Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2009 Page 5 of about 56 results (0.011 seconds)

Apr 08 2009 (HC)

Ramjilal and Vijendra Singh Vs. State of Raj. and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-08-2009

Reported in : 2009CriLJ4224

mahesh chandra sharma, j.1. the petitioner ramjilal, filed the s.b. criminal revision petition no. 428 of 2009, against the order dated january 30, 2009 of addl. sessions judge no. 1 sikar camp neem ka thana in sessions case no. 01 of 2009 whereby he convicted the accused respondent no. 2 for the offence under section 3/8 of the rajasthan bovine animal (prohibition of slaughter and regulation of temporary migration or export) act, 1995 and sentenced him to suffer three years ri and fine of rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer one month si, for enhancement of sentence and the appellant filed the s.b. criminal appeal no. 173 of 2009 for setting aside the judgment of the additional sessions judge convicting and sentencing him as mentioned above. since both the revision petition and the appeal relate to one incident, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. brief facts of the case are that on august 12, 2008 at 10.00 a.m. a written report was prepared that bijendra singh son of kalyan singh resident of village jilo beating a cow indiscriminately by stone over eye, vertebra bone and tongue. the cow is lying in jilo school waiting for her last breath, signature over this report was made by mahatma bairam on august 14, 2007. names of two witnesses namely malaram and saitan gurjar was made as witnesses. this report was registered by the incharge police station patan on augsut 14, 2007 at 3.45 p.m. crime details form was prepared by the police station along .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 2009 (HC)

Rajendra Kumar and ors. Vs. A.D.J. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jun-29-2009

Reported in : RLW2010(1)Raj39; 2009(3)WLN113

dinesh maheshwari, j.1. the application seeking immediate order for ejectment of the tenants from the demised premises (case no. 1/1997: old no. 10/1996) as made by the respondent no. 3 (hereinafter also referred to as 'the applicant' / 'the landlord') on 10.06.1996 with reference to the provisions of section 16 of the rajasthan premises (control of rent & eviction) act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' / 'the act of 1950') came to be allowed by the additional district magistrate, banswara on 13.05.1997 making an order for ejectment of the tenants from the suit premises. the order so passed on 13.05.1997 was challenged by the tenants under section 16(11) of the act of 1950 in civil revision petition no. 1/2005 that came to be dismissed by the additional district judge, banswara by the impugned order dated 15.12.2005. aggrieved, the tenants in the first place preferred a regular first appeal (cfa no. 77/2006) that was dismissed by this court on 12.05.2006 as being incompetent. the petitioners-tenants (the non-applicants nos. 1 to 3) have thereafter challenged the aforesaid orders dated 13.05.1997 and 15.12.2005 by way of this writ petition.2. the relevant facts and the background aspects of the matter could be taken into comprehension thus: the respondent no. 3 had been a member of the armed forces of the union; and owns immovable property situated at pipali chowk, mahatma gandhi road, banswara, a part whereof had been let out to the petitioners. on 25.01.1993, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2009 (HC)

Shanti Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-12-2009

Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj1863

gopal krishan vyas, j.1. in this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of termination dated 09.10.1979 passed by the disciplinary authority and, so also, order dated 13.08.1998 passed by the appellate authority.2. brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed as sanitary inspector in the medical & health department, government of rajasthan. in the year 1970, when the petitioner was working under the c.m.h.o., pali, he was charge-sheeted under rule 16 of the rajasthan civil services (classification, control & appeal) rules, 1958 (in short, to be called the 'cca rules' hereinafter) vide charge-sheet dated 02.03.1974. the following charges were levelled against the petitioner:charge no. ithat the said shri shanti prasad vyas while functioning as sanitary inspector at pali claimed false fare by bus while performed journey by govt. vehicle as is indicated in the enclosed statement of allegations.charge no. iithat the said shri shanti prasad vyas while functioning as sanitary inspector at pali has claimed false t.a. by showing journey to aburoad out of his jurisdiction as is indicated in the enclosed statement of allegations.charge no. iiithat the said shri shanti prasad vyas while functioning as sanitary inspector at pali claimed false t.a. by cheating the govt, as is indicated in the enclosed statement of allegations.charge no. ivthat the said shri shanti prasad vyas while functioning as sanitary inspector at pali performed journey on 30 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 2009 (HC)

Nirmal Kumar Ajmera and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-21-2009

Reported in : 2009(3)WLN456

r.s. chauhan, j.1. the petitioners have challenged the notification dt. 08.01.1991, published under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 ('the act', for short) and the declaration dt. 17.04.1993, published under section 6 of the act.2. in a nutshell the facts of the case are that the petitioners are son of shri bithal das ajmera. on 27.07.1953, shri bithal das ajmera bought a piece of land falling in khasra no. 16 village vijay mahal, near jal mahal area in jaipur. the said land was initially mutated in his name. unfortunately, in 1972 both bithal das ajmera and his wife expired. since the petitioners were their surviving legal heirs, both the petitioners jointly inherited khatedari rights in the said land. the tehsildar, jaipur carried out the necessary mutation proceedings. he mutated their names in the revenue records of 15.04.1974. in order to develope the area around jal mahal and to install a ropeway from nahargarh peak to the jal mahal area, the government published a notification under section 4 of the act on 08.01.1991. it was published in the state gazette on 17.10.1991. the state government also issued and served a notice dt. 27.04.1992 in the name of bithal das ajmera. through the notice, the land acquisition officer, jda, jaipur invited objections from shri bithaldas in respect of the land measuring 1 bigha comprised in khasra no. 16. ultimately, the notice was served upon the petitioners. the petitioners submitted their initial objections on 23.05.1992 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2009 (HC)

Apex Metchem (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Bench a ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-08-2009

Reported in : (2009)224CTR(Raj)488; [2009]318ITR48(Raj); [2009]184TAXMAN243(Raj)

ajay rastogi, j.1. while considering application under article 226(3) of constitution seeking vacation of interim orders dt.23/05/08, this court vide order dt.16/01/09 observed to finally dispose of the petition at admission stage; hence instant petition was finally heard at joint request.2. instant petition is directed against order dt.31/03/2008 (ann.4) in misc.appl. 8/jp/2008, whereby income tax appellate tribunal, jaipur bench ('itat, jaipur') in exercise of powers under section 254(2) of income tax act, 1961 ('it act') re-called its earlier order dt. 29/03/2006 (ann.1) and further directed both the appeals (itssa-105/jp/2004 & 35/jp/2005-asstt. year-block period 01/04/88 to 23/03/99) to be heard by itat mumbai bench, mumbai in terms of order dt. 04/04/05 (ann.3) of the president itat, mumbai (respondent no. 4).3. basic issue raised herein is as to whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal has erred in law and in facts in re-calling its final order passed under section 254(1) with a view to rectify the same in exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the act.4. shorn of all details, only relevant facts necessary for purposes of issue raised herein are summerised. it appears that on 21/01/99, the revenue initially conducted a search operation under section 132 of the act at office and residential premises of one shri mayur m. thakkar of mumbai wherein certain cash & documents were seized and in course of search of his bank accounts, name of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2009 (HC)

Ganesh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-13-2009

Reported in : 2009CriLJ2940

mahesh chandra sharma, j.1. since the controversy involved in both the criminal appeals arise out of common facts and same judgment, hence same are being decided together by this common judgment.2. both the criminal appeals have been filed by the accused appellants under section 374. cr. p.c. by which they have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27-8-2002 passed by special judge, ndps court, jhalawar (for short 'the trial court') passed in sessions case no. 12/2002 by which the trial court convicted both the accused appellants for the offence under section 8/18 of the ndps act for a period of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 10,000/-. in default of payment of fine to further undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.3. brief facts of the case giving rise to both the criminal appeals are that complainant mr. chetany kumar sharma, sho, p.s. jhalawar received a mukhbir information that the accused appellants have blue colour bag and they have illegal opium and they want to sell it and they have come from sadla to badi. as soon as received the above information from mukhabir, then sho informed to superior police officer and went at there as per information given by mukhabir, and arrested both the accused and called the independent witnesses and do all the acts as per the ndps act. when searched accused ganesh then found 4 plastic packets in the bag which have 4 kg. opium and also searched accused pappu then found 2 plastic packets in the bag .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 2009 (HC)

Gyarsilal Vs. Brajmohan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-25-2009

Reported in : 2009(2)WLN162

narendra kumar jain, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of property in dispute on the basis of so-called lease-deed / patta dt. 15.05.1986 alleged to have been issued by gram panchayat, khori. the suit was contested by the defendants. during the trial of the suit, an objection was raised by the defendants in respect of admissibility of the patta dt. 15.05.1986 in evidence being unstamped and unregistered and therefore the plaintiff moved an application under section 11 read with order 47(1) and section 151 c.p.c. to admit the said patta in evidence. the trial court rejected the said application vide impugned order dt. 26.07.2005. being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff has preferred this writ petition before this court.3. the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on earlier occasion, the same objection was raised by the defendants in the trial court and vide order dt. 24.04.1995, the trial court directed that since the disputed patta which was impounded earlier, has been received back from sub-inspector general of registration and stamps, jaipur, and registration fee of rs. 28/- was payable on it since the same had not been paid, therefore, 10 times penalty along with registration fee, total rs. 308/- be paid. as per above order, the registration fee as well as penalty amount, both were deposited which is clear from order-sheet of the trial court dt. 23.05.1995 ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 2009 (HC)

Hazari Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-12-2009

Reported in : 2009(2)WLN498

s.p. pathak, j.1. this criminal appeal under section 374(2) of the code of criminal procedure has been filed against the judgment dt. 30.06.2003 passed by the learned special judge, ndps act cases, gangapurcity in sessions case no. 10/2003 for the offence under section 8/15 of the ndps act whereby the accused has been convicted and sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of which to further undergo 18 months rigorous imprisonment.2. briefly stated the facts for the disposal of this case are that a complaint was received by the excise inspector shri madan lal on 30.05.2002 regarding country made liquor. in pursuance of the information received, the excise inspector along with members of the raiding party left for the place to catch hold the person regarding whom information was received. on the way he found a person carrying a bag on his shoulder. he was stopped by the raiding party. the accused disclosed his name as hazari nath son of biram nath. in the presence of two independent witnesses, namely; pw-2 yogesh kumar and pw-3 rakesh kumar, search was conducted. from the bag recovered from the accused, 10 kg. of poppy straw was found. the accused was asked as to whether he was having any valid license to keep the contraband material with him to which he denied. sample was taken and subsequently sent to the fsl. the statements of independent witnesses were recorded. information was also sent to the superior officers as per .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 2009 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Central Vs. Anil Hastkala (P) Ltd. and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-13-2009

Reported in : (2009)226CTR(Raj)417; [2010]186TAXMAN365(Raj)

ajay rastogi, j.1. since bunch of cross-petitions filed by assessees as well as by revenue assailing orders of settlement commission in cases of different assessees, involve self-same issue for consideration; hence at request, were finally heard together for its disposal by this common order at admission stage. primary question for consideration in a bunch of writ petitions preferred by revenue and cross petitions by different assessees is with regard to applications filed before settlement commission on or before 01/06/2007 and assailing orders of settlement commission, on the premise that if impugned order of settlement commission under section 245d(4) of income tax act, 1961 (act) is held to be legally unsustainable, in such an eventuality, whether matters are to be remitted back to settlement commission to examine afresh in accordance with law or to the assessing authority in view of proceedings initiated under chapter-xix-a on being held to be abated in terms of section 245ha of the act ?2. except on few aspects, as regards orders of settlement commission under section 245d(4) of the act to be referred in later part, assessees-writ petitioners & respondent- revenue in cross petitions, both are joint on the issue that the procedure adopted by settlement commission while passing orders impugned is in violation of section 245d(4) of the act & without following the mandate of statute; however, counsel for assessees have tried to convince that once orders of settlement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2009 (HC)

Adesh Saint Vs. Dr. Pramod Bhatnagar

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-21-2009

Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3065

mahesh chandra sharma, j.1. this revision petition has been filed by the complainant adesh saint, against the order dated august 17, 2002 of additional sessions judge no. 4 kota whereby revision no. 33 of 2002 was allowed and rejected the application under section 138 of the negotiable instrument act and the order dated january 31, 2002 of additional chief judicial magistrate no. 2 kota was set aside.2. brief facts of the case are that a complaint under section 138 of the negotiable instrument act was filed in the court of additional chief judicial magistrate no. 2, kota by the petitioner adesh saint through power of attorney holder smt. shanti saint, his mother, against the respondent dr. pramod bhatnagar stating that the respondent has taken an amount of rs. 50,000/- as loan from the petitioner and against this a cheque was given to the petitioner by pramod bhatnagar on august 12, 1999. the petitioner submitted the cheque in the concerned bank and the same was bounced and returned with endorsement that 'account is closed.' on this complaint the trial court recorded the statement of power of attorney holder of the petitioner and passed the cognizance order on september 29, 2000 for the offence under section 138 of the negotiable instrument act. after one year of passing of the order taking cognizance the non-petitioner moved an application before the trial court stating therein that as the cheque was returned with the endorsement of 'account closed' it does not come in the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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