Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2014 Page 11 of about 108 results (0.009 seconds)

Jan 08 2014 (HC)

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sayyed Najama and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Jan-08-2014

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :judgment: s.b.civil misc. appeal no.1952/2013 national insurance company limited versus sayyed najma & ors.s.b.civil misc. appeal no.2006/2013 saiyad najama & ors.versus meharuddin & ors.date of judgment :: 08.01.2014 present hon'ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.sanjeev johari, for the insurance company. mr.mahendra trivedi, for the claimants. ---- by the court: at the request of learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals are finally heard. these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 31.07.2013 passed by motor accident claims tribunal (first).jodhpur ('the tribunal').whereby, for the death of one sayyed istiyak ahmed, the tribunal has awarded a sum 2 of rs.5,57,088/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.2009. while the insurer is aggrieved against the liability imposed on itself, the claimants have sought enhancement of compensation. the facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 30.01.2009 at about 7.30 pm one sayyed istiyak ahmed was walking on the road alongwith his fellow teacher poonam kumar, when a hyundai accent car bearing registration no.hr-18-9432, which was being driven by one mehrudeen collided with him resulting in grievous injuries, to which he later succumbed. the application for compensation was filed by the claimants, who are wife and son of the deceased, inter alia, with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2014 (HC)

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bhoma Ram and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Jan-09-2014

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :judgment: s.b.civil misc. appeal no.100/2002 national insurance company limited versus shri bhoma ram & ors.date of judgment :: 9.1.2014 present hon'ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.jagdish vyas, for the appellant/s. mr.m.c.bishnoi ) for the respondent/s. mr.s.s.rajpurohit) ---- by the court: this appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.10.2001 passed by motor accident claims tribunal (i).jodhpur ('the tribunal').whereby for the death of narayan ram, the tribunal has awarded a sum of rs.2,61,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.from the date of application i.e.18.12.1997. while deciding the liability of the appellant-insurance company under issue no.2, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver ghewar singh was holding driving licence effective for driving light motor vehicle ('lmv') and though he was driving a tata-407, which in the submissions of the appellant-insurance company, is a light goods vehicle ('lgv').2 on account of the fact that there was no material evidence available on record to support the contention of the insurance company, the issue was decided against the insurance company. it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that from a bare perusal of the driving licence, it is apparent that the driver was holding a driving licence only authorising him to drive lmv and the said fact was proved by the oral evidence of officer from the regional transport .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2014 (HC)

Rameshwar Lal Andors Vs. Jai Prakashand ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Feb-04-2014

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :judgment: s.b.civil firs.apeal no.57/1986 rameshwar lal and ors.versus jai prakash and ors.date of judgment :: 04.02.2014 present hon'ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.manish shishodia, for the appellants. mr.ramit mehta, for the respondents. ----- by the court: this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.3.1986 passed by the additional district judge, chittorgarh, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-defendant no.1 was decreed; sale deed dated 15.6.1974 to the extent of plaintiff no.1's share was cancelled on payment of rs.13,500/- by the plaintiff no.1 to defendants no.1 to 3 within a period of two months; plaintiffs were held not entitled to possession of the suit house from the defendants-appellants; suit filed by the plaintiff no.2 for cancellation of sale deed was held pre-mature and the plaintiff no.1 was held entitled to costs from the defendant no.4. the facts in brief may be noticed thus : the respondents no.1 and 2 plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed 2 and for possession of the suit property against the appellants and respondent no.4 bhagwan lal (their father) with the averments that the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 1.2.1974 from suresh chandra for a sum of rs.26,000/-. the defendants no.1 to 3 were tenants in the said house and a sum of rs.1,000/- were deposited with suresh chandra as earnest money. the rent deed has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2014 (HC)

Hari Ram Vs. Vimla and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Mar-11-2014

s.b.c.w.p.no.1567/2013 hari ram v. vimla & others 1/3 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :: order :: s.b.civil writ petition no.1567 of2013petitioner-plaintiff: v. respondent-defendants: hari ram vimla & others :: date of order: (11th) march 2014 :: present hon'ble mr justice v.k.mathur mr vijay jain, for the petitioner none present for respondents by the court: the present petition has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiff challenging the order dated 06th november 2012 passed by the learned civil judge (jd).tibbi, district- hanumangarh in civil case no.04/2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under sec.65 of the evidence act has been rejected. 2.as per relevant facts of the case, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance with regard to the agreement for sale dated 12th may 1993. as per petitioner-plaintiff, the defendants executed agreement for sale of 1 bigha 11 biswas for consideration of rs.20150/-, obtained the consideration and handed over possession of the land. in pursuance of the s.b.c.w.p.no.1567/2013 hari ram v. vimla & others 2/3 agreement for sale, the sale deed was also executed on 07th october 1993 for 1 bigha 10 biswas and mutation of 1 bigha 10 biswas was recorded in favour of petitioner-plaintiff. the petitioner-plaintiff filed plaint seeking specific performance of unperformed part of agreement for sale dated 12th may 1993 by the defendants, by execution of sale deed for remaining 1 biswa land. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 2014 (HC)

Parbat Singh Vs. Union of India and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Apr-24-2014

sbcwp no.2287/14 parbat singh vs. uoi & ors. order dt:24. 4/2014 1/5 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur order parbat singh vs. union of india & ors. s.b.civil writ petition no.2287/2014 date of order :24. h april, 2014 present honb'le dr.justice vineet kothari mr. madan singh rathore, for the petitioner. mr. vinit kumar mathur, for the respondents.1. the petitioner, who was recruited as jawan in the indian army on 15/2/2004 and is working in parachute regiment, 10 para (special force) at jodhpur, has filed the present writ petition in this court on 22/3/2014 with the following prayers:- (i) the repondent no.3 and 4 may kindly be directed to maintain the movement order dated 03.08.2013 and keep continue the petitioner at special force training school, nahan (h.p.) (ii) the respondents may kindly be restrained from making the movement of the petitioner from 10 para (special force) regiment to rajput rifles regiment. (iii) the respondents may kindly be directed to withhold the prejudicial order dated 24.3.2014 passed against the petitioner. (iv) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this hon'ble court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. . sbcwp no.2287/14 parbat singh vs. uoi & ors. order dt:24. 4/2014 2/5 2. on the last date 21/4/2014, the respondents were asked to file reply to the writ petition, which has been filed today.3. normally, this court would not have interfered in the administrative matters .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2014 (HC)

Brij Mohan Chhangani Vs. Kripa Shanker and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Nov-18-2014

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :order: s.b.civil writ petition no.6969/2014 shri brij mohan chhangani versus shri kripa shanker & ors.date of order :: 18th november, 2014 present hon'ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.avin chhangani ) mr.m.l.chhangani ) for the petitioner. ---- by the court: this writ petition under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of india is directed against order dated 23.08.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, the applications filed by the respondent nos.2 and 4 under order i, rule 10(2) cpc have been allowed. facts in brief may be noticed thus : petitioner brij mohan chhangani filed a suit against his two brothers kripa shanker and satya narain and his sister smt. asha for partition of a house situated at goydani para, jaisalmer claiming the same as belonging to kishan lal, their father and having 1/4th share in the said property. the written statements were filed by kripa shanker, satya narain and smt. asha; while kripa shanker supported the version of the plaintiff qua share but opposed on the nature of property, satya narain and smt. asha opposed the same. an application was filed by satya narain under order i, rule 10(2) cpc seeking impleadment of his son narendra 2 chhangani as party to the suit with the averments that the suit property was in possession of narendra chhangani; there has been a family settlement dated 06.10.1984 between kishan lal j.and his children (plaintiff and defendants).wherein, the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 2014 (HC)

Bheru Lal and anr Vs. State and anr

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Aug-30-2014

1 ???? ? ? ?? ? ??? ?? ? ? ? ??? -666/2014 (??? ? ? ??? ?? ? ? ??" ? ? ?? ? ???) ? ??" ? ?? ?? ? ??, ?&???? --:: ? ? ? ::-- (??? ? ? ???) ?? ? (? ??" ? ? ?? ? ???) ??? ? ? ? ?? ? ??? ?? ? ? ? ??? - 666/2014 ***** ??? ??? ? : 14 ?? ?, 2014 ? ?? ? ?? ? ????. ? ???1 ? ???? ? ? ????? ? ?? ? ? ?? ?&? ????&?? ? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ? :- ?? ??? ?? ?? ? ??? ? 8 ??? ?? ? ? ?, ?. ??? ? ? ??? ???? ?. 10/2013 ?; ? ??. ??? ??? ? 11.4.2014, ???? .?. ? ??????? ??? ? ? ? ?> ? ???? ? ? 306 ? .?.?. ? ??&? ???? . ?? ?? ? ?? ? ???? [email protected] ?? ?a ? ?&?b ??b [email protected] ??? ?? ??? ?&?? ????? ? ?? ? .?d ?? ?? 2 ???? ? ? ?? ? ??? ?? ? ? ? ??? -666/2014 (??? ? ? ??? ?? ? ? ??" ? ? ?? ? ???) ??? ? 8 ?? ??" ?? ? ?? ? ? ?? 306 ? .?.?. ? .?. ??&? ???? . ??? ? ?? ?; ????; ? ? ? ?? > ? ?? ?b ?& ?? ? ?; ?? ??. ?? ??? ? ??. ??? ?? ?a ? ??? ?? ? ?"? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ? ? ?? ?? ? ? [email protected] ? ?? ? ??? ?? ?&. ?a ?? ??? ?? ? [email protected] ????? ?.d? ? ? ?? ? ? ??? ?? ?&? ??? ?? ? ?"? ?? ?? ???? ? ???? ????&?? ?? [email protected] ?? ? ?& ?" ?. ? ? ? ? .& ?? ?? ? ??. ?a ?? ?& ??. ? ??? ? ? ?. ?. m ? ? ? ?? [email protected] ????"?. ?; ?? ?&, ?? ?? ?; [email protected] ?? ? ? ? ?? ?m?? ??? ?; ??? ?? ? [email protected] ?? ?? ????? ?? [email protected] ?? ???? ??? ? ? ??? ?? ? ? ??? ? ?? ?? ? ??. ? ?&?? ????? ? ?? [email protected] ?? ? ??? .?d ? ??"d? ?; ???? ?? ? ?? . ?? ??? ??- 1. cr.l.reporter 1994 (raj.) 249 manish kumar sharma v.s.state or raj., 2. s.c.c.2005 (cr.) 543 netai dutta v.s.west bengal, 3. s.c.c.(cr.) 2010 (3) 1048 madan mohan singh v.s state of gugarat. ?&?? ?&? ????&?? ? ? ???&? ??? ?? ? ?&?b ??b ?& .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2014 (HC)

Likhama Ram Vs. Madan Lal

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Feb-25-2014

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :judgment: s.b.civil second appeal no.356/2012 ratanlal v. state of rajasthan & ors.date of judgment :: 24th february, 2014 present hon'ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.trilok joshi, for the appellant. ---- by the court: this appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated dated 21.09.2012 passed by additional district judge (fast track) no.1, hanumangarh, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2002 passed by additional civil judge (junior division).hanumangarh has been upheld. the facts in brief may be noticed thus : the appellant filed a suit on 08.05.2000 for declaratory decree and permanent injunction with the averments that the plaintiff had trespassed on the land described in para 2 of the plaint in the year 1960-61 and has raised construction regarding a house and was staying there; the area was approximately 35x45 ft.; it was claimed that around 1979 the municipality, hanumangarh tried to dispossess the plaintiff and several other persons, who were in possession of land, which was resisted and thereafter a meeting was held on 28.06.1979, wherein, it was given in writing that those in possession would be given plots of land in sectors 1, 2 and 3 of hanumangarh town and on 31.03.1994 a lottery was drawn, 2 where the plaintiff was allotted plot no.170, however, despite repeated requests, no steps have been taken in this regard; it was claimed that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2014 (HC)

Brij Mohan Chhangani Vs. Kripa Shanker and Ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Nov-18-2014

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :order: s.b.civil writ petition no.6969/2014 shri brij mohan chhangani versus shri kripa shanker & ors.date of order :: 18th november, 2014 present hon'ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.avin chhangani ) mr.m.l.chhangani ) for the petitioner. ---- by the court: this writ petition under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of india is directed against order dated 23.08.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, the applications filed by the respondent nos.2 and 4 under order i, rule 10(2) cpc have been allowed. facts in brief may be noticed thus : petitioner brij mohan chhangani filed a suit against his two brothers kripa shanker and satya narain and his sister smt. asha for partition of a house situated at goydani para, jaisalmer claiming the same as belonging to kishan lal, their father and having 1/4th share in the said property. the written statements were filed by kripa shanker, satya narain and smt. asha; while kripa shanker supported the version of the plaintiff qua share but opposed on the nature of property, satya narain and smt. asha opposed the same. an application was filed by satya narain under order i, rule 10(2) cpc seeking impleadment of his son narendra 2 chhangani as party to the suit with the averments that the suit property was in possession of narendra chhangani; there has been a family settlement dated 06.10.1984 between kishan lal j.and his children (plaintiff and defendants).wherein, the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 2014 (HC)

Saiyad Najama and ors Vs. MeharuddIn and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Jan-08-2014

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur :judgment: s.b.civil misc. appeal no.1952/2013 national insurance company limited versus sayyed najma & ors.s.b.civil misc. appeal no.2006/2013 saiyad najama & ors.versus meharuddin & ors.date of judgment :: 08.01.2014 present hon'ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.sanjeev johari, for the insurance company. mr.mahendra trivedi, for the claimants. ---- by the court: at the request of learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals are finally heard. these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 31.07.2013 passed by motor accident claims tribunal (first).jodhpur ('the tribunal').whereby, for the death of one sayyed istiyak ahmed, the tribunal has awarded a sum 2 of rs.5,57,088/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.10.06.2009. while the insurer is aggrieved against the liability imposed on itself, the claimants have sought enhancement of compensation. the facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 30.01.2009 at about 7.30 pm one sayyed istiyak ahmed was walking on the road alongwith his fellow teacher poonam kumar, when a hyundai accent car bearing registration no.hr-18-9432, which was being driven by one mehrudeen collided with him resulting in grievous injuries, to which he later succumbed. the application for compensation was filed by the claimants, who are wife and son of the deceased, inter alia, with the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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