Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1995 Page 1 of about 80 results (0.011 seconds)

Mar 27 1995 (HC)

Tejbhan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-27-1995

Reported in : 1996WLC(Raj)UC640; 1995(1)WLN295

..... bikaner and remained there for one month and did not turn to hanumangarh during those days. on pouring the water, the fire extinguished. dw 5 jagdish roy is the alleged mediator of the maitiage, has stated that he arranged the marriage of shakuntla with accused satya bhagwan but no talks.regarding the dowry amount took place nor any amount was agreed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 1995 (HC)

Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-19-1995

Reported in : AIR1996Raj154; 1996(2)WLC36

ravani, c.j. 1. where no period of limitation is prescribed under the relevant provision of the statute, can the power be exercised by the authority at any time? the question has arisen in this appeal under section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance, 1949 in the context of exercise of powers by the board of revenue after a period of about 25 years under section 82 of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 and under section 232 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955. 2. this appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned single judge in sb civil writ petition no. 184 of 1987 decided on january 19, 1987. by the aforesaid order, the learned single judge confirmed the judgment and order passed by the board of revenue in lr reference no. 38 of 1984/ kota. 3. the facts giving rise to this appeal, are as follows :-- the dispute pertains to a land admeasuring 43 bighas and 9 biswas, situated in the village -- ulthi tehsil and district -- baran. the land was originally in the name of pujari laxminarain temple. sometime in the year 1951, the pujari died. the land was ordered to be resumed and confiscated to the state as per order dated jaunary 20, 1955 passed by the commissioner, kota. in other words, the land was a 'muafi' land inasmuch as after death of the pujari of laxminarain temple, no one was there to claim the land. by way of escheat, it was ordered to be resumed by the state. 4. on oct. 14, 1955, the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (for short 'the act of 1955') .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 1995 (HC)

Marudhara Dye Chem. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-18-1995

Reported in : 1995(2)WLN405

r.r. yadav, j.1. the petitioner-firm has filed the instant writ petition seeking a relief to quash the impugned bill dated 14.9.83 (ex. 6) in so far as, it creates demand under item no. 28 for rs. 94,436.20 and further prayed to restrain the answering-respondents from recovering the aforesaid amount from the petitioner-firm in respect of load surcharge for the period from december, 1978 to february, 1983.2. brief facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition, are that after dissolution of the earlier firm m/s rajasthan forgings, the rajasthan state electricity board (respondent no. 1) transferred the electric connection on plot no. 27-b in the name of the petitioner-firm vide communication date 15.10.80 ex, 2 to the writ petition passed by the assistant engineer (respondent no, 4) with the same sanctioned load. it is evident from the averments made in the writ petition that on the date of sanction of electric connection bearing account no. 15/1/295 and consumer no. 33348 sanctioned load was 30 h.p.3. since the petitioner-firm wanted to install some more machines and for that purpose required higher sanctioned load, hence, applied for increasing the sanctioned load from 30 hp to 90 hp and submitted 'l' form on 30.7.1980.4. the aforesaid application from 'l' in the prescribed form for increasing the sanctioned load from 30 hp to 90 hp remained pending with the rajasthan state electricity board for a considerable long time and the authorities could not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1995 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Ratan Lal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-11-1995

Reported in : 1995CriLJ2844

b.r. arora, j.1. these three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 29-11-88, passed by the district and sessions judge, pratabgarh, by which the learned sessions judge convicted accused-appellants ganpat lai and jag ram for the offence under sections 302/34, i.p.c., and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment of life; but acquitted them and the other co-accused, viz., ratan lal, man singh, rod chand, madan lal, dal chand, kanhaiya lal and amrit lal of the offences under sections 148 and 302/149, i.p.c.2. appellants ganpat lal and jag ram, along with accused ratan lai, man singh, rod chand, madan lal, dal chand, kanhaiya lal and amrit lal, were tried by the learned sessions judge, pratabgarh, for the offences under sections 148 and 302/149 i.p.c. the case of the prosecution is that all the aforesaid nine accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to kill bal kishan and in furtherance of that common object, on 14-11-86, at about 8.00 p.m. near the house of laxman balai in village achalpura, they inflicted injuries to bal kishan by kulhari, knife, gupti, khuntli and lathis. according to prosecution case, bal kishan had borrowed voke and wooden levelled from laxman balai. on the relevant day, he went to the house of laxman bala to return the same and after returning the yoke when he was returning from the house of laxman bala, accused-appellant ganpat lal, who was sitting near the fire (dhuni), asked bal kishan why he had got his fodder eaten by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1995 (HC)

Jaswant Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-30-1995

Reported in : 1995(1)WLN569

p.p. naoleker, j.1. this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking relief that the provisional seniority-list of inspectors of the transport department, rajasthan deated 23.02.91 (annex.-12) and the final seniority-list dated 16.08.91 (annex.- 14) be declared illegal; and, for assigning seniority to the petitioners as per rule 15(1), rajasthan civil services (absorptipn of surplus personnel) rules, 1969 (hereinafter to be called 'the rules of 1969') from the date of their appointment on the posts of blaster or, in the alternative, for directions that the petitioners stood absorbed on the posts of inspectors with effect from 30.11.78 i.e., the date of their first absorption in the transport department.2. on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the -facts summarised are that petitoner no. 1 jaswant singh was initially appointed on the post of blaster on 08.02.68 and petitioner no. 2 gopal singh was similarly appointed on 08.09.69 in the ground water deapartment. these appointments were made after advertisement of the vacancies and ude process of selection and, later on, made substantive with effect from 01.06.1970. in the department, the proficiency certificate obtained by the petitioners was not treated as equivalent to the diploma by the state government and thus they were not given the benefit admissible to diploma-holders. a writ petition was filed by one mani ram rakhecha in the high court which was registered as s.b.civil writ petition no. 1725/75 mani .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 1995 (HC)

Bhanwar Singh Son of Prahlad Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-05-1995

Reported in : 1995(2)WLN130

p.c. jain, j.1. the accused was tried and convicted for offence under section 302, ipc and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs. 1000/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. the prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 29.12.1991 at about 7.00 pm the accused and nanu came to his house and purchased illicit liquor from his son kalu ram (deceased) and went away. they, however, returned back at about 9.00 pm to kalu ram. bhanwar singh (accused) complained to his son kalu ram that the latter had not returned rs. 5/- to the former. kalu ram explained that he had supplied liquor of the amount given by the accused. this led to quarrel between bhanwar singh and kalu ram and thereafter bhanwar singh and kalu ram grappled with each other. the accused bhanwar singh then took out a knife from his pocket of pent and plunged it into the chest of kalu ram. as a result of that injury, kalu ram died.3. after usual investigation the accused appellant was charged for offence under section 302, ipc alongwith another accused nanu. before the learned sessions judge the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. after trial, the learned sessions judge held the accused guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced him, as above.4. we have heard the learned counsel for the accused - appellant as well as learned public prosecutor.5. the learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the truthful- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1995 (HC)

Mishri Lal Gordhan Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-14-1995

Reported in : [1996]217ITR42(Raj)

v.k. singhal, j.1. at the request of the assessee, the following five questions of law have been referred by the income-tax appellate tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), annulling the assessment order dated august 28, 1981, and restoring the matter back to the inspecting assistant commissioner to proceed afresh with the examination of the case ? 2. whether, the tribunal having found that the directions of the inspecting assistant commissioner were purely with a view to buy time for carrying out investigations and also finalising the assessment order, the impugned order was not liable to be annulled but to be restored to the inspecting assistant commissioner ? 3. whether, the tribunal was right in law in reviving the proceedings when admittedly the assessment order made on august 28, 1981, was beyond time prescribed under section 153 of the act and was barred by time ? 4. whether, the tribunal was right in law in reviving the assessment on november 14, 1985, when the assessment became barred by time on march 31, 1981, and was made on august 28, 1981, in contravention of the provisions of section 144b of the act and also in violation of the provisions of section 144a of the income-tax act, 1961 ? 5. whether, the tribunal was right in law in not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1995 (HC)

Prem Singh Vs. Madhu Bala

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-03-1995

Reported in : II(1995)DMC603; 1996WLC(Raj)UC309

r.r. yadav, j. 1. this revision petition is directed against the order of judge, family court, jodhpur dated 31.5.1995 in case no. 75/94 madhu bala v. prem singh, where the proceedings under section 125, cr.p.c. has been decided by way of compromise.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before me that the factum of compromise recorded in the impugned judgment of the family court is incorrect.3. the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to me for the reason that the court of law is expected to accept the statement of a judge recorded in his judgment. this court cannot afford to allow the statement of a judge to be contradicted by the statement at the bar or by affidavit or by any other evidence adduced by litigant public.4. in my humble opinion, if the family court judge has recorded in his judgment that a compromise was entered into between the parties and reconciliation took place regarding amount of maintenance between the parties then such statement of fact recorded in the judgment impugned is to be taken to be the last word on the subject. this court is not able to ascertain at revisional stage as to what transpired at the hearing, regarding the fact recorded in the judgment of the court. hence, the facts stated by the learned family court judge must be taken to be conclusive for exercise of revisional jurisdiction.5. however, it is made clear that if the petitioner thinks that the happenings in the court have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1995 (HC)

Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-07-1995

Reported in : 1996(2)WLC461; 1995(1)WLN356

v.g. palshikar, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.4.89 passed by learned add). sessions judge no. 1, udaipur, in sessions case no. 48 of 1984, convicting the accused madan lal of an offence under section 302 of the indian penal code to suffer imprisonment for life.2. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused attacked the order impugned on several grounds. it was submitted by her that the judgment of the learned addl. sessions judge is unsustainable in law as it is based on surmises and conjectures, not supported or warranted by the evidence on record. according to the learned counsel, the entire chain of circumstantial evidence was not proved and, therefore, conviction was not permissible in law. it was contended by the learned counsel that even if the entire evidence as led by the prosecution is accepted, it is impossible to come to a conclusion that it was the accused alone who caused intentional homicidal death of deceased. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused heabvily relying upon the decision of the supreme court reported in : 1984crilj1738 (shoorod birdhichond sorda v. state of maharashtra), contended that the supreme court has, summarised the requirements which must be fulfilled for warranting or suspending convicting under section 302, in case of circumstantial evidence-the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case agaainst an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1995 (HC)

Sangeeta Pathak Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-05-1995

Reported in : 1995(3)WLC44; 1995(2)WLN300

arun madan, j.1. this special appeal filed under section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance, 1949, arises out of the order, dated 25th june, 1991, passed by learned single judge of this court in s.b. civil writ petition no. 1858/1991; whereby learned single judge dismissed the writ petition on merits.2. the facts giving rise to the filling of this appeal briefly stated, are that in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the registrar, rajasthan high court, jodhpur vide notification, dated 12th january, 1990, the petitioner-appellant applied for the post of pbx operator. she was called for interview which was held at jodhpur on 3rd march, 1990. selection committee interviewd the petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates. the petitioner-appellant was found suitable and appointed as pbx operator at jaipur bench of this court in the pay-scale of rs. 950-1680 for period of six months on temporary basis vide order, dated 5th march, 1990 (annex. 1). it was stated that the appellant was given extention in terms of her appointment upto 31st december, 1990 (first extension) and thereafter upto 28th february, 1991 (second extension) by another order. the appellant continued to work even after the expiry of period of second extension, i.e., after 28th february, 1991 but no formal order of extension was passed. thereafter an order dated 26th march, 1991 was issued which was served upon her on 27th march, 1991 vide annexure 4. by the said order of extension it was stipulated .....

Tag this Judgment!

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