara, tehsil sanchor, at about 12.00 noon, kana saw blaze of fire and smoke coming from dhani of ram chander. he, along with sad ram, rushed towards the dhani of ram chander and found that surjan, armed with a double barrel gun and riding on a mare, was there. when asked, why he has put the dhani on fire, surjan warned if he came further near he will kill him and fired towards kana; which hit the buffalo of ram chander which has came in between. thereafter, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 04 1993 (HC)

Public Carriers Truck Owners' Association Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-04-1993

Reported in : (1994)120CTR(Raj)236; [1994]210ITR36(Raj)

m.r. calla, j.1. these two writ petitions have been filed by the assessee against the common order dated january 14, 1981, passed by the commissioner of income-tax, jaipur, with regard to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, deciding the objections filed by the petitioner-association under section 273a of the income-tax act, 1961 (in short, 'the act'), seeking waiver/reduction of interest charged under sections 139(8) and 217 of the act and the penalties leviable under sections 271(1)(a) and 273 of the act s. b. civil writ petition no. 1629 of 1981 relates to the year 1975-76 and the other writ petition-s. b. c. w. p. no. 1631 of 1981-relates to the year 1976-77.2. the petitioner herein is a truck owners' association at kota. it is assessed to income-tax in the status of an association of persons. it maintains books of account and documents. it is the petitioner's own case that it could not file returns for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77 in time but the same were voluntarily filed by it for both the years, prior to theissuance of the notice under sub-section (2) of section 139 of the act. it is further the case of the petitioner that for both the years, a full and true disclosure of the income was made and the petitioner had also paid tax on the income so disclosed.3. the income-tax officer, ward 'c', kota, who completed the assessment on january 17, 1980, issued a notice under sections 274/271(1)(a) and 273 of the act, to the petitioner for both the years. the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 1993 (HC)

Syal Brothers and ors. Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-23-1993

Reported in : 1994(1)WLC19; 1993WLN(UC)509

n.l. tibrewal, j.1. all the petitions are disposed of by a common order as they are identical in nature. the facts of the case are startling. all public institutions and their officers are expected to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law. but the facts of the present case show with law. but the facts of the present case show that some high-ups of the rajasthan housing board (for short 'the board') in an unusual manner, were interested to allot valuable land in 'mansarover scheme' jaipur to the members of sanitary dealers association, jaipur, by back door method. it appears that the ill design could not succeed on account of anonymous complaint made to high authorities, including the prime minister of india.2. mansarover scheme is one of the prestigious scheme undertaken by the board. basically, it is a residential scheme. in the scheme there is no provision to establish a separate market for sanitary dealers. without any provision for such market (mandi) and without public notice inviting applications from the public for allotment of plots for shop-cum-godown-cum-residential purposes, the board proceeded to make an offer to the president, sanitary dealers association and a letter was written under the signature of smt. pramila surana, the chief estate manager, wherein it was stated that board's property allotment committee (for short p.a.c) in its meeting dated 9.11.1989 had taken a decision to allot a piece of land in 'mansarover scheme' for plots to members of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 1993 (HC)

Aidan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-23-1993

Reported in : 1993CriLJ2413

n.k. jain, j.1. these two appeals under section 374, cr. p. c. are directed against the judgment of the learned sessions judge, bikaner passed on 8-8-1984 whereby he has convicted the accused appellants parma ram and gomada alias uma ram under section 302, or in the altnerative section 302 read with section 34, ipc and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. the learned sessions judge has convicted the appellant aidan and mangida alias mangilal under section 325 or in the alternative under section 325 read with section 34, ipc and sentenced each of them to three years r.i. with a fine of rs. 2500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further 11/2 years r. i. since, both these appeals are directed against a common order, they are being disposed of by this judgment.2. briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that while mother of accused appellant aidan bringing her rewad towards the field of ram kumar singh at about 5.30/6 a.m. on 11-10-1982, it is alleged that she was asked by ram kumar singh to take out the rewad from his field whereupon accused appellants parmanand armed with gandasi, gomda armed with kulhari and rest of accused appellants armed with lathies came there and gave a 'lalkar' to ram kumar singh. it is further alleged that all the accused appellants started asssaulting ram kumar singh. on hearing hue and cry, 'mare re' 'mare re' smt. damyanti wife of ram kumar singh rushed to the place of incident from her 'dhani' and saw that all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 08 1993 (HC)

Yusuf Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-08-1993

Reported in : AIR1994Raj116; 1994(1)WLC25

ordern.l. tibrewal, j.1. a short but important question is involved for consideration in the writ petition. the question is 'whether the motion of no-confidence was carried out against the petitioner by two-third majority of members of the municipal board, jhalrapatan?'2. the petitioner was elected as vice-chairman of municipal board, jhalrapatan (hereinafter referred to as 'the board'), in the year 1990. six members of the board submitted a written notice to the collector on january 27, 1993, of the intention to make a motion of 'no-confidence' in the vice-chairman. a meeting was convened by the collector on february 17, 1993, to consider the motion. the meeting was held on the appointed day and was presided by sub-divisional officer, jhalawar, as nominee of the collector. the meeting was attended by ten members who voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence. the sub-divisional officer held the motion to have been passed against the petitioner. according to him the total number of members of the board was 15, as one member, smt. padma bakliwal, had resigned and notices of the meeting toconsider the motion of non-confidence was also issued to 15 members by the collector.3. after the meeting was over, the petitioner made a representation to the sub-divisional officer stating therein that the motion was not carried out by 2/ 3rd majority of whole number of members of the board, as the meeting was altended by ten members, who supported the motion, but there ought to have .....

Tag this Judgment!

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