Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2006 Page 3 of about 88 results (0.030 seconds)

Mar 20 2006 (HC)

Daya Singh Lahoriya @ Rajeev Sudan @ Vinay Kumar Vs. State of Rajastha ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-20-2006

Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj1976; 2006(4)WLC240

..... to sale (ex. p. 10) and identified accused daya singh and suman sood. ashu lal lalwani (pw. 13), brahmanand gupta (pw. 14), chandra kumar (pw. 21) were the brokers who mediated in the sale/purchase of the house identified accused daya singh and suman sood. surendra kumar (pw. 33), employee of union bank of india delhi proved the application form for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2006 (HC)

Ratan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-29-2006

Reported in : 2006CriLJ3356; RLW2006(3)Raj1998; 2006(3)WLC140

narendra kumar jain, j.1. this appeal, on behalf of accused ratan lal son of shri roop ram, is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2002, passed by the additional district & sessions judge, lakshmangarh (alwar), in sessions case no. 99/2000, whereby he was convicted under section 376(2)(f) of the indian penal code (for short, mpc) and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment, for the charge that he committed forcefully sexual intercourse with a minor girl sanju, aged about 4 years, on 9.8.2000.2. shri dharam gopal chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, contended that there is no substantive evidence in the present case about rape committed by the accused- appellant as neither the prosecutrix has been examined in the present case nor there is any eye witness thereto. he also contended that prosecutrix sanju was not examined in spite of fact that after hearing the arguments from both the sides on 19.9.2002 and on fixing the case for orders on 20.9.2002, the additional public prosecutor filed an application under section 311 of the code of criminal procedure (for short, 'cr.p.c.'), to produce the prosecutrix sanju. the trial court allowed the said application and vide its order dated 20.9.2002 granted an opportunity to the additional public prosecutor, to produce the prosecutrix sanju but still she was not examined, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 2006 (HC)

Chhitar Lal @ Sita Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-21-2006

Reported in : RLW2007(2)Raj1527

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. chhitar lal @ sita ram and madan lal, the appellants herein, were put to trial before the learned additional sessions judge (fast track) no. 1 jhalawar, who vide judgment dated april 9, 2002 convicted and sentenced them as under:chhitar lal @ sita ram under section 302 ipc:to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 500/- default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.under section 307/34 ipc:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of rs. 300/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.under section 326/34 ipc:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.under section 324/34 ipc:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.madan lal:under section 302/34 ipc:to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.under section 307 ipc:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of rs. 300/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.under section 326 ipc:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. the prosecution story is woven like thus:on november 30,1998 kanwar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 2006 (HC)

Rakesh Kumar Sirwal @ Mohd Rashid Khan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-24-2006

Reported in : RLW2007(1)Raj223

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. rakesh kumar sirwal @ mohd rashid khan, jiya ur rehman and ms. samima khatun @ samim jahan, appellants herein, were found guilty for having committed murder of a taxi driver. learned sessions judge sikar, before whom the appellants were tried, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:under section 302/34 ipc:each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.jiya ur rehman:under section 3/25 arms act:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and tine of rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.during the pendency of appeal appellant rakesh kumar sirwal @ mohd rashid khan died in the intervening night of august 13 and 14, 2002 in the jail hospital.2. a criminal case under section 302 and 364 ipc was registered on january 6, 1998 at police station laxmangarh on the basis of parcha bayan (ex. d-6) of madan lal (pw. 32) wherein he stated that on the said day around 7 pm while he entered in bada he saw a white car that got halted suddenly. two persons came out of the car and started beating another person who was standing back side of the car. a woman was also standing nearby. hearing alarm madan lal rushed towards them. in the meanwhile he heard sound of fire. when madan lal reached near them, one person threatened him. all the three persons then fled away. the injured person told .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 2006 (HC)

Cadila Health Care Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-18-2006

Reported in : 2007CriLJ1899

prem shanker asopa, j.1. by this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the complaint, criminal proceedings and the order of issuance of process passed by the chief judicial magistrate taking cognizance of the offences against any and/or all of the accused in criminal case no. 468/2002 pending before the chief judicial magistrate, bundi. petitioners have further prayed that the provisions of section 34, 34(1) and 34(1) of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 (in short 'the act of 1940') be declared to be unconstitutional and ultra vires articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of india.2. at the outset, counsel for the petitioners submitted that they do not press challenge to the vires of section 34, 34(1) and 34(2) of the act of 1940 and the said issue may be left open. we have recorded statement of the counsel for the petitioner and granted liberty to challenge the vires of the aforesaid provisions at appropriate stage. therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the provisions of the act of 1940 as it is.3. briefly stated, relevant facts of the case are that petitioner no. 1 is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture, marketing, selling, distributing and research of pharmaceutical products. petitioners nos. 2 and 3 (accused no. 3 and 4) are directors of the company whereas petitioners no. 4 to 8 (accused nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8) were power of attorney holders of the company at the relevant time. the dispute leading to filing of the complaint and the present writ .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2006 (HC)

Krishna Gopal Vs. Ramchandra and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-11-2006

Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj2723; 2006(3)WLC752

prakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the appellant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 18m.1985 by which the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises was decreed on the sole ground of default in payment of rent for six months of the period immediately preceding the filing of the suit. the trial court before decreeing the suit, struck off defence of the defendant under section 13(5) of the rajasthan premises (control of rent and eviction) act, 1950 (for short 'the act of 1950'), as the defendant failed to pay the rent during pendency of the suit in time. the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 18.4.1986 has been upheld by the first appellate court by judgment and decree dated 22.7.1986.3. brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the composite suit seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds, namely, default in payment of rent, sub-letting of the suit premises by the tenant and the personal bonafide necessity of the landlord. since one of the grounds for eviction of the tenant was default, therefore, the trial court determined the arrears of rent by order dated 23.1.1978 and directed the tenant to either pay or deposit the rent in the court. at that time both the parties agreed that arrears of rent may be calculated from the month march, 1977 despite the fact that the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the tenant with the allegations that the tenant has not paid .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2006 (HC)

Rajasthan Survey and Settlement Employees Association Vs. State and or ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-27-2006

Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1006; 2006(2)WLC579

n.p. gupta, j.1. this petition has been filed by the association of survey-ors/amins of the settlement department, claiming that the provisions contained in rajasthan civil services (revised pay scales) rules 1989, in short the rules of 1989, in so far as they provide pay in the scale of 950-1680, to the settlement surveyors, be declared illegal, and the respondents be directed to pay to the settlement surveyors in the scale of 1200-2050, with consequential benefits. other relief claimed is, for issuance of direction to the respondents, to grant hard duty allowance, so also that the provisions contained in rule 15 of the rajasthan traveling allowance rules, 1971, be declared illegal, and a direction has been claimed, to grant t.a. & d.a., to the settlement surveyors.2. it is alleged by the petitioner, in the writ petition, that the revenue work of the department is mainly divided in two parts, survey and settlement, and revenue. survey and settlement department conducts the survey of the lands other than urban lands, and after conducting the survey the settlement record is prepared, which records measurements of the lands, its situation, khasra number, classification, and determination of rent, and on that basis revenue records are prepared, for determining rights and titles of the parties. in the settlement department, duties of settlement surveyors have been prescribed by the settlement commissioner, as detailed in annex.-1. it is then alleged, that like rajasthan, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 2006 (HC)

Prem Singh (Deceased) Through His Lr.S Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-07-2006

Reported in : AIR2007Raj64; RLW2006(3)Raj2072; 2006(3)WLC184

prem shanker asopa, j.1. the instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.10.2004 passed by the civil judge (sr. division), dholpur whereby the written statement dated 26.5.2004 along with counter claim filed by legal representatives nos. 2/1 to 2/5 of deceased-defendant no. 2 prem singh has not been taken on record on the objection of defendant no.l madan singh that the written statement has been filed by deceased prem singh wherein the amendment of similar counter claim was rejected on 25.1.2001, therefore, the legal representatives are bound by the same and they have no individual right to take inconsistent pleas by re- agitating the same.2. briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent no.l filed a civil suit for partition and possession against madan singh, prem singh and ors.... on the death of prem singh, amended suit was filed by the plaintiff and the present petitioners were also brought on record as legal representatives of deceased prem singh.3. a bare perusal of the contents of the writ petition would reveal that the civil suit for partition and possession was filed by plaintiff-respondent no. 1 smt. savitri devi d/o late shri dilvar singh thakur, w/o ratan singh negi against madan singh, prem singh and ors. claiming possession of l/5th share in the property. deceased prem singh in his written statement admitted l/5th share of the plaintiff in the property but the legal representatives of the deceased have filed counter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2006 (HC)

Prakash Kaur and anr. Vs. Kulvindra Singh and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-27-2006

Reported in : 2008ACJ1414

manak mohta, j.1. the instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 4.12.1998 passed by the judge, motor accidents claims tribunal, sri ganganagar in m.a.c.t. claim case no. 75 of 1996 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants has been dismissed.2. briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellants' son, milkiyat singh, was cleaner on truck no. rj 13-g 1755 and the said truck was going to ambala (punjab) being driven by the driver, one sukhveer singh. on 4.9.1995, when the truck reached at village ghinola (punjab), at that time another truck no. rrc 7166 also reached there, which was being driven by kulvindra singh, respondent no. 1. both the trucks stayed there, tyre of truck no. rrc 7166 was to be replaced. kulvindra singh, his cleaner and milkiyat singh started to replace the tyre of the back wheel of truck no. rrc 7166. when they were replacing the tyre, the jack of the truck ( slipped as the land was wet due to rain, as a result of which, the truck turned turtle and milkiyat singh was caught beneath the truck and he sustained grievous injuries resulting in his death.3. it was stated in the claim petition that incident took place due to negligence of kulvindra singh. at the time of the incident, the deceased was aged 25 years and was earning rs. 2,500 per month. due to the untimely death, the claimants-appellants suffered a loss. the claimants-appellants have been deprived from the income of their son, therefore, they .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 2006 (HC)

Raju @ Rajkumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-17-2006

Reported in : RLW2007(1)Raj604

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. raju @ raj kumar and khuma ram, the appellants in these two appeals, and eleven others were found involved in the incident that occurred on november 25, 1998. since appellant khuma ram absconded, appellant raju and others were tried in sessions case no. 34/1999 before the learned additional sessions judge no. 2, sikar. after appellant khuma ram surrendered, he was also tried in sessions case no. 33/2002 (34/1999). learned trial judge vide judgments dated january 04, 2001 and march 15, 2004 convicted and sentenced the appellants raju @ raj kumar and khuma ram as under:raju @ rajkumar:under section 302 ipc:to suffer imprisonment for life and fine rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. under section 323/149 ipc:fine of rs. 1000/- in default to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. under section 147 ipc:fine of rs. 1000/- in default to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. under section 3/25 arms act:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. under section 3/27 arms act:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. khuma ram: under section 302 ipc:to suffer imprisonment for life and fine rs. 1000, in default to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. under section 323/149 ipc:fine of rs. 1000/- in default to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. under section 147 ipc:fine of rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. under section 3/25 arms act:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for .....

Tag this Judgment!


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