Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 62 results (0.023 seconds)

Nov 10 2004 (HC)

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Nand Lal Saras ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-10-2004

Reported in : AIR2005Raj112; 2005(2)ARBLR102(Raj); RLW2005(2)Raj946; 2005(2)WLC682

..... settlement and after receiving observations of the parties, the court may reformulate the terms of possible settlement and refer the same for arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement including lok adalat or mediation, as the case may be. when the dispute is referred for arbitration or conciliation the provisions of the act of 1996 apply as if the proceedings were referred for settlement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 2004 (HC)

Virendra Singh and ors. Vs. Kashiram (Deceased by L.Rs.)

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-06-2004

Reported in : AIR2004Raj196; 2006(1)CTLJ378(Raj); RLW2004(3)Raj1979; 2004(3)WLC711

a.c. goyal, j.1. this is first appeal by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 28-2-1992 whereby learned additional district judge, kishangarhbas decreed the plaintiffs suit. the parties in this appeal shall be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. the plaintiff sh. kashiram (since deceased) filed a suit on 26-2-1986 for cancellation of a gift deed dated 20-6-1977 and for declaration that the defendant no. 1 sh. virendra singh is not the adopted son of the plaintiff with the averments that agricultural land measuring 15 beeghas 5 biswas as mentioned in para 1 of the plaint and agricultural land measuring 16 and half beeghas as mentioned in para 2 of the plaint is in khatedari and in possession of the plaintiff. the plaintiff is having three daughters -- all married and his wife. the defendants virendra singh and his father deen dayal are also residents of village bheekhawas. the defendant no. 2 sh. deen dayal is an advocate and on account of his contacts with the plaintiff, the plaintiff developed his confidence in defendant no. 2. both the defendants in conspiracy approached the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff is having about 32 beeghas of land and in case half of this land is transferred by way of will, the plaintiffs land would be saved from ceiling and after some time the will would got be cancelled. thus, taking the plaintiff in confidence the defendant no. 2 got his thumb impressions on a number of papers at mundawar on 20-6-1977 by playing .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 2004 (HC)

Ramu Ram Vs. Chief Executive Officer and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-13-2004

Reported in : RLW2004(3)Raj1947; 2004(4)WLC12

n.n. mathur, j.1. the instant special appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated 5.9.2003 dismissing the writ petition.2. the appellant was elected as sarpanch of the gram panchayat 14 apd on 31.1.2000. he was served with a notice of meeting dated 21.8.2003 (annex.p/1) for consideration of motion of no confidence against him. he also received a photo stat copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the gram panchayat held on 18.8.2003 presided by upsarpanch. the proceedings shows that a decision was taken in the said meeting to move a motion of no confidence against the appellant. a copy of the proceedings of the said meeting dated 18.8.2003 is placed on record as annex.p/2. appellant expressed his doubt as to genuineness of the document and, as such, he applied to zila parishad for supplying certified copy of proceedings annex.p/2. the appellant challenged the entire proceedings on the ground of being in violation of provisions of section 37(2) of the rajasthan panchayati raj act, 1994, hereinafter referred-to as 'the act of 1994' and rule 21 of the rajasthan panchayati raj rules, 1996, hereinafter referred-to as 'the rules of 1996, appellant-petitioner approached to this court by way of petition under article 226 of the constitution of india. it was contended before the learned single judge that no notice as prescribed in form-i as required by rule 21 of the rules of 1996 was presented before the chief executive officer, as such, the very .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 2004 (HC)

Ratan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-07-2004

Reported in : RLW2004(3)Raj1760; 2004(3)WLC231

sunil kumar garg, j.1. the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india on 25.11.2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the whole proceedings of no confidence motion dtd. 15.11.2003 (annex.5) taken against the petitioner be quashed and set aside.2. the facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:i) that the petitioner was elected as up sarpanch of gram panchayat 42 g.b., panchayat samiti anoopgarh tehsil sri vijaynagar, distt. sri ganganagar.ii) further case of the petitioner is that since elected sarpanch of the gram panchayat 42 g.b., namely, harjeet singh was in judicial custody, therefore, the state government vide its order dtd. 5.11.2003 (annex. 1) directed the respondent no. 5 (vikas adhikari, panchayat samiti, anoopgarh) to hand over the charge of the post of sarpanch to the petitioner till the release of sarpanch harjeet singh from the jail and thereafter the secretary of the gram panchayat 42 g.b. panchayat samiti anoopgarh handed over the charge of the post of sarpanch, gram panchayat 42 g.b. to the petitioner. the secretary of the gram panchayat 42 g.b. after handing over charge of the post of sarpanch, gram panchayat 42 g.b. to the petitioner wrote a letter dtd. nil (annex.2) to the vikas adhikari (respondent no. 5).iii) further case of the petitioner is that respondent decided to bring motion of no confidence against the petitioner and in this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 2004 (HC)

Magna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-05-2004

Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2097; 2004(4)WLC347

n.p. gupta, j.1. vide order dt. 2.3.2000, notice for final hearing was issued. notice of the stay application was also issued. thereafter vide order dt. 29.3.2000, after service of the respondent, the matter was ordered to be listed for final hearing on 10.4.2000. on 10.4.2000, again the matter was ordered to be listed for hearing on 18.4.2000, then arguments were heard, and vide judgment dt. 28.4.2000, the writ petition was allowed. against that order, a d.b. special appeal, being d.b. civil special appeal no. 442/2000, was filed, and vide judgment dt. 13.4.2001, the same was allowed, on the short ground, that in a absence of appearance of appellant (present respondent no. 4), at best, the writ petition ought to have been admitted, and fresh notice ought to have been issued. it was also noticed, that though vakalatnama is said to have been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4, it could not be placed on record, for certain reasons, which were also noticed, and therefore, the order passed was set aside, on account of non-appearance of effected party, respondent no. 4, being due to sufficient cause, and the matter was remanded, to be decided in accordance with law, after hearing the parties.2. thereafter appearance was put in on the side of the effected respondent, and again the matter was heard, after being adjourned on so many dates, the same hon'ble judge directed the record of the case, pertaining to the disqualification of respondent no. 4, to be made available for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2004 (HC)

Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-14-2004

Reported in : [2005(104)FLR1187]; 2005(3)SLJ509(Raj); 2005(2)WLC690

ordersunil kumar garg, j.this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 8.9.2004 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment dated 28.7.2004 (annexure-6) passed by the rajasthan civil services appellate tribunal, jaipur (for short 'the tribunal') by which the appeal of the petitioner against transfer order dated 11.7.2004 (annexure-1) was dismissed and the transfer order dated 11.7.2004 (annexure-1) qua the petitioner by which the petitioner was transferred from mahatma gandhi hospital, bhil wara to shri jawahar hospital, jaisalmer and against the post, which was being held by the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 dr. arun kumar chouhan was posted be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to work at the place where she was working prior to issuance of transfer order dated 11.7.2004 (annexure-1) i.e. at mahatma gandhi hospital, bhilwara.2. the case of the petitioner as put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows :the petitioner was working on the post of senior specialist (gyne.) at mahatma gandhi hospital, bhilwara. she was also holding the charge of principal medical officer, bhilwara and shetook the charge of the said post of pmo on 5.3.2004 and for that, copy of the certificate of transfer of charge dated 5.3.2004 is placed on record as annexure-2.thereafter, through impugned transfer order dated 11.7. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 2004 (HC)

Kahtoon Begum (Deceased) Through Her Lrs Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-15-2004

Reported in : RLW2004(1)Raj502

a.c. goyal, j.1. all these three second appeals have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1998 whereby learned additional district judge no. 2, jaipur city, jaipur while dismissing three appeals affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction passed by learned civil judge (junior division), west, jaipur city, jaipur on 9.4.1997.2. the relevant facts in brief are that the suit shop was let out on 12.8.1961 at monthly rent of rs. 25/- to the original tenant sh. chhote khan by jaipur cloth retailer association (in short the association). the association vide registered gift deed ex. 5 dated 20.2.1986 gifted this shop to pushthi margiya vaishanva mandal (in short the mandal) under intimation to sh. chhote khan vide a registered notice dated 25.2.1986. the mandal vide registered sale deed ex.1 dated 12.9.1986 sold this shop to the plaintiff-landlord sh. bhagwan das for a consideration of rs. 75,000/- under intimation to sh. chhote khan vide registered notice dated 4.10.1986, who filed the present suit on 25.2.1987 for arrears of rent and eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal reasonable and bonafide requirement as pleaded in paras 5 to 7 of the plaint.3. vide written statement filed on 11.1.1987 the defendant- tenant sh. chhote khan while admitting the facts of tenancy denied both the grounds of eviction with further pleas that the association had no right to execute the gift deed and transaction of sale is sham and the mandal also had .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 2004 (HC)

Ram Chandra Kasliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-07-2004

Reported in : RLW2004(3)Raj1788; 2004(4)WLC17

anil dev singh, c.j.1. these two appeals are directed against the order dated january 10, 2003 of the learned single judge rendered in sb civil writ petitions nos. 8191/2002 & 8184/2002, to the extent the notification dated july 10, 2002, annexure-3 to the writ petition, issued under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (for short 'the la act'), has been upheld.2. the brief facts leading to the filing of these two appeals are as follows:on july 10, 2002, twenty feet wide strip of land on either side of bhawani singh road between indira circle and ram bagh circle for the purposes of widening the road was notified by the state under section 4 of the la act. the notification was published in the official gazette. it was also published on july 27, 2002 in two daily newspapers, having circulation in the locality. besides, on august 29, 2002, the district collector, jaipur caused public notice of the substance of the notification in the locality pursuant to the notification under section 4 of the la act, persons interested in the land including the appellant submitted their objections to the land acquisition officer (collector) on august 21, 2002. by a notice dated september 16, 2002 (annexure-6 to the writ petition), the land acquisition officer (collector) invited persons interested in the land to produce oral or documentary evidence in support of their objections. for those persons interested in the land, who had not availed of the earlier opportunity to file objections, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2004 (HC)

Shri Kishan Agarwal (Modi) Vs. Dr. Pitambar Dayal

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-16-2004

Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2408; 2004(3)WLC782

goyal, j.1. the defendant-tenant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction passed by learned additional district judge no. 8, jaipur city, jaipur on 21.2.2002. the parties in this appeal would be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. the relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a civil suit for eviction on 12.8.1998 with the averments that the suit house no. h3, chitranjan marg, c-scheme, jaipur was let-out to the defendant in the year 1962 on monthly rent of rs. 265/-. present rate of rent is rs. 2000/- per month. the plaintiff sought eviction on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide requirement, material alterations, assigning, sub-letting or parting with the possession of some parts of the suit premises giving the details with regard to each of the grounds of eviction.3. the defendant in his written statement while admitting the tenancy denied all the grounds of eviction with pleas that the plaintiff is in possession of his own accommodation which is sufficient and the plaintiff either wants to let out this house on higher rent or wants to sell it out,4. on the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:1- d;k oknh dks oknxzlr ifjlj dh lo;a o viuhifru ds fuokl gsrq ;qfdr;qdr ,oa ln~hkfod vko';drk gs &oknh;2- d;k oknxzlr ifjlj ls izfroknh dksfu'dkflr u djus ij oknh dks izfroknh dks fu'dkflr djus ij gksus okyhdfbukbz rqyukred :i ls vf/kd dfbukbz gksxh &oknh;3- d;k oknxzlr ifjlj ds vkaf'kd fu'dklu lsoknh .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 2004 (HC)

Vaman Narayan Ghiya Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-26-2004

Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2354

sunil kumar garg, j.1. this criminal revision petition under section 397 cr.p.c. has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dtd. 13.4.2004 passed by the learned additional sessions judge (fast track), chittorgarh in sessions case no. 130/2003 by which he ordered that charges for offence under section 411, 413 and 120b be framed against the present accused petitioner as well as other accused persons, namely, manoj, badal, and madan mohan and also directed framing of charges against virdi chand for offences under sections 411, 413, 120b under section 379-401 i.p.c.2. it arises in the following circumstances:i) on 18.2.1998, one deep chand lodged a report in the police station rawat bhata district chittorgarh stating inter alia that on the night of 15.2.1998, idol of natraj had been stolen away from the temple and upon this, a case for the offence under section 379 i.p.c. was registered and fir no. 41/98 was chalked out and investigation was started.ii) during investigation of the case, the accused petitioner was got arrested on 14.8.2003 and other accused persons, namely, manoj, badal, madan mohan and virdi chand were also got arrested.iii) during investigation, the police found that duplicate stolen idols were got prepared by the accused petitioner and some other accused persons so that fact of stolen of original idols might remain in secret. the alleged duplicate idol of natraj was seized by the police on. 13.11.1998 and the original idol was first sold to .....

Tag this Judgment!

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