Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2008 Page 1 of about 70 results (0.009 seconds)

Dec 12 2008 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Rent Tribunal and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-12-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj1947

..... arbitral procedure which is fair and capable of meeting the needs of specific arbitration and minimizing the supervisory role of the court and to permit the arbitral tribunal to use mediation; but, at the same time, the prayer for reference can be made if the subject-matter in question before the court is enumerated in the clause for arbitration in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 2008 (HC)

Ram Rai Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-18-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1674

mahesh bhagwati, j.1. challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of conviction dated 21st february, 1986, whereby the special judge anti corruption cases jaipur convicted the accused appellant ram rai s/o shri narain lal by caste balai, r/o of niwai in the offences under section 161 of ipc and section 5(l)(d)(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as act 1947) and sentenced him as under:under section 161 of ipcone year rigorous imprisonment.section 5(l)(d)(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1947one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment of two months. both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. the nub of the prosecution story as unfolded by pw.l abdul aziz is as under: that on 9th april, 1980 the complainant pw-1 abdul aziz submitted a complaint ex. p/l to dy. s.p. anti corruption department, ajmer stating that the accused ram rai land records officer tehsil devi, district tonk, has solicited for a bribe of rs. 200 for mutation of his land. he has no intention to pay the gratification to the land record inspector, hence necessary action should be taken. the complainant also stated that having settled the time and the place for giving this bribe amount to the accused, he shall again come on 10th april, 1980. since the complainant could not manage 200 rupees, he approached the dy. s.p. a.c.d. on 11th april, 1980 and apprised the dy. s.p. that .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2008 (HC)

Mool Chand Vs. Competent Officer, Zone-b-1, Jaipur Development Authori ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-30-2008

Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2544

narendra kumar jain, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 18th february, 2005 (annexure-4), passed by the divisional commissioner, jaipur, dismissing his appeal against the order dated 23rd june, 2001 (annexure-3) passed by the authorized officer, zone-b-1, jaipur development authority, jaipur, whereby, the authorized officer passed an order under section 90b of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the act of 1956') read with section 63(1)(ii) of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the act of 1955') terminating the tenancy rights and resumption of the disputed land.3. the tehsildar, posted for zone-b-1 of jaipur development authority and duly authorized by the state government, vide notification dated 23.09.1999, filed an application with affidavit before the authorized officer that over the land situated in village manoharpura, tehsil sanganer bearing khasra nos. 194 to 202, 204 to 210, 244, 247, 249, 259, 260, 104 to 107, 138, 139, 127 to 131, 135, 136, 203a, 118 to 122, 114/681, 116/682, 117/683, 123, 126, 261 to 264, 132 to 134,137, 143, belonging to non-applicants no. 1 to 8, the recorded tenants, a residential scheme in the name of siddharth nagar 'h' has been chalked out by the new pinkcity grah nirman sahakari samiti (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the respondent no. 2 housing society') and the said land is being .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2008 (HC)

Purshottam and ors. Vs. NaraIn and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-10-2008

Reported in : AIR2008Raj154

order1. by this appeal the appellant seeks to challenge order of the learned single judge dt. 5.1.2006, whereby the learned single judge allowed the writ petition of the present private respondents no. 1 to 5, and thereby set aside the judgment of the learned board of revenue dated 6.1.1990.2. the brief facts of the case are, that the appellants filed a suit in the court of s.d.m. vallabh nagar for declaration of khatedari rights, alleging interalia, that the land in question belonged to the deceased kana, being the father of the defendants no. 2 to 6, and husband of defendant no. 1, which was sold by him to the plaintiff on jeth sudi 13, samvat 2009, and by executing the sale deed the possession was delivered. then, lalu and manga also sold their share to the plaintiffs' father on phagan sud 7, samvat 2009, by executing sale deed, and delivered possession. then, the fourth brother also sold land to the plaintiffs some 4-5 years before commencement of the tenancy act, and thus the land is in khatedari, and use and occupation of the plaintiffs. however, since the land is not recorded in their name, they want a declaration of the khatedari rights. the plea of adverse possession was also taken. then, it was pleaded that the defendant no. 2 is trying to take proceedings for their dispossession, alleging them to be mortgagees. thus, the suit was filed. 3. this suit was contested, interalia contending, that the alleged sale deed is unregistered and unstamped, and denying the theory .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 2008 (HC)

Bhanwari (Smt.) and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-18-2008

Reported in : RLW2008(4)Raj3670

chand mal totla, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. this appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.11.2000 passed by the court of learned additional sessions judge, ratangarh (churu) in sessions case no. 42/1992 (91/1989). there was a cross case and that was sessions case no. 54/1992 (34/1990) wherein the accused persons, members of the complainant party in the present case, were convicted by the same court i.e. court of learned additional sessions judge, ratangarh (churu) by judgment and order dated 15.11.2000. the appeal against cross case being sb. criminal appeal no. 682/2000 is also being decided today by separate judgment.3. in village dassusar in town simsiya, agriculture land bearing khasra nos. 229, 357 and 30 total measuring 78 bighas 10 biswas was the agricultural land of one moola ram. mst. seu devi @ mst. sua devi is wife of moola ram. moola ram and seu devi had no issue. moola ram had two brothers kalu ram and chela ram. kalu ram also had no issue. only chela ram had issue. moola ram died about 25 years ago from the year 1988. jetha ram claimed that he was adopted by moola ram and on 27.10.1958, moola ram executed a declaration (pratigya patra) (ex.d/3) admitting jetha ram's adoption, which was verified from the gram panchayat simsiya. however, after the death of moola ram, name of only seu devi was entered in the revenue record. part of the said land was purchased by one girdhari and his son nirayana ram by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 2008 (HC)

Bajrang Lal and ors. Vs. Dal Chand and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-21-2008

Reported in : AIR2009Raj36

orderprakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the appellants are aggrieved against the impugned order dated 26-4-2005 by which the first appellate court - court of the additional district judge, ratangarh (churu) dismissed the appeal of the appellants as abated due to the death of defendant/respondent dal chand as in regular first appeal, the plaintiff/appellant did not choose to file any application for bringing on record the legal representatives of dal chand.3. brief facts of the case are that one of the defendants khetu lal took loan from another defendant revat mal. said revat mal filed a suit for recovery of the money which was decreed by the trial court as back as on 20-10-1965. said revat mal submitted execution petition no. 46/67 for recovery of the said decretal amount of rs. 609/- only and in the said execution, the house of judgment debtor khetu mal was auctioned for a consideration of rs. 9,775/-. the reserve price was rs. 5,000/- only. after the said auction, the present appellants - sons of judgment debtor khetu mal filed a suit for declaration that the suit property was ancestral property of khetu mal and, therefore, he could not have mortgaged it to another creditor dal chand. they also sought relief for cancellation of the mortgage deed executed in favour of dal chand. it may be relevant to mention here that dal chand also obtained the decree on 26-1-1971 for the house in question and the final decree was passed in favour of dal chand. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 2008 (HC)

Subhkaran Singh Vs. Kishan Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-24-2008

Reported in : 2009CriLJ2298; RLW2009(3)Raj2117

orderraghuvendra s. rathore, j.1. this criminal misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 14-12-1989 passed by the learned additional chief judicial magistrate, no. 1, alwar, whereby he had rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner and accepted the final report, submitted by the investigation agency in f.i.r. no. 24/1985. being aggrieved of the said order, the complainant-petitioner preferred a revision petition and the same came to be dismissed by the learned additional sessions judge, no. 2, alwar on 2-7-1998.2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner had lodged a report on 17-2-1985, at police station malkhera, district alwar, for the offences under sections 120-b, 416, 467, 468 and 420, i.p.c. after registration of the report, the police investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that no offence was made out and, as such, they submitted a final report before the concerning court. the petitioner-complainant then filed a protest petition before the learned magistrate. thereafter, the statement of the petitioner and his witnesses were recorded. the learned trial court, by the order impugned dated 14-10-1989, dismissed the protest petition and accepted the final report submitted by the investigation agency. the protest petition was dismissed on the ground that since the petitioner had filed a civil suit and accused persons were party in the said suit, it is the civil court alone which was competent for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 2008 (HC)

Kedar Nath Methi Vs. Mithan Lal (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Rep ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-12-2008

Reported in : RLW2008(4)Raj3593

ordernarendra kumar jain, j.1. admit. mr. banwari sharma, advocate appears for respondents.2. heard learned counsel for the parties.3. the sole plaintiff mithan lal filed a suit for ejecment in respect of disputed property against defendant petitioner on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of himself and default in making the payment of rent. during the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff mithan lal died and thereafter his legal representatives were substituted in his place. the legal representatives moved an application under order 6 rule 17 cpc for amendment in the plaint pleading the bonafide necessity of smt. saraswati devi, widow of mithan lal, of the disputed premise. the application was contested by the defendant. the trial court vide its order dated 30th october, 2007 allowed the application. being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the defendant petitioner.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that earlier suit was filed on the basis of personal bonafide necessity of sole plaintiff mithan lal and after his death, the cause of action does not survive and suit is liable to be dismissed, therefore, amendment sought in the plaint should not have been allowed by the trial court. in support of his contention he referred smt. phool rani and ors. v. shri naubat rai ahluwalia : [1973]3scr679 and raghunath g. panhale v. chaganlal sundarji and co. : air1999sc3864 .5. the learned counsel for the respondents .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2008 (HC)

Anandi Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-02-2008

Reported in : RLW2008(4)Raj2954(1)

mohammad rafiq, j.1. this writ petition has been directed against the order of the rajasthan civil services appellate tribunal, jaipur dated 31.10.2000 whereby, the appeal of the petitioner filed by her for giving her pensionary benefits, was dismissed.2. the present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash and set-aside the order of the learned tribunal dated 31.10.2000 and also direct the respondents to declare her husband as presumed to be dead under sections 107 and 108 of the indian evidence act, 1872 and she may be allowed family pension w.e.f. 23.6.1967 i.e. the date of disappearance of her husband till date under the rajasthan service rules, 1951 - chapter 23-a together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of its accrual with the further prayer to direct the respondents to allow gratuity to her along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accrual to pendent lite calculating the same for the period 25.3.1956 to 23.6.1967 for a period of 11 years.3. facts in brief as unfolded in the writ petition are that the petitioner's husband shri madan lal sharma was initially appointed on the post of vaidya in ayurved department, government of rajasthan, ajmer. he joined his duties on the above post on 25.3.1956 at ayurved hospital, isroda, district alwar. shri madan lal sharma disappeared during service on 23.6.1967 from his place of posting. when for a long time, whereabouts of shri madan lal sharma could not be known to the petitioner, petitioner applied to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 2008 (HC)

Chetan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-04-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj28

prakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties. this appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 5.2.2005 passed by the court of learned additional sessions judge (fast track) no. 1, pali headquarter jaitaran in sessions case no. 98/2004 whereby the appellant chetan lal has been convicted for offence under section 302 read with section 34 ipc and in, alternative under section 149 i.p.c. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.2. hence, this appeal has been preferred by the sole convict appellant chetan lal.3. the entire case of the prosecution as set up is that complainant bhanwar lal, ramsukh along with madan ram on 29.1.2001 at 2:30 a.m gave parcha bayan ex.p/1 at police station, raipur (camp) alleging that he along with his maternal uncle's grandson - jagdish were going on a scooter and when they reached near paladiya well, a truck tata 407 came from behind and hit the scooter because of which, the complainant and victim jagdish both fell down. victim jagdish immediately ran from the spot. from the said truck tata 407, 4-5 persons dropped down and hit on the head of the complainant by lathi. the complainant stated that he saw two persons in dhoti and faces of both were covered. from there, the complainant ran towards the police chowki, bar and told about the incident to the munshi of the police station upon which, .....

Tag this Judgment!


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