Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2005 Page 3 of about 69 results (0.009 seconds)

Apr 28 2005 (HC)

Laxmi NaraIn @ Latoor Vs. the State of Raj. and Ladu

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-28-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1678; 2005(3)WLC780

..... ran away from there, then they started beating us. ladies were also beaten and they drove the tractors towards us to kill us. then to mediate, prabhata, ramchandra gurjar, narain, harsai etc. came there and mediated with great difficulty. if these persons had not been there then our so many persons would have been crushed and killed by tractors. these persons had .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 24 2005 (HC)

Ramesh Chandra and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-24-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2250; 2005(3)WLC697

v.k. bali, j1. appellants ramesh chandra and radhey shyam brothers faced trial for intentionally causing death of mohan lal alongwith satya narain the third appellant herein. the trial culminated into order of conviction and sentence dated 28.10.1999 passed by the additional sessions judge, chhabra, distt. baran. the appellants named above, have been found guilty for offence under section 302 ipc and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.2. the occurrence leading to death of mohan lal as per prosecution case had taken place at 10-11 a.m. on 05.04.1993. the first information report with regard to incident came to be lodged on the basis of a written report made by badri lal dhakar, p.w. 1 on the same day at 02.00 p.m. the fir was entered into and registered by the sho. police station, atru. badri lal in the written report made by him on the basis of which a formal fir was recorded stated that on the eventful day at about 10-11 a.m. in the morning his brother mohan lal was going to the fields from his house. he was also going behind him towards the fields on the way, there falls a field of ramesh son of prahlad brahman. in the fields, ramesh, his younger brother radhey shyam, his mother mohini bai and his relations satya narain, ramesh brahman bamori wala and baboo mali of their village were sitting in a thatched hut. when these .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2005 (HC)

Bharat Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-30-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj9; 2006(1)WLC94

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. out of eight accused persons, who were put to trial in sessions case no. 22/1997, the learned additional sessions judge no. 2, jaipur district, jaipur convicted two and acquitted six vide judgment dated march 23, 2001. the two convicted accused bharat singh and jagdish singh were sentenced as under :jagdish singh:under section 302 ipc:to suffer life imprisonment and fine of rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment.under section 323/34 ipc:to suffer six months simple imprisonment.bharat singh:under section 302/34 ipc:to suffer life imprisonment and fine of rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.under section 323 ipc:to suffer six months simple imprisonment.substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.findings of conviction and acquittal have been assailed in appeal no. 198/2001 and revision petition no. 228/2001, respectively.2. the prosecution story as unfolded during trial is like this-on march 24, 1997 the informant inder singh (pw. 2) submitted a written report (ex.p.5) at the police station chaksu to the effect that in the preceding night around 10.30 pm while the informant along with mittu singh, madan singh, gokul singh, bal singh, bahadur singh, nathu singh and ummed singh were celebrating the festival of holi by singing songs in the chowk of badbawanpura, bharat singh, mohan singh, jagdish singh, samundra singh, guman singh, bhanwar singh, prahlad singh and ragho singh ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2005 (HC)

Sobhag Kanwar (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-14-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj857; 2006(2)WLC280

s.n. jha, c.j.1. the petitioner along with her sister roop bai filed revenue suit for declaration of their rights and possession over the lands of khasra nos. 29, 72, 75/1 and 75/2 measuring 27 bighas and 14 biswas situated in village chapras, tehsil bundi, by order dated 10th april, 1978 the assistant collector-11, bundi dismissed the suit. the petitioner preferred appeal before the revenue appellate authority which was dismissed on 24th april, 1981. she then filed second appeal before the board of revenue which too was dismissed on 10th october, 1988. she seeks quashing of the said orders. she also seeks quashing of the order of collector, bundi dated 03rd november, 1955 holding that the lands escheated to the darbar/state in terms of sub- section 32 of the bundi tenancy act, 1942 on the death of kishan dan. she also seeks quashing of mutation no. 29 dated 02nd february, 1958 mentioning the name of respondent no. 6 modu with respect to the lands. the petitioner further seeks declaration that the provisions of section 32(a) and (b) of the bundi tenancy act, 1942 are unconstitutional. it is mainly because of the provisions of section 32 of the said act, that the petitioner's claim was rejected by the authorities.2. the case of the petitioner briefly is that her father kishan dan was the khatedar tenant of khasra nos. 29, 72, 75/1 and 75/2 measuring 27 bighas and 14 biswas situated in village chapras, tehsil bundi. he died in samvat 2006 (corresponding to 1949 a.d.) leaving .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 03 2005 (HC)

Thandi Ram and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jun-03-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj2843

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. the appellants, three in number, along with mukesh, (herein after to be referred as 'accused') have impugned the judgment dated july 18, 2001 of learned additional sessions judge (fast track) hindaun in sessions case no. 123/2001 (44/97), whereby the accused have been convicted and sentenced as under:(1) thandi ram and (2) ghamandi:under section 302/34 ipc:each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 10000/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.under section 323 ipc:each to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and fine of rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment.(3) madan:under section 302 ipc:to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 10000/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.under section 3/25 arms act:to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of rs. 300/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. the prosecution story is woven like this on march 4, 1997 a written report was submitted by girdhari (pw. 14) at the police station todabhim to the effect that thandi ram and madan, who were armed with guns, opened fire at vishram. ghamandi then said that vishram was still alive but he deserved death, therefore ghamandi also opened fire at vishram. all these persons killed vishram with lathis, pharsi and stones. police station todabhim while incorporating the report in the fir register .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2005 (HC)

Deepak Goyal (Dr.) Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-28-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj1043; 2005(2)WLC584

dalip singh, j.1. these special appeals through filed against separate judgments in (i) s.b. civil writ petition no. 1676/2004 dr. mukesh garg and ors. v. state of rajasthan and ors. decided on 16.06.2004 and (ii) s.b. civil writ petition no. 881/2004 dr. deepak goyal v. university of rajasthan decided on 25.02.2004 raise a common question, inasmuch as, a challenge has been made to the provisions contained in the instructions issued for the pre-p.g. medical examination, 2004 in so far as in the category of 'in-service doctors' who have rendered 2/3 years rural service the state government has permitted by way of said instructions in the eligibility clause in annexure-1 in the writ petition of dr. deepak goyal. the candidates who have worked in the rural areas continuously for three years in the service of state in the category of ad hoc/temporary appointees or on consolidated pay to be eligible as 'in-service' category along with such candidates who are duly selected by the rajasthan public service commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the r.p.s.c.') and holding the appointments under rajasthan medical and health service rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules of 1963') in pursuance of their selection by the r.p.s.c.2. in nutshell, the case of the appellants is that they are in- service candidates who have been duly selected by the r.p.s.c. and are members of rajasthan medical and health service under the rules of 1963, whereas, the candidates who are working on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 2005 (HC)

Highway Tyre Retread Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-29-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj521; 2006(1)WLC764

dinesh maheshwari, j. 1. the petitioner, highway tyre retread pvt. ltd. is a private limited company engaged in the business of retreading of tyres. the petitioner applied for a loan to the rajasthan financial corporation which was sanctioned to the tune of rs. 13.1 lacs. the petitioner also applied for the sanction of investment subsidy under a scheme called 'the state capital investment subsidy scheme for new industries, 1990' (hereinafter referred to as the scheme/the subsidy scheme'). the application of the petitioner for grant of subsidy was allowed and the petitioner was sanctioned an amount of rs. 2,09,6007- being 20% of the amount of fixed capital investment as admissible for the grant of capital investment subsidy under the aforesaid scheme on 16.3.1991 in the first meeting of the district level committee ('dlc' for short) held on 16.3.1991. an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondents state of rajasthan and rajasthan financial corporation ('rfc' for short) on 31.5.1991 and an amount of rs. 1,57,2007- was disbursed towards the sanctioned subsidy by way of a cheque dated 21.6.1991.2. it appears that the fifth meeting of state level committee ('slc' for short) was held on 26.6.1991 in which a question raised by rfc as to whether the tyre retreading units could be considered for subsidy under the scheme was taken up for consideration and the slc decided that these units were not eligible for pursuance to this decision, the directorate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2005 (HC)

State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Madho Singh Bhati

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-16-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1347; 2006(2)WLC14

r.s. chauhan, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. this appeal is barred by 83 days. the order under appeal is dated 19.12.2003. the memo of appeal was presented on 21.5.2004. the period for filing the special appeal from the date of the order of the learned single judge to the division bench is 30 days excluding the period spent in receiving the certified copy of the order under appeal. the office pointed out that the appeal is barred by 83 days and not accompanied with application under section 5 of the limitation act for condonation of delay. the application under section 5 of the limitation act has been filed finally on 21.12.2004 after taking number of adjournments including two from court on 30.11.2004 and 9.12.2004.3. the fact which has not been disputed is that on 21.5.2004, the memo of appeal was filed. hence, without furnishing any reason which prevailed with any of the authorities taking decision for filing of appeal within limitation, the delay cannot be condoned.4. the vague assertion that after receipt of the copy of order, it was sent in the office for legal opinion to executive officer, municipal board, balotra on 19.1.2004, who in turn sent the matter to the director, local self bodies, jaipur and thereafter the matter was also moved to the additional commissioner, jodhpur. thereafter, after receiving the matter in the office of the director, local self bodies, jaipur, the same was processed at different levels, and ultimately the appeal was filed on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2005 (HC)

Arun Chauhan (Dr.) Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-01-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)ESC1250; [2005(105)FLR728]; RLW2005(2)Raj1089; 2005(2)WLC719

n.n. mathur, j.1. the instant appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge quashing the order transferring fifth respondent dr. vijay laxmi sharma from mahatma gandhi hospital, bhilwara to shri jawahar hospital jaisalmer.2. the undisputed facts are that fifth respondent dr. vijay laxmi sharma was posted as senior specialist in gynaecology at m.g. hospital, bhilwara. she was also holding the charge of principal medical officer, bhilwara. the appellant dr. arun chauhan, a junior specialist in gynaecology, who was initially transferred from asind to bijollya, was accommodated at bhilwara on the post held by fifth respondent. the said order of transfer was challenged by fifth respondent before the rajasthan service appellate tribunal, jaipur. the tribunal dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 28.7.2004. fifth respondent challenged the said order by way of a writ petition, which has been allowed and the order of transfer has been quashed by the impugned order.3. mr. m.s. singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has advanced twin contentions before us. firstly, it is submitted that the learned single judge decided the matter without hearing the appellant inasmuch as that on show cause notice for admission being served, he was advised not to put in appearance as the writ petition itself might be dismissed at the admission stage. in absence of notice for hearing, it was not open for the learned single judge to decide the appeal finally. secondly, it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 2005 (HC)

Maharaj Himmat Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-18-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Raj94; 2006(1)WLC278

orderprakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the present controversy has a chequered history as the controversy started when the union of india issued a notification under section 23(1) of the defence and internal security of india act, 1971 (for short 'the act of 1971') for requisitioning a total land measuring 645 acres. copy of the notification has been placed on record by the petitioners as annex. ii. the description of the property has been given in the notification which is as under: ______________________________________________________________ name of khasra area in acres remark village number jodhpur 298 7.20 state govt. land jodhpur 297 13.60 area 2 1.00 acres jodhpur 426 296.20 private land area jodhpur 632 62.00 acres jodhpur 632/1 158.00 jodhpur 632/4 digeri 170.00 total : 645.00 _____________________________________________________________ 3. it appears from the facts that so far as requisitioning the property by the union of india under the act of 1971 was never challenged by the petitioners and today also, there is no dispute about the requisitioning of the property by the union of india mentioned in the notification dated 6-5-1976 (annex. 11). how much land was acquired by the said notification is also not in dispute. however, the petitioners apprehending that their land may be acquired by the state government under the provisions under sections 7-a and 9-a of the rajasthan land reforms and acquisition of land owner's estates act, 1963 ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

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