Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2008 Page 3 of about 70 results (0.010 seconds)

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!

Feb 18 2008 (HC)

Ram Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-18-2008

Reported in : RLW2008(2)Raj1848

sangeet lodha, j.1. this writ petition is directed against order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the division commissioner, jodhpur, whereby the petitioner, an elected sarpanch of gram panchayat, rupawas having been found guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties, has been declared disqualified to hold the office and approval of the proposed action was sought from the department of panchayati raj, government of rajasthan. the petitioner has also assailed the validity of letter of approval dated 24.8.07 issued by the state government and order dated 5.9.07 passed by the divisional commissioner, jodhpur declaring the post of the sarpanch, gram panchayat, rupawas as vacant in pursuance of the approval granted by the state government as aforesaid.2. briefly stated the facts relevant for the adjudication of the controversy involved in the present writ petition are that the petitioner was elected as sarpanch of gram panchayat, rupawas in the month of january, 05. during his tenure as sarpanch, a work of construction of gravel road from bhundaya mata to jodhpur was undertaken by the gram panchayat under the sgry-30% scheme. it is alleged that violating the norms laid down by the state government for the construction of the work under the said scheme, the petitioner got executed the work by using jcb machines and tractors. it was further alleged that the work was shown to be performed by the labourers by preparing fake muster roll. on receipt of a complaint alleging the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2008 (HC)

Javed Masood and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-04-2008

Reported in : RLW2008(2)Raj1643

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. javed masood and syed najib hasan, appellants herein, were put to trial before learned additional sessions judge (fast track) tonk, who vide judgment dated july 25, 2003, convicted and sentenced them as under:under section 302 ipc:both to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.under section 201 ipc:both to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.under section 148 ipc:both to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.facts and rival submissions:2. put briefly the prosecution case is that on may 25, 1999 at 1 pm sub inspector of police station kotwali tonk recorded parcha bayan (ex.p12) of chuttu @ nizamuddin (pw. 5) wherein he stated that on the said day around 12.15 to 12.30 am he in the company of saleem and noor, was getting his truck repaired at rajasthan tyrewala near roadways depot tonk. at that time mohammad deen @ mulla came at the shop of ayub bhai, suddenly 10-12 persons equipped with arms came over there and surrounded mohammad deen @ mulla. out of those persons javed, khalid, nazeeb, ashraf and aziz were armed with gupties, mehmood, iqbal, nasir, matin, rashidullah were equipped with swords and knives. gullo @ arif, saddique and some other .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2008 (HC)

Gautam JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-15-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1772; 2009(3)SLJ252(Raj)

h.r. panwar, j.1. all the three writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are heard and decided together taking the facts of s.b. civil writ petition no. 6372/05 as a leading case.2. petitioner gautam jain at the relevant time was holding the post of sub-inspector of police and was posted at police station shivganj, district sirohi. in the midnight of 12/13th january, 2000, he was directed by the concerned station house officer (for short 'the sho' hereinafter) p.s. shivganj to proceed along with head constable on a secret information received by him through mukhbir that illicit liquor is being transported in a jeep bearing no. rj 22-c 1673. an entry to that effect was recorded in the rojnamcha at 12.10 a.m. of the midnight of 12/13.1.2000. petitioner himmatdan charan in sbcw no. 1,345/05 was circle inspector at the relevant time and was sho of the said police station shivganj and petitioner tulsha ram was head constable posted to said police station. the copy of rojnamcha has been placed on record as annex. 1. on the instructions of the sho, petitioner gautam jain and head constable tulsha ram with their subordinate staff arranged a nakabandi at the site. while holding nakabandi, the jeep bearing no. rj 22-c 1673 in respect of which secret information was received by the sho through mukhbir, came. the petitioner and other subordinate police staff tried to stop the said jeep, however, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 2008 (HC)

Bharat Mal Meena and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-01-2008

Reported in : RLW2008(4)Raj3421

mahesh chandra sharma, j.1. since the controversy involved in all the three criminal appeals, arise out of the same fir number and same judgment, hence, they are being decided by this common judgment.2. by filing instant criminal appeals under section 374 cr.p.c, the accused appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.7.1986 passed by learned sessions judge, jaipur district, jaipur (for short 'the learned trial court') in sessions case no. 14/1983, whereby the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under:section 326 ipc (accused appellant sawai singh):four years rigorous imprisonment, rs. 500/- firie. in case of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.section 326/149 ipc (accused appellants onkar, bhagota, bharatmal and bhalla):two years rigorous imprisonment, rs. 300/- fine. in case of default in payment of fine, they shall undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment.section 323/149 ipc (accused appellant sawai singh, onkar, bhagota, bharatmal & bhalla):three months' rigorous imprisonment, rs. 200/- fine. in case of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.section 147 ipc (accused appellants sawai singh, onkar, bhagota, bharatmal & bhalla):one year rigorous imprisonment.all sentences were ordered to run concurrently.3. brief facts of the case, as set up by the prosecution are that on 29.3.1982, complainant babu singh, submitted a written .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2008 (HC)

Bhagwan Singh Vs. Makkhan Singh

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-02-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj469

dinesh maheshwari, j.1. this first appeal under section 96 of the code of civil procedure (cpc) has been preferred by the defendant in a suit for specific performance that was decreed by the additional district judge (fast track), anoopgarh on 24.10.2005. after summoning the record and hearing the counsel for both the parties as the plaintiff-respondent had put appearance in caveat, this appeal was admitted for consideration on 19.02.2007; and execution of the impugned decree was ordered to be stayed and status quo regarding possession was ordered to be maintained with certain clarifications.2. this appeal was again processed by the office for the purpose of preparation of paper-book and a notice was exhibited per rule 181 of the rules of the high court of judicature for rajasthan, 1952 ('the rules' hereafter); and, for the list of documents having not been filed and the initial charges having not been deposited, the matter was listed before the deputy registrar (judicial) and then before the registrar (administration). compliance having yet not been made, the matter was ordered to be placed before the court.3. when listed before the court on 28.07.2008, learned counsel for the appellant moved an application (ia no. 9227/2008) in this case for dispensing with preparation of paper-book. however, learned counsel for the respondent prayed for time to state his response to the application and, at request, the matter was adjourned.4. thereafter, on 18.08.2008, learned counsel for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2008 (HC)

Loon Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-03-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3567

gopal krishan vyas, j.1. all these four writ petitions involve common question for consideration and the controversy involved in all these matters is identical. therefore, all these writ petitions are decided by common judgment. for the sake of convenience, however, facts and pleadings in s.b. civil writ petition no. 5677/2006, loon singh and ors. v. state of rajasthan and ors. are taken2. this writ petition has been filed by 658 members of the border wing home guards praying for common relief that the respondents may be directed to grant them parity in all respects in terms and conditions of employment of petitioners with that of permanent whole time border wing of home guards in rajasthan. it is further prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant all benefits of the government servants including fixation of pay, and benefits of provident fund, gratuity and all retirement benefits as well as all sons of government allowances, leave incentives and usual increments, etc. and, so also, to pay all the arrears of pay and all other benefits from the respective date of joining. it is also prayed that the respondents be directed to absorb all the petitioners as permanent border wing home guards with all consequential benefits.3. facts of the case indicated in the writ petition show that all these petitioners were appointed and joined the service of rajasthan border wing home guards rajasthan from time to time during the period from 1973 to 2006. schedule-a has been appended .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 2008 (HC)

Major General A.K. Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-07-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1039

k.s. rathore, j.1. the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition for seeking writ, order or direction praying the following reliefs:(i) to quash the impugned order dated 19.6.2008 and restrain the respondents from conducting general court martial of the petitioner;(ii) to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet dated 23/26.5.2008 (annexure-p/12);(iii) to hold the entire action taken on the basis of the order dated 19.6.2008 and charge sheet dated 26.5.2008 as contrary and illegal to the order dated 17.3.2008 passed by the hon'ble high court at delhi (annexure p/13); (iv) any other order or direction which the hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.2. the petitioner was working as general officer commanding of 3 infantry division. on the instructions from headquarter northern command, the petitioner started promoting meditation techniques as a stress buster to reduce suicide cases in high attitude and difficult areas. the petitioner is a guide preceptor and can initiate people into meditation.3. on 27/28.8.2007, cap. neha rawat of 3 infantry division signal regiment was detailed by her. commanding officer to undergo meditation sessions being conducted by the petitioner in the station. on 27.8.2007, cap. neha rawat accompanied one officer's wife namely mrs. sharma for meditation session and herself participated in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 2008 (HC)

Surendra Kumar Vyas Vs. State and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-14-2008

Reported in : RLW2008(2)Raj1621

gopal krishan vyas, j.1. by filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5/7/2000 and directing the respondents to fix him in the pay scale of udc and few other ancillary reliefs.2. the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 27/9/1977 (annex. l) as weaving helper in the rajasthan small scale industries corporation - respondent no. 2 on consolidated wages @ 150/- pm. later on, the said wages were increased from 150/- to 350/- in the year 1980, from 350/- to 500/- on 29/3/1982 then from 500/- to 750/-and at last from 27/4/1991 rs. 1200/- was allowed as consolidated wages to the petitioner.3. when the services of the petitioner were not regularised though similarly situated persons were granted benefit of regularisation and pay scale, the petitioner directly preferred slp before hon'ble supreme court and raised the plea that he has completed more than 18 years of service and similarly situated persons, who were appointed along with petitioner on different posts have been regularised and they were granted regular pay scale but same benefit has not been granted to the him. in the said slp, the hon'ble apex court while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the high court under article 226 of the constitution dismissed the slp. the order passed by the hon'ble apex court has been placed on record by the petitioner as annex. p/5.4. pursuant to the liberty granted by the hon'ble apex court, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2008 (HC)

Ashok Kumar JaIn Vs. Rfc and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-29-2008

Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2382

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. this appeal impugns the judgment dated january 9, 1998 of the learned single judge whereby writ petitions filed by ashok kumar jain (present appellant) and three others namely davendra kumar pokarna, rajeev ajmera and shiv kumar, against the rajasthan financial corporation, (in short rfc), executive director of rfc and selection committee constituted for selection of depty manager (finance) in pursuance to the advertisement dated september 7, 1991, issued by the rfc, were dismissed and the prayer of appellant to appoint him as deputy manager (finance) on the touchstone of the criteria laid down by the respondents and to award him 20 marks under the head of 'experience', was rejected.2. the appeal is primarily founded on the ground that if the appellant was given marks according to the formula fixed by the respondents, he would have secured 20 marks under the head of 'experience'. when 20 marks are added to the marks obtained by the appellant under the three heads, he would secure 69 marks, more than the marks awarded to the private respondents no. 7 and 12, who were not holding 'responsible position' as they were clerical employees of 'b' class being 'assistant' and 'junior assistant' in rfc and were not entitled to 20 marks under the head of 'experience'. in the circumstances therefore the appellant was entitled to be appointed as deputy manager (finance) on the touchstone of criteria laid down by the respondents themselves and learned single judge .....

Tag this Judgment!


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