Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2004 Page 4 of about 62 results (0.022 seconds)

Sep 24 2004 (HC)

Surendra Kumar Garg and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-24-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj478; 2005(1)WLC243

r.p. vyas, j.1. the instant appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated august 26, 2003, by which he dismissed the writ petition of the appellant-petitioners on the grounds that to settle the scores against respondent no. 3- smt. surta devi the lady sarpanch of gram panchayat, the petition has been filed, and she is indulged in forgery and prepared forged documents, the petitioner-appellants are free to move a no confidence motion against her. apart from that, the petitioner- appellants are not directly affected by the order of the state government.2. aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned single judge, the instant appeal has been filed.3. in this appeal, the appellant-petitioners have challenged the impugned order of the learned single judge dated august 26, 2003 on two grounds. firstly, it was contended that the learned single judge has committed serious illegality and irregularity while dismissing the writ petition, without taking into consideration the provisions of section 39 and 97 of the rajasthan panchayati raj act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act, 1994')- he also made an attempt to assail the impugned judgment with reference to section 39 of the act, 1994 and submitted that by virtue of the said provisions of the act and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the state government has no jurisdiction to pass such impugned order and there is no reason to hold that the respondent no. 3 is not guilty. secondly, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 2004 (HC)

Chauthu Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-23-2004

Reported in : 2005CriLJ1051; RLW2005(2)Raj775; 2005(1)WLC663

orderprakash tatia, j.1. the facts of the case are that the complainant-manga ram submitted a criminal complaint under sections 420, 465, 466, 467 and 468, i.p.c. read with section 120b. i.p.c. against 11 persons alleging therein that the complainant and the accused nos. 1 to 4 namely, ramu, chautu, sua and chhotu were the co-sharers in agricultural land bearing khasra nos. 231/1, 432/1, 426, 381 and 189 situated in village sunariya and dalatpura. since the complainant-manga ram was not keeping the good health, therefore, his all four brothers (accused) were cultivating the land. the complainant, in his complaint, stated that the accused nos. 2 to 4 were not giving share in the crop also and they started quarrelling with him. not only this but the accused persons by forging thump impression of the complainant, sold the land by registered sale deed dated 14-7-1982. in the complaint, it is submitted that out of two accused, jeevan and kushla, one put his thumb impression representing himself to be the complainant. the complaint was forwarded under section 156(3), cr.p.c. to the concerned police station, upon which case no. 86/1982 was registered. after investigation, the challan was filed against seven accused persons, namely, chauthu, chhotu, sua, jeewan, mal singh, kushala ram and shanker puri for offences under sections 465, 466, 467, 419, 420 and 120b, i.p.c. on 30-11-1984, cognizance against three more persons was taken by the court. those were sohan, bhag chand and madan- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 2004 (HC)

Bundu Khan and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-09-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj858; 2004(4)WLC574

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. the appellants were accused on the file of learned sessions judge, jaipur district jaipur bearing sessions case no. 89/97. learned sessions judge vide judgment dated may 24, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-bundu khan:under section 302 ipc: to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 2.000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. jarina:under section 302/34 ipc: to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 2,000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 2. the prosecution story is woven like this:-on may 24, 1997 around 6.15 pm nawal kishore sharma (pw.7), who was posted as asi at police station bagru, recorded parcha bayan of smt. kamla (pw. 1) at mridul agricultural farm bindayka. in the parcha bayan smt. kamla stated that her husband mahadev (now deceased) was axed by bundu khan while his wife jarina inflicted lathi-blows. mangej (pw.8) and jagdish bagra (pw.18) had seen the incident. thereafter mahadev was taken to hospital by madan dudi and lallu meena in a jeep. on the basis of parcha bayan of kamla initially a case under sections 307, 324 and 323/34 ipc was registered which was later on converted under section 302 ipc. after usual investigation the charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned sessions judge, jaipur district. charges under sections 302 and 302/34 ipc were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 2004 (HC)

Mohd. Irshad @ Dilshad Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-25-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj1106; 2005(1)WLC255

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. the appellant (hereinafter described as 'accused') was placed on trial before the learned special judge (sati nivaran) rajasthan and additional sessions judge, jaipur city, jaipur in sessions case no. 79/1997. learned judge vide judgment dated september 26, 2000 convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under section 302 ipc to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 10,000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. put briefly the prosecution case is that the informant mohd. shafiq @ babu (pw.6) submitted a written report at 7.00 pm of february 28, 1996 at the police station ramganj, jaipur with the averments that around 5 pm on the said day when he was standing near nagina mandi, irshad, ashfaq and guddu suddenly caught hold of siraj (now deceased) and dilshad inflicted blow on the left armpit of siraj. the police station ramganj jaipur registered a case for the offences under sections 307, 341 and 34 ipc and investigation commenced. injury sustained by siraj got examined, which was described in the injury report (ex.p-10) as under:-'stab incised wound of size 3 x 1cm x depth? placed at lt. side lower part of chest at ant. axillary line. the wound margins are regular and clean cut well defined with fresh bleeding.'since siraj succumbed to the said injury the case was converted under section 302 ipc. post mortem on the dead body was performed vide post mortem report (ex.p-13), according to which deceased .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 2004 (HC)

Pata Ram Bheel Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-20-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj415; 2005(1)WLC322

n.n. mathur, j.1. this group of writ petitions has been filed before issuance of the notification for municipal elections seeking direction to- postpone the process of election pointing- out serious defects in delimitation of wards, arbitrary reservation of wards for sc/st, obc & women,2. the main thrust of the challenge is that the delimitation of wards and reservation of seats provided under section 9, 11, 13, and 14 of the rajasthan munici- palities act, 1959, hereinafter referred-to as 'the act of 1959, read with article 243p(g) of the constitution of india have not been done as per the latest census of 2001 but the last census report of 1991. it is not in dispute that the ensuing municipal elections are proposed to be held on the basis of delimitation of wards and reservation of seats as per the last census report of 1991 and not the latest census report of 2001. however, it is submitted inter alia that five years' term of forty five local bodies (corporation/council/board) is going to expire on 28.11.2004. as per the constitutional mandate under article 243u, whereby the elections for the municipal corporations/councils/boards are required to be conducted before expiry of the term but on account of respondent order passed by the delimitation commission, no determination could be made. it is further submitted that no prejudice is caused, as the final electoral roll which is yet to be published, has been prepared on the basis of the latest survey report. a plea has been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 2004 (HC)

D.K. Parihar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-19-2004

Reported in : AIR2005Raj171; [2005(105)FLR694]; RLW2005(3)Raj1783; 2004(4)WLC724

ordersunil kumar garg, j.1. heard at the admission stage.2. this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india has been filed by the petitioner, who is a practitioner lawyer of this court, against the respondents union of india through ministry of law, new delhi and rajasthan high court through registrar general, jodhpur on 20-9-2004 with the prayer that preventive measures be taken to prevent the falling of human values in this court and further, the respondent no. 1 union of india be directed to decide the representation dated 21-6-2004 (ex. 9) made by the petitioner to the minister of law, central government, new delhi.3. from a bare reading of the present writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has filed this petition aggrieved from the conduct, behaviour and judgments passed by some of the hon'ble judges of this court highlighting some of the instances of them. the petitioner has based his petition on several headings such as human values, fight against injustice, all that glitters is not gold, quality of decision, judicial misbehaviour etc. etc.4. the office of this court has listed this petition before the single bench, but according to the petitioner, who himself is a practitioner lawyer of this court, this petition should have been listed before the division bench of this court as according to him, the matter involved in it is of public interest and it should be treated as pil and further, since it has been filed against the high court, therefore .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 2004 (HC)

Popular Packings Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-08-2004

Reported in : 2004(175)ELT33(Raj); RLW2004(3)Raj1894; 2004(3)WLC1

anil dev singh, c.j.1. the dispute raised in the aforesaid petitions is with regard to the question whether hdpe/pp tapes are classifiable under heading no. 39.20 or heading no. 39.22 or heading no. 39.26 of section vii of the schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985. since the controversy in all these writ petitions is the same we may notice the facts of d.b. civil writ petition no. 3737 of 1989 with a view to understand the background in which these matters arise.2. the petitioner in d.b. civil writ petition no. 3737/1989 is m/s kay poly plast pvt. ltd. it is engaged in the business of manufacture of high density poly ethylene tapes (for short, 'hdpe tapes') and poly propylene tapes (for short, 'pp tapes'). it appears that the petitioner purchases hdpe/pp granules. in order to convert the hdpe/pp granules into hdpe/pp tapes, the granules are poured into a machine called extruder. in the extruder these granules are melted by heating. due to heat the granules polymerize into a molten mass. simultaneously with heating, mechanical pressure is applied by rotation of screw. by application of appropriate pressure a film or strip of desired gauge is obtained. this film or strip thus obtained is in a semi-finished condition. the film or strip is cooled with the help of air in the open and is slit into tapes with the help of blades fixed in a machine called godet machine. after silting, the tapes are stretched with the help of heat generated by heaters and by mechanical force. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 2004 (HC)

Genus Overseas Electronics Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-03-2004

Reported in : I(2005)BC340; RLW2005(1)Raj753

k.s. rathore, j.1. the petitioner company is a private company registered under the provisions of the companies act, 1956. the government of rajasthan as also the bureau of industrial promotion took a decision to give incentives to such industries who are interested in setting up a new industrial unit in rajasthan and they were assured that a number of fiscal incentives would be made available for new industries such as capital investment subsidy, sales tax exemption/deferment, octroi exemption, subsidy on d.g. set and testing equipment, etc.2. the petitioner company set up an electronic unit for manufacturing hybrid micro circuits and smt board assembly. the memorandum of understanding was also signed for manufacturing the aforesaid articles with riico on 12.3.1993. in mou also, the petitioner company was assured to provide a facility upto the extent of rs. 45 lacs which included the state subsidy as provided under the state capital investment subsidy scheme for new industries, 1990.3. that state capital investment subsidy scheme for new industries, 1990 (hereinafter to be referred as scheme of 1990) was notified to be operative w.e.f. 1.4.1990 and the same was remained in force upto 31.3.1997. the capital investment subsidy scheme was notified by the government with a view to accelerate the pace of the industrial development in the state of rajasthan.4. the petitioner company set up a plant of electronic unit in sitapura industrial area, jaipur. as per the project submitted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2004 (HC)

Man Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-04-2004

Reported in : RLW2004(3)Raj1997; 2004(3)WLC184

f.c. bansal, j.1. the instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated july 27, 2000 passed by learned special judge (women atrocities & dowry cases), kota whereby appellant man singh has been convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 302 of the indian penal code.2. the brief facts of the prosecution case are that one receiving information from m.b.s. hospital, kota on march 31, 1997 to the effect that smt. manju bai w/o man singh, by caste rajput, age 27 years, r/o - kota has been admitted in the hospital in burnt condition, pw 9 dwarka prasad, the then sho, p.s. gumanpura, kota reached the hospital and recorded 'parcha-bayan' ex. p7 of smt. manju bai at 8:15 p.m. wherein she stated that her marriage took place 14-15 years ago. she is haying to sons and two daughters. today at about 6:00 p.m. her husband and her father-in-law ramcharan were quarreling each other on account of illicit relations of her husband with kamla kumhar. when she told him about his. illicit relations with kamla, he lost his temper, poured oil on her and set her on fire. thereafter he fled away. her father-in-law ramcharan and neighbour hemsingh extinguished the fire. she got burn injuries. thereafter she was brought to the hospital. on the basis of 'parcha-bayan' ex. p7, a case under section 307 ipc was registered at p.s. gumanpura, kota at 9:30 p.m. on 31.3. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 01 2004 (HC)

Umesh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jun-01-2004

Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2336; 2004(4)WLC214

sunil kumar garg, j.1.this criminal revision petition under section 397 cr.p.c. has been filed by the accused petitioner on 20.4.2004 against the order dtd. 5.4.2004 passed by the learned additional sessions judge no. 3, jodhpur in criminal appeal no, 35/2003 by which the learned additional sessions judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 391 cr.p.c.2. it arises in the following circumstances:i) that on 23.1.1998, a fir was lodged by kailash dadhich against the accused petitioner with the police station udai mandir, jodhpur for offences under sections 279 and 304a i.p.c. alleging inter alia that on 20.1.1998 kailash (p.w.2) and chhotu singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) reached caltex petrol pump, jodhpur at about 9.45 p.m. where a scooter no. rj- 19-6m/2979 which was being driver by the accused petitioner came there and the scooter dashed against the deceased after coming on wrong side, as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious as he received injuries on his head and thereafter kailash (p.w.2), umesh (accused petitioner) and rameshwar dadhich (p.w.3) took the deceased to mahatma gandhi hospital and on 23.1.1998, the deceased died in the hospital.ii) on that fir, police started investigation and after investigation the police filed challan against the accused petitioner for offences under sections 279 and 304a i.p.c. on 28.6.99.iii) that after trial, the accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced for offence under .....

Tag this Judgment!

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