Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2009 Page 6 of about 56 results (0.010 seconds)

May 28 2009 (HC)

Range Forest Officer Vs. Jeeto Devi and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-28-2009

Reported in : 2009(3)WLN179

narendra kumar jain, j.1. at the request of learned counsel for the parties, the final arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of.2. the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned award dt. 26.05.2000 passed by the labour court, bharatpur, camp alwar, whereby the respondent no. 1 smt. jeeto devi has been ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service. while setting-aside the order of her termination dt. 01.12.1988, the arrears of salary and allowances have been ordered to be paid w.e.f. 01.03.1993.3. the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 1 did not work for 240 days in any calender year and she did not work after 30.11.1988. the objection about late filing of claim petition has also been raised.4. the respondents have defended the impugned award passed by the labour court.5. i have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. the labour court has calculated the actual working days of respondent no. 1 in 12 calender months soon before 01.12.1987 and has recorded a finding that even from the evidence of employer, the workman worked for 279.5 days, wherein the weekly holidays and other holidays have not been added, therefore, it is clear that she has worked for more than 240 days regularly in 12 calender months. the labour court has relied upon the statement of employer's witnesses namely sampatram, jai kishan jat, kalyan sahai sharma and matadeen, the copies of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 2009 (HC)

Parmanand Vs. Om Prakash

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-05-2009

Reported in : 2009(2)WLN596

dalip singh, j.1. this misc. appeal has been filed by the applicant-appellant against the judgment dt. 06.10.1997 passed by the learned district judge, sawai madhopur in civil misc. case no. 63/1994 by which the application submitted by the applicant-appellant for grant of probate in respect of the will executed by the deceased smt. kadam bai in favour of hari narain father of the appellant was dismissed.2. the facts in brief which are relevant for consideration of the present appeal are that the deceased smt. kadam bai in the first instance executed a will dt. 13.12.1984 in favour of om prakash respondent no. 1 who is said to be the son of the daughter of the deceased smt. kadam bai.3. thereafter the deceased smt. kadam bai executed another will dt. 14.03.1985 in favour of hari narain the father of the appellant cancelling the earlier will dt. 13.12.1984 executed in favour of respondent no. 1 om prakash.4. hari narain father of the applicant predeceased the testator smt. kadam bai having died on 25.02.1988, where as smt. kadam bai died on 25.05.1994.5. smt. kadam bai is alleged to have executed a fresh will dt. 24.05.1994 in favour of om prakash respondent no. 1. thereafter on the very next day i.e. on 25.05.1994 smt. kadam bai also died.6. the appellant-applicant filed an application on 06.07.1994 for grant of probate in respect of the will dt. 14.03.1985 executed by deceased smt. kadam bai in favour of hari narain father of the applicant- appellant.7. the aforesaid .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 2009 (HC)

State Vs. Goru and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-06-2009

Reported in : RLW2010(1)Raj631

a.m. kapadia, j.1. these two appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated january 17, 1986 rendered by learned sessions judge, bhilwara in sessions case no. 28 of 1985 by which the appellants of criminal appeal no. 45 of 1986, who are original accused no. 1 goru and original accused no. 3 hajari (a/1 & a/3' for short) of criminal appeal no. 45 of 1986 came to be convicted of the offences under sections 325 read with section 34 of the indian penal code ('ipc' for short) and a-1 goru ram has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three months whereas a-3 hajari, instead of sentencing at once was accorded benefit of the probation of offenders act as he was less than 21 years of age at the time of commission of offence. rest of the two accused a-2 jagdish and a-4 ramkishan alongwith above two accused namely, a-1 goru ram and a-3 hajari who are respondents in criminal appeal no. 185 of 1986 were acquitted under section 302 ipc.2. criminal appeal no. 185 of 1986 is filed by the state under the provisions of section 378 (3) of the code of criminal procedure ('the code' for short) challenging the acquittal of the accused of a-1 to a-4 i.e. goru, jagdish, hajari and ramkishan of the offence under section 302 of the ipc as according to the state, offence against all the accused has been duly proved whereas criminal appeal no. 45 of 1986 is filed by the accused a-1 goru and a-3 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2009 (HC)

Shyam Mahatma Vs. Shri Babu Khan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-20-2009

Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1495; 2009(1)WLN110

vineet kothari, j.1. this second appeal has been filed by defendant-tenant under section 100 cpc being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the first appellate court on 4/7/2008 while allowing the appeal no. 79/2005 of plaintiff landlord as the learned trial court had dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff landlord seeking eviction on 4/2/2005.2. the plaintiff respondent sought the eviction of the suit shop on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as personal bonaflde need of the plaintiff for his son - mohdv sharif for carrying on his business of sale of cattle feed as the market has shops of such nature and defendant himself was carrying on the business of cattle feed.3. the learned trial court dismissed the suit of plaintiff-landlord on the ground that there was no default in payment of rent as the tenancy was on year to year basis vide ex.a-1 to a-4 rent receipts produced by the defendant tenant which established the payment of rent on annual basis to the plaintiff and, therefore, the default of six months as required under section 13(1)(a) of the act of 1950 was not established. regarding personal bonafide necessity, the learned trial court found that plaintiff had two other shops also for which he had filed eviction suit and since the son for whom the said shop was claimed by the plaintiff landlord was running a car taxi and, therefore, had to remain mostly out of bikaner and, therefore, there was no bonafide need for the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 2009 (HC)

Madan Lal Khatik Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-04-2009

Reported in : 2009(3)WLN401

dinesh maheshwari, j.1. by way of this writ petition, filed only on 23.03.2009, the petitioner seeks restoration of his authorisation as fair price shopkeeper that was cancelled as back as on 27.09.2005.2. from the averments taken in the petition and the documents annexed thereto it appears that the petitioner, who had been granted authorisation as fair price shopkeeper at gadarmala, district bhilwara under the rajasthan food grains and other essential articles (regulation of distribution) order, 1976 ['the order of 1976'], was served with a show cause notice dt. 06.08.2005 [annex.1] by the district supply officer, bhilwara ['the dso'] pointing out that in the inspection carried out on 11.08.2004, several irregularities were found including the following:(1) lvkwd jftlvj ch-ih-,y-] vur;ksn;] dsjksflu fnukad 31-07-2004 ds ckn la/kkfjr ugha ik;s x;sa(2) ,l-th-vkj-okbz xsgwa jsdkmz vuqlkj 135-95 fdouvy xsgwa hkksfrd lr;kiu ij de ik;k x;ka(3) o fujh{k.k ;wfuv jftlvj miyc/k ugha feyka(4) ewy; lwph cksmz fj ik;k x;ka(5) fjvuz dh izfr;ka miyc/k ugha feyha(6) rglhy dk;kzy; ,oa mhvkjmh, ls hkqxrku ,oa dwiu tek gksus dk izek.k i= isk djsa rfkk dksbz hkqxrku ks'k ugha jgus dk izek.k i= isk djsaa3. the petitioner was informed that his acts and omissions were violative of conditions no. 5, 11 and 14 of the authorisation; and was called upon to explain on 23.08.2005. the petitioner allegedly submitted a reply to such notice, copy whereof has been placed on record as annexure-2 stating, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 2009 (HC)

Madan Lal Vs. Bhupender Singh

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-07-2009

Reported in : RLW2010(1)Raj689

gopal krishan vyas, j.1. in this second appeal, the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2009 passed by the addl. district judge (fast track) no. 4, jodhpur in civil appeal decree no. 96/08 is under challenge, whereby, the learned lower appellate court while dismissing the appeal affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2005 passed by addl. civil judge (jr. dn.) no. 5, jodhpur in civil original case no. 16/98, by which, the appellant-tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in question.2. according to brief facts of the case, respondent-landlord preferred suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in the year 1998 with assertion that he was allotted plot by the u.i.t. jodhpur and he is sole owner of the said plot upon which he has constructed a house, situated at baiji-ka-talab, near ramdeoji temple and said house was given on rent to the appellant-defendant under rent-deed dated 31.1.1976. suit was filed on the basis of default as well as on the ground of bona fide necessity and comparative hardship. learned trial court framed as many as nine issues and after framing the issues, statements of five prosecution witnesses were recorded and no evidence was produced by the appellant-defendant inspite of granting enough time. upon adjudication of the issues, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, by which, decree for eviction and recovery of rent was passed on 26.2.2005. said judgment of the trial court was challenged by the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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