Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2008 Page 4 of about 70 results (0.040 seconds)

Oct 24 2008 (HC)

Meena Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-24-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj870

gopal krishan vyas, j.1. by way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of suspension dated 3.10.2008 and prayed that the order of suspension may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be restored to her position as if she was never placed under suspension and she may be relegated to the position, which was obtaining prior to passing of the impugned order and the entire proceedings conducted so far may be quashed and the government may be restrained from holding inquiry on the premise of inquiry report of the deputy director (regional), ajmer.2. brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as ward member from ward no. 11 in the month of august 2005 in the parbatsar municipal board. thereafter, elected members of the municipal board elected the petitioner as chairman unanimously. since then she 'was continuing until passing of the impugned order of suspension. in the writ petition, it is pointed out by the petitioner that she is belonging to the indian national congress and the state government is ruled by another political party bhartiya janata party (bjp), therefore, the state government is always having an evil eye over the members belonging to the indian national congress. in the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that whenever the ruling government got the opportunity to uproot the elected person of the indian national congress, they have been uprooted and, for illustration, it is stated by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 2008 (HC)

Jagat Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-12-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2195

r.s. chauhan, j.1. like the biblical story of david and goliath, this is a case of an individual pitted against the colossal state. having bought some properties at pushkar, an ancient and a holy city in rajasthan, the petitioner has been running a hotel in the name and style of 'hotel pushkar palace' since 1981. there were certain legal battles fought between the petitioner and the municipality board ('the board', for short), pushkar-the respondent no. 3 before this court. the board lost these battles. the board claims to have served a notice on the petitioner on 22.4.06 directing him to remove the illegal constructions/encroachments made by him, within three days. but notwithstanding the said notice, on 22.4.06 itself, the board demolished a part of the hotel and sealed thirty-eight rooms of the hotel. when the petitioner protested against the illegal action of the board, the board issued yet another notice on 28.4.067 stunned by the demolition, aggrieved by the notice dated 28.4.06, the petitioner has knocked at the gates of this court and has sought refuge.2. this case has a long and chequered history. however, the history is pertinent for appreciating different aspects of the issues which would emerge in this case. hence, it is essential to narrate the details of running battles and skirmish between the petitioner and the board.3. near ajmer, nestled among the aravali hills, lies the ancient and holy city of pushkar. according to puranic mythology, lord brahma performed .....

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!

Jul 28 2008 (HC)

Abdul Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-28-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj584

prakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. though this petition has been filed by petitioner abdul khan alone whose request for his release prematurely under the provisions of rajasthan prisoners (shortening of sentence) rules, 1958 (for short 'the rules of 1958') was rejected by the state government vide order dated 19.3.2008, but after going through the contents of annex. 2, the recommendations sent by the advisory board to the state government on the matter of release of convicts namely, mukesh s/o roop chand, roop chand s/o gokul chand, ramesh s/o roop chand, amariya @ amra s/o baja ram, kailash s/o nanag ram and abdul khan s/o subhan khan, we are of the view that the entire matter is required to be considered by this bench in the interest of justice.3. the prayer of shortening of sentence under the rules of 2006 of all above convicts has been rejected by order dated 19.3.2008. we would like to quote the recommendations made by the advisory board for each of the accused as well as the reason given for rejection of their prayer for shortening of sentence passed by the state government, which are as under:eqds'kiq= :ipun %eqds'k iq= :ipun canh tsy izfo'b ds le; 10oha vuqrrh.kz fkk rfkk dkjkx`ges jgrs gq, ch-,- dyk dh f'k{kk izkir dh gs a canh us tsy esa jgrs gq,de;wvj dkslz] gkml fjis;fjax] qksu fjis;fjax dkslz fd;k gs a canh us dkjkx`gesa jgrs gq, tsy lsok ds vkaofvr dk;z dks yxu vksj esgur ls fd;k bl dkj.kcanh dks o'kz 2003 esa 10 fnol fo'ks'k ifjgkj fn; .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 2008 (HC)

Hajari Vishnu Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-11-2008

Reported in : 2008(3)WLN377

gopal krishan vyas, j.1. by way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the reversion order dt. 31.08.2006 (annex.p/8 passed by the executive officer, municipal board, mount abu and the order dt. 19.06.2006 (annex.p/9) passed by the dy. director (administration), local bodies, govt. of rajasthan, jaipur.2. in this case, the petitioner was promoted on the post of revenue inspector when he was working on the post of u.d.c. vide order dt. 18.09.1992 (annex.p/2). the said order was purely on temporary basis till confirmation by the d.p.c. the said promotion order was declared illegal and thereafter, the petitioner was ordered to be reverted from the post of revenue inspector to the post of u.d.c. vide order dt. 17.09.1993, issued by the executive officer, municipal board, mount abu on the basis of the order issued by the dy. director, local bodies, jodhpur dt. 25.08.1993. the petitioner challenged the order dt. 17.09.1993 by way of filing revision under section 300 of the rajasthan municipalities act, 1959 before the director, local bodies, govt. of rajasthan, jaipur. the director, local bodies vide order dt. 20.01.1994 (annex.p/6) has set aside the order dt. 17.09.1993 and it was specifically ordered that the municipal board, mount abu shall fill up the vacant posts by way of direct recruitment and promotion in accordance with the rules after determination of the vacancies and till then status quo was ordered to be maintained.3. the case of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2008 (HC)

Cit Vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-06-2008

Reported in : (2008)217CTR(Raj)209; [2009]313ITR231(Raj); [2009]178TAXMAN33(Raj)

n.p. gupta, j.1. these four appeals arise in identical circumstances, basically involving a common question, though one question as involved in three appeals is not incorporated in appeal no. 13, however, in view of the controversy involved in all the four matters, we think it appropriate to decide all these four appeals by this common judgment.2. appeals no. 70, 50 and 23 have been admitted on different dates, by framing following two substantial questions of law, which are common in all the three matters, being as under:i) whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the itat was justified in holding that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the income tax act is bad in law and accordingly in quashing the reassessment proceedings?ii) whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the itat was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to get depreciation under section 32 on the assets claimed to be taken on lease, as owner of the assets?3. appeal no. 13 has been admitted on 13.03.2007, by framing following one substantial question of law, which happens to be question no. 2 in other three appeals:whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the itat was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to get depreciation under section 32 on the assets claimed to be taken on lease, as owner of the assets?4. all these four appeals relate to different assessment years.5. necessary facts are, that assessee shree rajasthan syntex .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2008 (HC)

Ankush Wadhwa Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-20-2008

Reported in : 2009CriLJ1610; RLW2009(1)Raj662

r.s. chauhan, j.1. a damaged car, an injured young man inside the car, a dead body of a young lady lying beyond a wall, not far from the damaged car, allegations of kidnapping, murder and destruction of evidence, defense of accident, the conviction of both the appellants for various offences are the different strands weaving the tapestry of this case. the appellants, ankush wadhwa ('a-1', for short) and dwarka prasad ('a-2', for short) have challenged the judgment dated 29.09.2001, passed by the additional sessions judge, no. 4, kota whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:ankush wadhwa (a-1)offences sentenceunder section life imprisonment alongwith a fine of rs. 2,000/-,302 ipc in default thereof rigorous imprisonmentfor six months.under section five years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine363 ipc of rs. 500/-, in default thereof rigorous imprisonment for three months.under section one year rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine201 ipc of rs. 500/-, in default thereof rigorous imprisonmentfor three months.under section three months rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine120-b r/w 201 ipc of rs. 500/-, in default thereof rigorous imprisonmentfor three months.dwarka prasad (a-2)under section simple imprisonment for three years119 ipc under section one year simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of201 ipc rs. 500/-, in default thereof simple imprisonmentfor three months.under section217 ipc one year simple imprisonment.under section120-b r/w 201 ipc .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2008 (HC)

Jodh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-29-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1073; 2009(1)WLN6

h.r. panwar, j.1. these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, are heard and decided together taking the facts of sbcw no. 3959/208 as a leading case.2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to these writ petitions are that the petitioners were initially granted arms licence for muzzle loading gun (for short the ml gun' hereinafter) which were issued in favour of the petitioners by the tehsildar of the area and in the case of the petitioner jodhsingh by tehsildar, srikaranpur. grant of ml gun licence by the tehsildar has not been questioned by the respondent state and therefore, to the extent of grant of ml gun licence there is no infirmity and such grant of ml gun licence is not under challenge. however, subsequent thereto, the petitioner applied for change of the bore of the gun before the additional district collector, sriganganagar who issued the outside licence of np bore vide licence no. 14/2003. however, by order annex. 4, the respondent district magistrate, sriganganagar suspended the licence issued under section 13(3) of the arms act, 1959 (for short vthe act of 1959' hereinafter) and the petitioner was directed to deposit the arms with the concerned police station. the petitioner submitted reply to the notice vide annex. 5. by order annex. 6 dated 11.2.2008 the respondent district magistrate, sriganganagar cancelled the licence granted in favour of the petitioned the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2008 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Narendra

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-01-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2353

mahesh bhagwati, j.1. the challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 31st january, 1997 whereby, the special judge, n.d.p.s. act cases, kota (additional sessions judge, no. 2, kota) has acquitted the accused-respondent narendra s/o. salig ram in the offence under section 8 read with section 29 of narcotic drugs & psychotropic substances act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'act 1985').2. the prosecution story succinctly runs as under:that on 27th may, 1989 at about 11:45 am pw-6 ratan lal goria accompanied by officers of preventive party checked a bus no. rnp 1378 of rajasthan roadways on kota-bundi road near khanna farm and found one person sitting on seat no. 26 who identified himself to be teju s/o. babul lal. teju was carrying a plastic bag on his lap. on suspicion, shri goria called conductor and driver of the bus and searched the plastic bag wherein 2.300 klgm opium was found. it is alleged that the accused teju told the checking party that this plastic bag containing the said opium belonged to narendra who was sitting on seat no. 17 in the bus. shri goria took two samples of opium each of 25 gms and duly sealed them. shri goria prepared a panchnama ex. p/l, seized the tickets of the accused narendra and teju vide memo ex. p/2 and ex. p/3 respectively, arrested the accused narendra vide memo ex. p/4 and the accused teju vide memo ex. p/5, recorded the statements of the witnesses, recorded the statements of the accused persons also, sent the samples for chemical .....

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!


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