Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2004 Page 2 of about 62 results (0.012 seconds)

Jan 23 2004 (HC)

Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-23-2004

Reported in : I(2004)DMC746; RLW2004(2)Raj1319; 2004(2)WLC61

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. the appellant and co-accused gyarsi were indicted before the learned additional sessions judge (fast track) ajmer in sessions case no. 15/2001 (5/98) for having committed murder of smt. parvati. the learned trial judge vide judgment dated august 23, 2001 acquitted co-accused gyarsi but convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-under section 302 ipc to suffer imprisonment for life arid fine of rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer 3 months simple imprisonment. under section 498a ipc to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine rs. 500 in default to further suffer 1, 1/2 months simple imprisonment. the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. on november 19, 1997 while smt. parvati (now deceased) was admitted in jln hospital ajmer, sho police station alwar gate ajmer recorded her parcha bayan (ex.p-12). in the parcha bayan parvati stated that a day before i.e. on november 18, 1997 at 11.00 pm her husband madan (appellant) poured kerosine oil on her and set her ablaze. he used to demand dowry, ornaments and scooter which could not be met therefore he decided to kill her. nawal kishore, her devar (brother in law) then called a doctor to treat her in the house. thereafter her father brought her to the government hospital. parcha bayan of parvati was taken by constable devendra singh (pw. 15) and he gave it to mahila police station at 9.30 pm, where a case under sections 307 and 498a ipc was registered against the appellant and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2004 (HC)

Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-02-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj902; 2005(1)WLC71

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. since the controversy involved in the instant appeal attracts the provisions contained in the juvenile justice (care and protection of children) act, 2000 (for short 'the j.j. act'), we proceed to dispose of the matter finally at the orders stage.2. as per the prosecution story, the appellant was indicted in criminal case registered at the police station beawar on october 12, 1998. he was arrested and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. in due course the case came up for trial before the learned additional sessions judge (fast track), beawar. charges under sections 302/34, 307/34, 460/34, 459/34, and 324/34 ipc were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses and got exhibited 36 documents. in his explanation under section 313 cr.p.c., the appellant claimed innocence. no defence witness was, however, examined. on hearing the final submissions, the trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-under section 302/34 ipc: to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fineof rs. 1000/-. in default of payment of fineto further undergo 6 months' simpleimprisonment.under section 460/34 ipc:- to suffer simple imprisonment for ten yearsand to pay a fine of rs. 500/-. in default ofpayment of fine to further undergo threemonths' s.i.under section 458/34 ipc:- to suffer simple imprisonment for six yearsand to pay a fine of rs. 400/-. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2004 (HC)

Satya NaraIn Modani Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-22-2004

Reported in : (2004)190CTR(Raj)507; [2005]272ITR138(Raj)

1. these appeals are directed against the impugned order of learned tribunal, dt. 13th march, 2003. it was ordered that both the appeals shall 0be disposed of at admission stage.2. the assessee-appellant has raised the following questions of law in gt appeal :'(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the provisions of section 4(1)(a) of gt act were attracted and that there was any deemed gift taxable in the hands of the assessee ?(2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the nomination of membership seat by the assessee to another person is a transfer of property within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of the gt act and this is subject to tax as deemed gift under section 4(1)(a) of the gt act ?(3) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the membership seat of a stock exchange is a 'property' within the meaning of the provisions of section 4(1)(a) of the gt act or merely a personal privilege granted to a member by the stock exchange ?(4) whether the deemed gift under section 4(1)(a) of the gt act can be charged to tax with reference to an amount of consideration for which assessee has been charged to income-tax by considering the same amount of consideration as full value of consideration received for the purpose of section 48 r/w section 45 of the it act, 1961 ?(5) whether the burden under section 4(1)(a) of the gt act, 1958, is not on the department to prove the market value of the property transferred and whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

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!

Sep 29 2004 (HC)

Bhateri Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-29-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj877; 2004(4)WLC593

k.s. rathore, j.1. this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the notice for no confidence motion dated 11.8.2004.2. this court while issuing notice given liberty to the respondents to proceed with no-confidence motion which was scheduled to be held on 21.8.2004 at 11 am, but the respondents were restrained not to declare the result without seeking permission of this court.3. the case of the petitioner is that while serving notice for no-confidence motion upon the petitioner, the respondents have not complied with the mandatory provisions of rule 21 of the rajasthan panchayati raj rules, 1996. as per rule 21, for the purposes of no-confidence motion, 15 clear days notice should be given. the said rule was later on amended vide notification dated 6.1.2000 and instead of 15 clear days, 7 clear days has been added in provision of section 37 of the rajasthan panchayati raj act, 1994.4. as per direction of this court, the state has submitted the original record of the panchayat samiti.5. upon perusal of the record, it reveals that resolution to lake the no confidence motion against the petitioner was passed by the members of panchayal on 2.8.2004. to this effect, notice was issued to all members on 11.8.2004 notifying that meeting for no confidence motion will be held on 21.8.2004 at 11 am. the notices were served upon the members on 18.8.2004.6. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, notices were served upon the members on 18.8.2004 which are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2004 (HC)

Rajendra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-13-2004

Reported in : AIR2004Raj229

ordersunil kumar garg, j.1. the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under article 226/227 of the constitution of india on 6-8-2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 7-7-2003 (annex. 6) passed by respondent no. 2 (superintending engineer, irrigation circle, hanumangarh junction) by which the superintending engineer (respondent no. 2) dismissed the appeal (annex. 3) filed by the petitioner against respondent no. 4 (madan lal) and upheld the order dated 3-1-2002 (annex. 2) passed by the respondent no. 3 (executive engineer, irrigation division-ii, hanumangarh) by which respondent no. 3 (executive engineer) allowed the application filed by respondent no. 4 (madan lal) and sanctioned another naka (drain) from the khasra no. 512/434 belonging to the petitioner for supplying water to his agricultural field situated in khasra no. 513/434 be quashed and set aside.2. the facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under :(i) that the petitioner and respondent no. 4 (madan lal) both are neighbourers having adjacent agricultural fields to each other and doing farming on their field. the land bearing khasra no. 512/434 belongs to the petitioner and the land bearing khasra no. 513/ 434 belongs to the respondent no. 4 (madan lal).(ii) further case of the petitioner is that water to the field of respondent no. 4 (madan lal) is supplied from pakka drain (naka) made in the outskirts of petitioner's .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2004 (HC)

Banshilal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-11-2004

Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2316; 2004(3)WLC483

anil dev singh, c.j.1. this appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated april 27, 2004 rendered in s.b. civil writ petition no. 1015/2004. the facts leading to the appeal are as follows.2. the appellant herein was elected as sarpanch of gram panchayat karera in january 2000. a written notice of intention to make the motion expressing want of confidence in the sarpanch, signed by 14 persons out of 21 elected members including the up- sarpanch, was presented before the chief executive officer, zila parishad, bhilwara on 16th february, 2004 along with a copy of the letter requesting the competent authority to place the proposed motion before the panchayat for consideration (annex.p/1 to the writ petition). on receipt of the written notice, the chief executive officer directed the additional chief executive officer to submit report with regard to the identity of the persons who had signed and presented the motion. the chief executive officer by his order dated 20th of february 2004 (annex. p/3 to the writ petition) convened the meeting of the gram panchayat for 4th march at 10 a.m. to consider the no confidence motion against the appellant.3. aggrieved by the order dated 20th february 2004, the appellant fifed a writ petition. in the writ petition, the appellant herein prayed that the order dated 20th of february 2004 (annex.p/3) be quashed and in case the motion if carried out against the appellant, the same may be declared null and void. during the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2004 (HC)

Ram Deo Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-16-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj765; 2004(4)WLC579

anil dev singh, c.j.1. this appeal arises in the following circumstances:-2. the appellant was elected as sarpanch of gram panchayat singhrawat, panchayat samiti dhod, district sikar. some of the members moved a motion expressing want of confidence in the appellant. on january 29, 2003 the third respondent, the chief executive officer, zila parishad, sikar, convened a meeting of the gram panchayat for consideration of the no-confidence motion on february 10, 2003. on februarys, 2003 the state election commission declared february 16, 2003 as the date for by- elections for the two vacant seats of the gram panchayat singhrawat. the appellant feeling aggrieved by the order of the third respondent dated january 29, 2003, filed a writ petition mainly on the ground that since the by-elections were to be held on february 13, 2003 the fixation of date for consideration of the no-confidence motion before february 16, 2003 was an arbitrary act on the part of the third respondent. the learned single judge on consideration of the matter, dismissed the writ petition. thereupon the appellant filed the instant appeal. along with the appeal the appellant moved an application for interim relief. the division bench on july 7, 2004 while admitting the appeal, permitted the appellant to continue to work as sarpanch of the gram panchayat singhrawat, panchayat samiti dhod, district sikar. the matter has now come up before us for final disposal of the appeal.3. we have heard the learned counsel for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 2004 (HC)

Kanti Lal Vs. Legal Representatives of Late Smt. Chand Kumari

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-07-2004

Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj1190; 2004(2)WLC26

prakash tatia, j.1. this second appeal by the plaintiff- appellant, is against the judgment and decree dated 5.4.1980 passed by the learned addl. district judge no. 2, jodhpur whereby the learned addl. district judge no. 2 set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1978 passed by the trial court decreeing the suit for eviction against respondent-defendant smt. chand kumari (now deceased), under the rajasthan premises (control of rent and eviction) act. 1950 (for short the act of 1950).2. the appellant-landlord-plaintiff filed the present suit for eviction of his respondent-tenant-defendants; smt. chand kumari and her son narendra kumar. according to the plaintiff, the suit property described in para no. 1 of the plaint was let out to the defendants and the defendants were paying the rent @ of rs. 50/- per month. according to plaintiff, the defendants have committed default in payment of rent as they did not pay the rent of the premises to the plaintiff from june, 1968 to april, 1970. the plaintiff also claimed rs. 500/- which was due in defendants on account of arrears of rent of the period prior to june 1968. the second ground for eviction was subletting of the premises by the defendants after closer of their business, which they were running in the name of m/s. ganesh timber co., to one shri rashid and another person shri mukand chand and to a firm shri rathore transport third ground for decree for eviction against the tenant was the personal need of the plaintiff who .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 13 2004 (HC)

State Vs. Prakash Chand Kabra and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-13-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj662; 2004(4)WLC153

y.r. meena, j.1. these appeals are directed against the similar orders of learned single judge dated 24th july, 2002. as in all these appeals common issue is involved for the consideration of this bench, we have heard all these appeals and decide them by this common order.2. the short controversy involved in these appeals is whether the commissioner has exercised his revisional power, under the proviso to sub-section (2) of the section 14 of the rajasthan motor vehicles taxation act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1951'), in accordance with law?3. the common facts in these appeals are that the petitioners are holding all india permits of tourist buses. the permits for these buses have been granted by the regional transport authority, udaipur. the district transport cum taxation officer, rajsamand determined the road tax and special road tax in respect of motor vehicles of the petitioners. while determination of tax was in the process by the taxation officer, it was considered by him that concerned motor vehicles when travelled out of state of rajasthan for sometime, for such period when the vehicles are out of state of rajasthan, these petitioners are not liable to pay the tax for that period and the petitioner claimed exemption for tax for that period. having been satisfied with the claim of the petitioner, the taxation officer under section 3 of the act of 1951 granted exemption from payment of special road tax for the period for which the motor vehicle was .....

Tag this Judgment!


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