Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 58 results (0.020 seconds)

Feb 10 2003 (HC)

Mrs. Rekha Vs. Pramod Kumar

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-10-2003

Reported in : RLW2003(4)Raj2131; 2003(3)WLC179

..... that the respondent used to level wild allegations, and harassed the appellant. it was also alleged that about an year back the appellant's cousin (son of bhua) came to mediate, to whom also, the. husband clearly gave out that he has already made it clear years and years back that he is not prepared to keep her as wife, then .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2003 (HC)

Kaloo Chand and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-04-2003

Reported in : 2003(3)WLC111; 2003(1)WLN483

sunil kumar garg, j.1. this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india has been filed by the petitioners on 8.9.1988 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 25.10.1985 (ex. 6) passed by the learned addl. collector, jalore (respondent no. 2), by which a reference under section 82 of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1956') was made to the board of revenue, ajmer (respondent no. 1) with the prayer that mutation no. 2 dated 15.11.1959 ordered by sarpanch, gram panchayat, narsana in respect of agriculture land bearing khasra no. 422 measuring 33 bigha 5 biswas situated in village lunawas in favour of the deceased sagar mal and present petitioners be cancelled as it was entered in the revenue record in violation of mandatory provisions of section 42 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1955') and the judgment dated 16.12.1987 (ex. 7) passed by the board of revenue, ajmer (respondent no. 1) by, which the reference was accepted and mutation no. 2 dated 15.11.1959 was cancelled and the order dated 27.4.1988 (ex. 8) passed by the respondent no. 1 board of revenue by which the review petition filed by the petitioners was rejected, be quashed and set aside.2. it arises in the following circumstances:the petitioners are heirs of one sagar mal (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). the deceased entered into an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2003 (HC)

Jethu Singh Vs. Bhanwar Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-21-2003

Reported in : 2003(2)WLC745; 2003(1)WLN489

b.s. chauhan, j.1. all these petitions involve identical questions of law and facts and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that one sugan singh was having agricultural land but he did not have a male issue. he died of illness on 29.9.1991. subsequent thereto, mutation in respect of the said agricultural land was entered in the name of petitioner jethu singh on the basis of adoption being his daughter's son, vide order dated 20.12.1991. being aggrieved and dissatisfied, five appeals were preferred against the said order of mutation by the contesting respondents bhanwar singh and arjun singh on the ground that wills had been executed in their favour by sugan singh on 27.9.1991. the appellate authority rejected all the five appeal vide order dated 13.6.1995 observing that the mutation proceedings, being fiscal in nature, did not manifest title over the property and the matter should be adjudicated before the appropriate forum. against the said order dated 13.6.1995, further appeals were filed before the additional commissioner (colonization) cum revenue appellate authority, which were allowed vide order dated 31.8.1996 on the ground that the matter of title was sub-judice before the competent court and the issue of title can be decided therein. being aggrieved and dissatisfied, five revision petitions were filed by the present petitioner before the board of revenue, which were dismissed vide .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 02 2003 (HC)

Ram NaraIn and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-02-2003

Reported in : 2003(1)WLC768; 2003(2)WLN4

sunil kumar garg, j.1. both the above-mentioned writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them common questions of law and facts are involved.s.b. civil writ petition no. 1047/19982. this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india has been filed by the petitioners on 18.03.1998 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 16.04.1992 (annex. 4) passed by the collector, bikaner by which the prayer of the petitioners about maintainability of the appeal filed by the respondent no. 4 jugal kishore on the ground of limitation was rejected and furthermore, the judgment dated 16.01.1998 (annex. 5) passed by the board of revenue, ajmer by which the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the learned collector, bikaner dated 16.04.1992 (annex. 4) was dismissed, be quashed and set aside.3. the case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows:one roop chand, father of the respondent no. 4 jugal kishore, was a khatedar tenant of khasra no. 8, measuring 125 bighas and 11 biswas in village himatasar, tehsil and district bikaner. one bhagwan das, grand father of the respondent no. 3 narain das, claimed khatedari rights over the lands by way of application under section 19 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1955') before the sub divisional officer (north). bikaner. the sub-divisional officer .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 08 2003 (HC)

Gautam Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ramnik Kumari and or ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-08-2003

Reported in : AIR2005Raj161; 2004WLC(Raj)UC541

orderprakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. this revision petition is against the order dated 3-12-1997 passed by the learned additional district judge no. 3, jodhpur in civil original suit no. 150/89 by which the trial court allowed the application submitted by the defendant under order 22, rule 4(3) c.p.c. and held that the suit of the plaintiff has abated.3. brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract on 1-5-1985 against the four defendants, namely, virendra singh, his wife ramnik kumari and son harendra singh. defendant no. 1 virendra singh expired on 28-8-1991, upon which the plaintiff submitted an application under order 22 c.p.c. without mentioning the relevant rule, but obviously it is rule 4 of the order 22 cpc with a prayer that the defendants nos. 2 to 4, who are already party in the suit in their personal capacity, may be taken on record in the capacity of the legal representatives of defendant no. 1 also. the said application was dismissed by the trial court by order dated 27-11-1995 on the ground that the application has been filed after delay.4. it appears from the facts that before the death of defendant no. 1 virendra singh, the suit was dismissed in default on 17-3-1990 which was restored on the application of the plaintiff by order dated 7-8-1993. since no notice was given to the defendants before restoring the suit, therefore, notice intimating the dale of the suit was issued .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 2003 (HC)

Ganpat Lal and ors. Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-13-2003

Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj1208; 2004(2)WLC146

b. prasad, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. present writ petitions have been filed by the sons of late ram chandra alias chandriya by caste mali, resident of khema ka kuwa, jodhpur. petitioners claim that they had cultivatory possession of khasra no. 125 and 123 situated in village suthala, tehsil & district jodhpur. in khasra no. 125, they had 16 bighas and 11 biswas and in khasra no. 123, they had 9 bighas land. in the record of 1943 a.d., the ancestors of the petitioners were recorded as tenants. ram chandra, father of the petitioners died on jeth sud 9 svt. year 2027 (corresponding to 1970 approximately) and the petitioners continued to be in cultivatory possession of the land as khatedar tenants.3. petitioners filed a suit on 11.2.1981 for declaration of khatedari rights and injunction. notices issued under section 91 of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 has also been challenged. these notices have been exhibited in the writ petition. these notices give a clear shadow to the claim of the respondents that, the state handed over the possession of the land to the housing board. on account of the aforesaid notices, the petitioners filed a suit in the court of s.d.o., jodhpur on 11.2.1981. it was pointed out that the land in question has been acquired and mutated in the name of rajasthan housing board vide mutation nos. 94 and 104. on account of this, the petitioners were allowed to implead rajasthan housing board we party and amend the suit to implead housing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2003 (HC)

Hari Ram Vs. Lichmaniya and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-12-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Raj319; 2003(4)WLC426

orderprakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. this is glaring case of harassment of non-petitioners by the petitioner by abusing the process of court, compelling the non-petitioners to face litigation even after 42 years of obtaining decree for possession by their ancestor.3. the brief facts of the case are that one ram chandra, ancestor of private non-petitioners, filed a suit for possession of an agricultural land measuring 18 biga 9 biswa of khasra no. 60 of village rohi naurangsehar, tehsil sujangarh dist. churu, against the petitioner of this writ petition in the court of sub-divisional officer, ratangarh in the year 1957 alleging that the non-petitioner forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff-ram chandra, therefore, decree for eviction be passed against the defend-ant-petitioner-hari ram.) the suit was registered as suit no. 111/57 but that was dismissed by the sub-divisional officer (assistant collector), ratangarh, by the judgment and decree dated 30th august, 1958. ram chandra preferred appeal against the decree dated 30th august, 1958 before the additional commissioner, bikaner division, bikaner; which was registered as appeal no. 183/58, the appeal of ram chandra was initially dismissed by the appellate court but said dismissal was set aside in second appeal by the board of revenue by its order dated 25-1-1960 and the matter was remanded back to the first appellate court. after remand, the first appellate court allowed the appeal of ram chandra .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 01 2003 (HC)

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Mangal Singh

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jun-01-2003

Reported in : 2003(3)WLC273; 2003(3)WLN31

n.n. mathur, j.1. since instant special appeal arises out of a very old claim of the year 1987, we propose to dispose it, at the admission stage itself.2. adumbrated in brief the facts are that the claimant mangal singh was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant rajasthan state road transport corporation, jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the corporation') from chittorgarh to fatehnagar. he sat near the window seat. on the way a truck coming from the opposite side passed too closely by the side of the bus causing injury to the right hand of the claimant. the claimant was operated upon and his right upper arm, just below the shoulder joint was amputed resulting in 80% permanent disability. at the relevant time the claimant was earning rs. 1500/- per month, as an employee of a private company namely m/s. rajfed oil mill, fatehnagar. he claimed compensation in the sum of rs. 1,69,500/-. the claim was resisted by the appellant corporation. in the opinion of the tribunal, claimant himself was negligent in keeping out his elbow and, therefore, was not entitled to damages. in view of the finding, the tribunal disallowed the claim.3. in appeal the learned single judge on appreciation of evidence in depth and detail and through discussion of the relevant case law held that the injury sustained by the claimant was due to composite negligence of the driver of the bus as well as truck driver. the learned single judge was of the view that it was the duty of the driver to .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2003 (HC)

Barkat and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-19-2003

Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj881; 2003(4)WLC696

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. the nine appellants were indicted before the learned special judge sc/st (prevention of atrocities) cases sawai madhopur for having committed murder of akhtyar. learned special judge vide judgment dated march 22, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-barkatunder section 302 ipc to undergo imprisonment for life and fine ofrs. 200/- in default to further suffer. 3 monthss.i.under section 148 ipc one year r.i.under section 447 ipc one month r.i.under section 323/149 ipc six months r.i.under section 325/149 ipc 3 years ri and fine of rs.100 in default to sufferone month s.i.2. mukhtyar, 3. manzoor ali, 4. hajoor ali, 5. shakoor,6. mst. gopa, 7. mst. chhoti, 8. mst. zurhat, 9. mst. jaiboon:under section 302/149 ipc to undergo imprisonment for life and fine ofrs. 200/- in default to further suffer 3 monthss.i.under section 148 ipc one year r.i.under section 447 ipc one month r.i.under section 323/149 ipc six months r.i.under section 325/149 ipc 3 years ri and fine of rs. 100 in default to sufferone month s.i.all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. as per the prosecution story, on november 23, 1996 at about 7.05 p.m., asi police station mantown recorded parcha bayan of sarfuddin (pw. 3) who was admitted in male surgical ward of sawai madhopur hospital. in the parcha bayan, it was, interalia, alleged that around 12 noon, on the same day, the informant sarfuddin, akhtyar (now deceased) and women namely tofan, farida and sagiran .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2003 (HC)

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Mangal Singh

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-22-2003

Reported in : III(2003)ACC232

n.n. mathur, j.1. since instant special appeal arises out of a very old claim of the year 1987, we propose to dispose it, at the admission stage itself.2. adumbrated in brief the facts are that the claimant mangal singh was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant rajasthan state road transport corporation, jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the corporation') from chittorgarh to fatehnagar. he set near the window seat. on the way a truck coming from the opposite side passed too closely by the side of the bus causing injury to the right hand of the claimant. the claimant was operated upon and his right upper arm, just below the shoulder joint was amputated resulting in 80% permanent disability. at the relevant time the claimant was earning rs. 1,500/- per month, as an employee of a private company namely m/s. rajfed oil mill, fatehnagar. he claimed compensation in the sum of rs. 1,69,500/-. the claim was resisted by the appellant corporation. in the opinion of the tribunal, claimant himself was negligent in keeping out his elbow and, therefore, was not entitled to damages. in view of the finding, the tribunal disallowed the claim.3. in appeal the learned single judge on appreciation of evidence in depth and detail and thorough discussion of the relevant case law held that the injury sustained by the claimant was due to composite negligence of the driver of the bus as well as truck driver. the learned single judge was of the view that it was the duty of the driver to .....

Tag this Judgment!


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