Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2008 Page 7 of about 70 results (0.012 seconds)

May 16 2008 (HC)

Bhagwan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-16-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj394

m.n. bhandari, j.1. by this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the orders dated 21.8.1996, 16.10,1998 and 17.4.2000 whereby and whereunder the petitioner's request for grant of disability pension was declined. prayer of the petitioner is to seek disability pension w.e.f. 8.3.1986 along with interest and compensation of rs. 1,50,000/-.2. it is contended that the petitioner was enrolled in army on 24.12.1994 in medical category 'a' as he was fully fit and did not suffer from any disease. the petitioner was thereafter invalided'from services w.e.f. 7.3.1996, after determining him in medical category 'e' due to affective psychosis with 40% disability. petitioner's disability pension claim was rejected firstly vide order dated 21.8.1996 on the ground that the petitioner's disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated due to military services. petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order, but the appeal thereupon was also rejected. petitioner thereafter preferred another appeal to higher authority, but the said appeal was also rejected.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that denial of disability pension to the petitioner is wholly illegal in view of the fact that petitioner having sustained crush injury of middle finger, was admitted in hospital and while treating the same, it was found that petitioner is suffering from affective psychosis and thereupon he was invalided from service. it is also contended that the aforesaid disease was due to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 2008 (HC)

Surendra Singh Vs. Manohar Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-18-2008

Reported in : 2008(2)WLN313

manak mohta, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and award dt. 19.01.2006 passed by the learned judge, motor accident claims tribunal, balotra in mact case no. 89 of 2003 whereby the learned court below has partly allowed the claim petition.2. brief facts of this appeal are that on 13.02.2003 at about 4.30 pm bhanwardass, babudass @ babulal and govind singh were going from kalyanpur to jodhpur in jeep no. rj 22c/1757, which was being driven by govind singh driver. when they reached towards village araba approximately 1km away, they saw a bus no. rj 19p/4935 coming towards them, which was being driven by driver manohar singh rashly and negligently at a high speed and hit the jeep. on account of which, all the persons sitting in the jeep including the driver sustained serious injuries and they died in the way before reaching to jodhpur for treatment. it was further subbmitted that in accident, the jeep was completely damaged, therefore, a claim petition was filed by surendera singh owner of the jeep through his special power of attorney-holder madan dass claiming damage to the tune of rs. 1,10,000/- with interest @ [email protected] p.a. from the date of accident. other claimants have also filed their separate claim petitions.3. after service of notices the non-claimant no. 1 manoharsingh and no claimant no. 2 driver and owner of the bus have filed their replies in other claim case no. 42 of 2003 of the same accident denying all the allegations but no reply was filed in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 2008 (HC)

Fattu Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Bhinya Ram and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-09-2008

Reported in : 2008(3)WLN280

manak mohta, j.1. these two appeals have been filed by the claimantappellants against the common judgment and award dt. 23.07.1996 passed by the learned motor accident claims tribunal, barmer (in short 'the tribunal') in claim petition no. 9/93 filed by moti singh and smt. pura parents of deceased-khema ram and claim petition no. 10/93 filed by smt. fattu widow of deceased-girdhari ram and others, by which both the claim petitions were dismissed.2. in short the facts of the case as revealed from the record are that 17.04.1991 vehicle no. rjc-4377 was being driven by its driver(deceased)- girdhari ram, who whilst going alongwith cleaner (deceased) khema ram on national highway no. 15 at about 7.30 'o clock in the morning when reached near 'rudu baba ki jhumpi' (13 kms before sindhari), at that time, truck no. gj-9t-4170, which was being driven by inder singh (non-petitioner no. 3) in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, collided with truck no. rjc-4377, as a result of which, girdhari ram (driver) and khema ram (cleaner) died in the accident. a report of the accident was lodged with the concerned police station and a criminal case no. 39/91 for the offence under sections 304-a, 279 and 337 i.p.c. was registered. it is also borne out from record that the father and mother of khema ram ('khalasi') filed claim petition, which was registered as claim petition no. 9/93 and claimed compensation to the tune of rs. 6,36,000/- on various heads for the untimely death of khema .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 2008 (HC)

Gopal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-09-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1072

mahesh chandra sharma, j.1. the accused petitioners have filed instant revision petition under section 397 read with 401 cr.p.c. against the impugned order dated 21.8.2008 passed by learned special judge, n.d.p.s. cases, jaipur in sessions case no. 33/2007 by which bail granted to the accused petitioners was rejected.2. in short, the facts of the case are that on 14.5.2007 a team was constituted by the officers of c.b.n, and during checking they stopped one maruti van and they found that upon the seat of maruti van three persons were sitting. upon search they found 2.487 gm opium. thereafter, a case under sections 8/18(b), 8/25 and 8/29, n.d.p.s. act was registered against the petitioners.3. the petitioners moved bail application before the trial court on 14.7.2008 stating therein that earlier bail applications have been rejected by the trial court as well as by this court but looking to the recent verdict of this court, bail application was allowed by learned special judge (ndps cases) jaipur vide order dated 29.7.2008.4. the prosecution being aggrieved with the order dated 29.7.2008 moved an application for cancellation of bail before the same court on the ground that earlier bail application of the accused petitioners have been rejected by this court. upon this learned trial court after hearing cancelled bail application of the accused petitioners vide order dated 21.8.2008.5. the accused petitioners feeling aggrieved with the order impugned dated 21.8.2008 has preferred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 2008 (HC)

Dharam Chand and ors. Vs. Jogeshwar and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-12-2008

Reported in : AIR2009Raj70

ordervineet kothari, j.1. this revision petition has been filed by the defendants aggrieved by the order dated 28th september, 2006 passed by the learned dist. judge, jalore rejecting the application of the defendants under order 7, rule 11, cpc seeking dismissal of the civil suit no. 14/2006 on the ground that the earlier civil suit filed by the plaintiff jogeshwar, namely, civil suit no. 3/2003 was withdrawn by him under order 23, rule 1, cpc on 21-11-2005 without seeking any liberty from the court to institute a fresh suit and therefore, the present suit subsequently filed was barred in view of order 23, rule 1, cpc and therefore, the suit deserved to be dismissed at the threshold on an application under order 7, rule 11, cpc.2. mr. r.k. thanvi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendants submitted that in the application seeking withdrawal of earlier suit no. 3/2003, in which the plaintiff jogeshwar claiming the same relief, namely, declaration of hisjadogtjojt. by the defendant dharam chand and the injunction against him from alienating his property was withdrawn simpliciter and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn under order 23, rule 1, cpc without any liberty on 21-11-2005 and therefore, the present suit no. 14/2006 could not be instituted by the same plaintiff again claiming the similar relief of declaration of adoption and injunction and also cancellation of sale-deed of the property sold by the defendant dharam chand in favour of the petitioners no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 2008 (HC)

Som Pratap Gupta (Dr.) Vs. Mahesh Dutt and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-12-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1116

narendra kumar jain, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the injured-appellant has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, for enhancement of the amount of compensation and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 3.8.96 passed by the motor accident claims tribunal, kotputali, whereby the learned tribunal rias awarded total compensation of rs. 96,000/- in his favour as under:rs. 5,000/- for medical expenses,'rs. 6,000/- for one and half month leave during which he remained under treatment,rs. 441/- for transportation charges,rs. 40,000/- for mental agony,rs. 44,400/- for 44.4% permanent disability3. the only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned tribunal committed an illegality in not awarded adequate compensation in respect of 44.4% permanent disability suffered by the appellant. he contended that at the relevant time in the year 1989, the salary of the appellant was rs. 4,000/- and he was 36 years of age. if the multiplier system is adopted and multiplier of 16 is applied, the amount of compensation comes to rs. 3,37,920/- in view of 44% permanent disability. he, therefore, contended that the amount of rs. 44,400/- awarded under this head, may be enhanced to the amount of rs. 3,37,920/-.4. the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the accident in the present case took place in the year 1989 and looking to the year of accident, the total amount of compensation of rs, 96,000/- .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2008 (HC)

Deepika Motwani Vs. State of Raj. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-30-2008

Reported in : RLW2008(4)Raj3360

gopal krishan vyas, j.1. in this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may please be directed to regularise the period of study leave and complete the service book. it is further prayed that the payment of study leave and the period as teacher grade-iii for 11 days may kindly be directed to be made to the petitioner. it is further prayed that the service book may kindly be directed to be sent to the school where the petitioner is serving after making all the relevant entries.2. the case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed as laboratory assistant in accordance with rule 20 of the rajasthan educational subordinate service rules, 1971 (hereinafter as 'the rules of 1971') and in pursuance of the order dated 27.12.1991, she joined her duties at govt. girls secondary school, jaliya-11 in february, 1992. as per the petitioner her probation period was completed in the month of february, 1994 and after completion of probation period, the petitioner applied for doing b.ed. course and she was granted permission to acquire the said course on her own expenses vide letter dated 16.9.1994. the case of the petitioner is that after reliving from the school, the petitioner acquired the course of b.ed. for the period commencing from 22.9.1994 to 4.5.1995 from haribhau upadhyay .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2008 (HC)

State Vs. Madan Lal

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-19-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2415

mahesh chandra sharma, j.1. the state of rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 25.8.2004 passed by learned chief judicial magistrate, sawai madhopur (rajasthan) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned trial court') in criminal case no. 414/2000 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent for the offence under section 7/16 of the prevention of food adulteration act.2. in brief, the facts of the case are as under:food inspector chotmal sharma (pw. 1) has submitted a complaint against the accused-respondent on 9.8.2000 before the learned trial court with this effect that on 1.4.2000 at about 10 a.m. on inspection he saw the accused respondent madanlal selling the milk, he identified himself, the accused respondent having an iron drum in which he stated that there is 20 kg. goat milk in it. he asked accused-respondent about licence of selling milk on which he stated that he is not having any licence. on suspect of adulteration, he paid the amount and purchased 750 m.l. milk and got receipt of the same. he divided the milk in three parts in three bottles and in each bottle he put 20-20 drops of formalin. thereafter he sent one sample to the public analyst for checking the milk. after obtaining the report that milk is adulterated he filed this complaint.3. after that the court has summonsed the accused-respondent and the learned trial court framed the charges for the offence under section 7/16 of the prevention of food adulteration act.4. the charges .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 2008 (HC)

Madan Kanwar (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and o ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-17-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj520

h.r. panwar, j.1. by the instant writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioners seek quashing of sale certificate and sale deed dated 31.12.2007 annex. 4 and 5 in favour of m/s. jai vijay industries.2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioners were granted the loan by the respondent rajasthan financial corporation (for short vthe rfc hereinafter) and as on 1.4.2002 a sum of rs. 37,32,451/- was outstanding. a loan agreement was also executed and the property was pleaded by way of mortgage in favour of respondent rfc. as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the petitioners were to repay the loan amount in installments, however, they failed to repay the loan amount and therefore, the respondent rfc initiated proceeding under section 29 of the state financial corporation act, 1951 (for short xthe act' hereinafter) and took over the possession of the assets which were mortgaged as a security against the said loan. the possession of the assets of the petitioners was taken over by the respondent rfc and part of the property/assets has been sold i.e. the agriculture land bearing khasra no. 634/1, 635/1 and 636/1 to shri ghanshyam rathi on 21.8.2006. the petitioners earlier filed a writ petition before this court being sbcw no. 926/2005 which came to be disposed of by order dated 20th november, 2007. in the earlier writ petition, this court noticed that admittedly, the possession of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 2008 (HC)

Madan Lal (Since Deceased) and ors. Vs. Prabhu Dayal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-28-2008

Reported in : AIR2009Raj57; RLW2009(2)Raj1760

orderdalip singh, j.1. this revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order passed by the learned trial court dated 17-5-2007 by which the learned trial court has allowed the application filed by the defendant non petitioner under order 9, rule 13 cpc.2. the facts in brief are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-tenant in the year 1993. the defendant was served. written statement was filed by the defendant issues were framed. after the plaintiffs evidence was closed the case was fixed for the defendant's evidence. on the date when the case was fixed for the defendant's evidence i.e. 16-11-2004 the defendant sought time to produce the evidence which was allowed on costs of rs. 200/- and the case was fixed for 2-12-2004. on 2-12-2004 the defendant was not present and again time was sought on behalf of the defendant and the case was adjourned despite the fact that the costs of rs. 200/- which have been imposed vide order dated 16-11-2004 had not been paid but on the request of the defendant the case was adjourned on 2-12-2004 to 17-1-2005 subject to payment of costs of rs. 200/-. the next date fixed for the defendant's evidence was 17-1-2005. on 17-1-2005 the defendant did not appear nor did the defendant's counsel appear nor was cost of rs. 200/- (16-11-2004) and rs. 200/- (2-12-2004) paid. hence, the learned trial court passed the following order:(vernacular matter omitted... ed.)3. thereafter the case was fixed for .....

Tag this Judgment!


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