Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2013 Page 4 of about 57 results (0.009 seconds)

Jul 25 2013 (HC)

O.i.C.Ltd Vs. Bhanwar Kanwar @ Bhanwari Kanwar and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Jul-25-2013

1 (1) 2077/2011 ( . ) (2) $%' 47/2013 ( . ) $) , , $ - --::1. ::-- (1) 2077/2011 ( . ) (2) $%' 47/2013 ( . ) ***** 1 :25. $- , 2013 -: ) :- reportable % 9 % ):- $% % ):- $% % > :1. , - 1 , % % , -09/2010 $ ' c 1 / >1 27-05-2011 % ):- f % ) %' f g $% f % 2 (1) 2077/2011 ( . ) (2) $%' 47/2013 ( . ) 1 / >1 % $%' %' % % i , j $%' k 1 / >1 % %' % % i, % k k 1 % $ g 1 f % % ) f $ % 2- % % - % c % % % i c - % , % k % - 01-11-2009 - % $% ' % - %' .$%.21 1473 >% % % $ % f % .$%.19-2 $ -3323 % , %$ % , % % % ' %' % , c ' f t - >% c % % - - - % $ % t ' % $ 1% % c % , - f 3.c - % , % ): -1 % 3, $ % , 3 (1) 2077/2011 ( . ) (2) $%' 47/2013 ( . ) - , )%, % % , $ - - ) ): -4, $ 1 c ): g, % t f % - 1 ) , % - 1 g % % ) % % , % $ % % - 1 % , $ % $ % f )1 f 4.k k % ,k % - % % k k f - ):- % 6,45,100/- % >1 , $ k k f % - ,-y g 5.- ):- f % % j % 1 % c : - , t f - % c - t f % c j f g % - t f c - g ) t f % c $ %$ t f 4 (1) 2077/2011 ( . ) (2) $%' 47/2013 ( . ) >1 g, % t f % g ) ) %$ ( ' % - ) % $: g , _ - g ) c - %- j % % t f 1 $ ) , %$ % 1 $ ) ):1. t f $) $ i, % - t 4.1 % f - ) k c % - - %- 14 % - c $ ) , % 15 - c g, $ % j, % - g ) - macd 200 (sc)353 sarla verma & ors. vs. dtc & anr. c k % - g ): % 1 - f, g $ g t f ) % 5 (1) 2077/2011 ( . ) (2) $%' 47/2013 ( . ) % ( % % ) $1 f $ g, g : $ 1 $ g ) c 1 - ( f, )% - 1 % % $j % % % c t % g ) c f 'i f c ,j % i c %$ % g i % % % % i % )1 c %' % % (a) special leave to appeal no. 19803/2012 national insurance co. ltd. vs. santosh khandelwal (b) 2013 (5) scale .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2013 (HC)

Kalu and ors Vs. Prakash and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Oct-30-2013

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :order: s.b.civil revision petition no.150/2013 kalu & ors.versus prakash & ors.date of order :: 30.10.2013 present hon'ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.suresh shrimali, for the petitioner/s. ---- by the court: reportable this revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2013 passed by additional district judge no.2, udaipur, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under order vii, rule 11 cpc has been rejected. brief facts of the case may be noticed thus : one prakash and miss pushpa, minor children of late paratiya filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 26.6.2012 and permanent injunction, inter-alia against the petitioners through their uncle amba lal. an application was filed by the petitioners under order vii, rule 11 cpc, inter-alia with the allegations that amba lal has wrongly filed the suit as guardian of prakash and miss pushpa and such suit was not maintainable as per provisions of order xxxii cpc as under the said provisions it is only the natural 2 guardian, who can file the suit as next friend and plaintiffs' grand mother gaindi bai was still alive. further averments were made that the suit could only be filed by the natural guardian or guardian appointed by the court and third person cannot file a suit. it was also claimed that the plaintiffs have no cause of action and amba lal cannot question the sale and as such the suit was not maintainable. the trial court after .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 2013 (HC)

Amra and ors Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Nov-13-2013

1 d.b.civil writ petition no.6928/2013 amr.and ors.v/s state of rajasthan & ors.13.11.2013 hon'ble the chief justice mr.amitava roy hon'ble mr.justice p.k.lohra mr.rajesh shah for the petitioners.heard learned counsel for the petitioners.the instant application presented to initiate a public interest litigation discloses that the petitioners are permanent residents of village semari tehsil sarada district udaipur. they have stated that in samvat 2001 (equivalent to english calendar year 1944-45).a plot of land measuring 209 bigha 3 biswa of sabik araji no.2750 of patwar circle of village semari tehsil sarada was entered in the revenue record as bilanam. after the formation of the state of rajasthan in the year 1962, the grazing area of village semari was demarcated with land measuring 157 bigha 10 biswa. out of this, several plots were allotted by the government of rajasthan/sarpanch of the panchayat semari to various persons between samvat 2016 to 2022 (1959-60 to 1965-66).the lands allotted were thereafter entered in the revenue records in the name of the allottees. the petitioners have mentioned that a plot measuring 3 bigha of araji no.2750 was allotted to one late bhura, which was mutated in his name vide mutation no.487 dated 14.6.1971 in terms of the order of the sub tehsildar sarada. according to them, during the re-settlement, the land measuring 2 15-20 bigha of sabik araji no.2750 was reserved/fixed as grazing area towards the northern side of rebario ki dhani in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 2013 (HC)

State of Raj.and anr Vs. UmarddIn and anr

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Nov-23-2013

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur. order s.b civil writ petition no.1030/2002 state of rajasthan & anr. versus umarddin & anr. date of order : 23.11.2013 present hon'ble mr.justice govind mathur mr.m.a.siddiqui, for the petitioner(s).ms.rushit kaur saluja, for the respondent(s).by the court : an application is preferred to bring on record legal representatives of respondent workman umarddin son of meerddin, resident of kheru chhoti, tehsil rajgarh, district churu. it is stated that the respondent workman umarddin died on 29.9.2013 and, therefore, his legal representatives are required to be taken on record. having considered the contents of the application, i deem it appropriate to take the legal representatives of late shri umarddin on record as respondents no.1/1 to 1/8. an amended cause title has already been filed, same be taken on record. ms.rushit kaur saluja accepts notice on behalf of the legal representatives of late respondent workman. counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter today itself. in pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by a co-ordinate bench, this matter came up for its adjudication in the spirit of lok adalat. 2 briefly stated, facts of the case are that the labour court, bikaner by its award dated 13.4.2000 answered a reference made to it by the appropriate government under a notification dated 22.12.1992 in the terms that whether the termination of workman umarddin son of maiddin (represented by general .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 2013 (HC)

Smt. Raj Kumari Joshi Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Jul-29-2013

s.b.civil writ petition no.2381/2011 smt. raj kumari joshi vs. state of rajasthan & ors. date of order :29. 07.2013 hon'ble mr justice vijay bishnoi mr parmendra bohra, for the petitioner mr khet singh for the respondents this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner while challenging the action of the respondent-rpsc in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of teacher gr.ii (sanskrit). it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is post graduate in m.a. (sanskri) and as such possessing the qualification of shashtri or traditional sanskrit examination equivalent to shashtri through sanskrit medium and the degree in shiksha shashtri/education. learned counsel for the respondent-rpsc has stated that the controversy involved in this writ petition is no more res integra as the division bench of this court in pawan kumar jain & 13 anr. vs. state of rajasthan & ors., reported in 2011(3) wlc (raj.) 154 has held that merely because the candidate is having higher qualification that does not mean that the rigour of rule should be relaxed and he must possess the qualification as prescribed in the rules. the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute this decision. this court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. however, in view of the decision of division bench of this court in pawan kumar jain & 13 anr. vs. state of rajasthan & ors. (supra), this writ petition is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 2013 (HC)

State and ors Vs. Mangi Lal

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Oct-18-2013

d.b.saw no.73/2005 state of raj. & ors v. mangi lal 1/5 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :: judgment :: d.b.civil special appeal (writ) no.73 of2005in s.b.c.w.p.no.5838/1993 appellant-non-petitioners.respondent-petitioner: state of rajasthan & ors v. mangi lal :: date of judgment: 18th october 2013 :: present hon'ble mr justice dinesh maheshwari hon'ble mr justice v.k.mathur mr vijay purohit for dr sachin acharya, for the appellants mr vineet dave, for the respondent by the court:{per justice v.k.mathur} the appellants- state of rajasthan & others have filed this intra-court appeal against the order dated 05th october 2004 passed by the learned single judge in s.b.civil writ petition no.5838/1993, whereby the learned single judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-mangi lal, by quashing the impugned order of the disciplinary authority (annx.33 to the writ petition) dated 11th march 1977 and the order of the appellate authority dated 21st december 1982 (annx.41 to the writ petition).2.briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent mangi d.b.saw no.73/2005 state of raj. & ors v. mangi lal 2/5 lal was a class-iv employee in excise department, working as class-iv guard at bilara at the relevant time. in contemplation of inquiry, he was placed under suspension by the order dated 02nd september 1974. on 14th december 1974, the district excise officer, jodhpur issued a charge-sheet (annx.1) to the respondent, containing two .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 2013 (HC)

HussaIn and ors Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Nov-01-2013

-1- dbcivil special appeal no.864/2012 in sbcivil writ petition no.5477/2012 hussain & ors.v.board of revenue & ors.date of order :: 1st november, 2012 hon'ble mr.justice govind mathur hon'ble mr.justice r.s.chauhan mr.t.s.champawat, for the appellants...this appeal is directed against the order dated 25.7.2012 passed by learned single judge in sbcivil writ petition no.5477/2012. by the order impugned the writ petition preferred by the petitioner appellants, giving challenge to the orders dated 28.8.2003 and 24.1.2012 passed by the board of revenue, rajasthan, ajmer in appeal no.290/1998 and in review petition no.4478/2003 respectively, came to be rejected. the facts necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal are that one shri basaya was holding agriculture land comprising khasr.nos.282, 308 and 457 in village shedwa, tehsil chohtan, district barmer. shri basaya in his lifetime partitioned the land aforesaid amongst his three sons viz. arab, sumar and gafoor. the land bearing khasr.nos.308 and 457 was under the share of gafoor, whereas the land bearing khasr.no.282 fell in the -2- share of sumar and arab jointly. shri sumar died unmarried and after his death the entire land under khasr.no.282 was mutated in the name of arab. the descendants of gafoor (respondents nos.6 to12) preferred a suit for declaration, revision of holding and permanent injunction as per provisions of sections 91, 88, 188 and 53 of the rajasthan tenancy act against the petitioners who are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 2013 (HC)

Shanker Singh and ors Vs. State and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Nov-11-2013

1 d.b.civil (pil) writ petition no.10217/2013 shanker singh & ors.v/s state of rajasthan & ors.11.11.2013 hon'ble the chief justice mr.amitava roy hon'ble mr.justice p.k.lohra mr.sajjan singh for the petitioners.heard learned counsel for the petitioners.the petitioners claim to be permanent residents of village ghadoi charnan, gram panchayat kalyanpura district barmer. they have averred that the gram panchayat kalyanpura, panchayat samiti balotra (respondent no.4) had illegally issued pattas in gochar land to madaram s/o kishnaram in khasr.no.155/45 patta no.2, bagaram s/o durgaram in khasr.no.78/5 patta no.21, gokalram s/o durgaram in khasr.no.78/5 patta no.22 and ruparam s/o durgaram in khasras no.78/5 and 155/45. thereafter, by its resolution dated 5.1.2013 converted the gochar land in dispute to abadi land. according to the petitioners.such grant of pattas is illegal and unauthorized. however, on the strength thereof, the aforementioned persons have trespassed on the gochar land, and have raised permanent and temporary constructions thereon in the month of july, 2012, whereupon the petitioners submitted an application before the respondent no.2 collector, barmer on 21.9.2012 seeking remedial intervention of the said authority. they have stated that thereafter, they submitted several representations before the different revenue authorities, but to no avail. referring to the decision of the 2 hon'ble apex court rendered in jagpal singh & ors.v/s state of punjab & ors.((2011 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 2013 (HC)

Pankaj Bhatnagar Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi @ Pappi and anr

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Aug-22-2013

[1] in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur judgment (1) s.b. civil misc. appeal no.212/2001 smt. shanti devi vs. pankaj (2) s.b. civil misc. appeal no.776/1999 pankaj bhatnagar vs. smt. shanti devi & anr. appeals under section 28 of the hindu marriage act date of judgment: august 22, 2013 ::p r e s e n t:: hon'ble mr. justice p.k. lohra mr. m.d. boob, for the appellant-wife. mr. shatish sharma, for the respondent-husband. *** reportable by the court: these two appeals under section 28 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1955') are directed against the judgment and decree dated 7th of may 1998 under section 13 of the act of 1955 and order dated 20.08.1999 under section 25(1) of the act of 1955 passed by the learned addl. district judge no.1, bikaner, involving matrimonial dispute between the rival parties and therefore both are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. [2] apposite facts necessary for both these appeals are that appellant-wife and respondent-husband entered into matrimony as per hindu rites and rituals at jaipur on 21st of february 1987. as per version of the respondent, soon after marriage, the appellant adopted a defiant posture and refused to carry out her obligations as a wife. despite altruistic behaviour of the respondent husband, the appellant did not mend her ways and for trifle things used to quarrel with the respondent and his family members. the respondent has also inter- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 2013 (HC)

Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Pankaj

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Aug-22-2013

[1] in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur judgment (1) s.b. civil misc. appeal no.212/2001 smt. shanti devi vs. pankaj (2) s.b. civil misc. appeal no.776/1999 pankaj bhatnagar vs. smt. shanti devi & anr. appeals under section 28 of the hindu marriage act date of judgment: august 22, 2013 ::p r e s e n t:: hon'ble mr. justice p.k. lohra mr. m.d. boob, for the appellant-wife. mr. shatish sharma, for the respondent-husband. *** reportable by the court: these two appeals under section 28 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1955') are directed against the judgment and decree dated 7th of may 1998 under section 13 of the act of 1955 and order dated 20.08.1999 under section 25(1) of the act of 1955 passed by the learned addl. district judge no.1, bikaner, involving matrimonial dispute between the rival parties and therefore both are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. [2] apposite facts necessary for both these appeals are that appellant-wife and respondent-husband entered into matrimony as per hindu rites and rituals at jaipur on 21st of february 1987. as per version of the respondent, soon after marriage, the appellant adopted a defiant posture and refused to carry out her obligations as a wife. despite altruistic behaviour of the respondent husband, the appellant did not mend her ways and for trifle things used to quarrel with the respondent and his family members. the respondent has also inter- .....

Tag this Judgment!


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