Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Year: 1987 Page 1 of about 61 results (0.009 seconds)

Apr 01 1987 (HC)

Makhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-01-1987

Reported in : 1987(2)WLN100

..... not conducted number of cases or number of sessions trials is not libellous by itself but to say that she cannot cross examine or she acts as an agent or mediator between the judge and the clients for illegal gratification, these allegations are definitely libellous. if such statements are made against an advocate by any person even if in a transfer ..... a practising advocate that she cannot cross-examine the witnesses which is per se defamatory. the allegation made against the advocate that it is alleged that she works as a mediator or agent between the clients and the judge to secure a judgment or an order in favour of a particular party on account of illegal gratification is also libellous. the ..... -examine the witnesses properly and so, actually, the sessions judge has acted as a defence counsel. it was further alleged in that application that smt. manju pande acts as a mediator of shri r.s. verma for settlement of illegal deals about the decision of cases. this allegation has been made on account of certain complaints made against shri k.s .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1987 (HC)

Amiya and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-25-1987

Reported in : 1987(2)WLN42

shyam sunder byas, j.1. amiya and mst. madi the appellants, were convicted under sections 302 and 201, ipc and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first count and three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo four month' rigorous imprisonment on the second count by the learned additional sessions judge (1), jodhpur by his judgment dated november 8, 1976. they have come-up in appeal and challenged their conviction.2. briefly recounted, the facts and circumstances leading to the prosecution and conviction of the appellants may be summed-up as under: baldeo bhat had two wives smt. madi and smt. magni. he was residing with them in village gajsinghpura, he passed away two or three years before august, 1975. his widows continued to live together in the same house, but the mutation of his fields was entered separately in favour of each. smt. magni, aged about 35 years at the time of her murder, had no issue while smt. madi (the appellant) has two daughters. smt. sayri and smt. jetabai by name. smt. sayri is married to the appellant amiya while jetabai is married to one banshi. accused amiya has a son by name gopiya. smt. madi, aged about 70 years in 1975, wanted to adopt gopiya as the son. smt. magni, however, opposed this proposed adoption. smt. madi and amiya therefore, took smt. magni as a hurdle in the proposed adoption and hatched a plan to finish her for ever.3. on august 25, 1975, some persons of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 1987 (HC)

Smt. Mohan Kanwar Ranawat and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-30-1987

Reported in : 1(1988)WLN(Rev)104

milap chandra, j.1. this writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the respondents no. 1 to 3 dated 31-12-1971 (annexure 3), 7-3-1975 (annexure 4) and 6-10-1976 (annexure 5) respectively by which the transfers of the agricultural land made by the petitioner no. 1 in favour of the petitioners no. 3, 4 and 5 were not recognised under section 30dd, rajasthan tenancy act (here in after to be called as 'the act') and the separate share of late mohan kanwar jagtawatji, mother of the petitioner no. 2, was also not recognised while calculating the extent of ceiling area under section 30-c of the act. the facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition may be summarised thus.2. raisingh, husband of the petitioner no. 1, had khatedari land measuring 1347 bighas 9 biswas, more specifically described in schedule 'a' of the writ petition. he died on 13-2-1958. in november 1971, proceedings under section 30-c of the act and rules 9 and 10, rajasthan tenancy (fixation of ceiling on land) (government) rules, 1963 (here in after to be called as 'the rules') for the determination of the ceiling area were taken against the petitioner no. 1 by the respondent no. 3. the petitioner no. 1 filed objections stating that several bighas of land had been transferred to various purchasers and the co-widow of late raisingh, mohan kanwar jagtawat, had also equal share in the land left by the deseased. the transfers made in favour of the petitioners nos. 3 to 5 and separate share of mst. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 1987 (HC)

Smt. Mohan Kanwar Ranawat Vs. Board of Revenue

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-30-1987

Reported in : 2(1989)WLN(Rev)412

milap chandra, j.1. this writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the respondents nos. 1 to 3 dated 31-12-1971, (annexure-3), (annexure 4) and 6-10-1976 (annexure-5) respectively by which the transfers of the agricultural land made by the petitioner no. 1 in favour of the petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 were not recognised under section 30-dd, rajasthan tenancy act (here in after to be called as 'the act') and the separate share of late mohan kanwar jagtawatji, mother of the petitioner no. was also not recognised while calculating the extent of ceiling area under section 30-c of the act. the facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition may be summarised thus.2. baisingh, husband of the petitioner no. 1, had khatedari land measuring 1347 bighas, 9 biswas, more specifically described in schedule 'a' of (be writ petition. he died on 13-2-1958. in november 1971, proceedings under section 30-c of the act and rules 9 and 10, rajasthan tenancy (fixation of ceiling on land) (government) rules, 1963 (here in after to be called as 'the rules'; for the determination of the ceiling area were taken against the petitioner no. 1 by the respondent no. 3. the petitioner no. 1 filed objections stating that several bighas of land bad been transferred to various purchasers and the co-widow of late raisingh, mohan kanwar jagtawat, had also equal share in the land left by the deceased. the transfers made in favour of the petitioners nos. 3 to 5 and separate share of mst. mohan .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 1987 (HC)

Genia and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-18-1987

Reported in : 1987WLN(UC)576

milap chandra, j.1. this is an appeal against the judgment of the learned sessions judge, jalore dated 18-7-78 by which he convicted the accused appellants as under: name of the convictions. no. appellant under section sentences of the ipc 1 2 3 4(1) narayan 147 ri for 1-1/2 years; 148 ri for 2 years; 342 ri for 6 months; 454 ri for 3 years and fine of rs.500/- in default further ri for 3 months; 495 ri for 4 years and fine of rs. 2000/- in default further ri for 6 months;(2) hema ) 147 ri for 1-1/2 years;(3) verma)(4) geoa ) 342 ri for 6 months; 454 ri for 3 years and fine of rs. 500/- in default further ri for 3 months; 395 ri for 4 years and fine of rs. 2000/-, in default further ri for 6 months;(5) harda 147 ri for 1-1/2 years; 1 2 3 4(6) bagta 454 ri for 3 years and fine of rs. 5000/- in default further ri for 3 months; 395 ri for 4 years and fine of rs. 2000/- in default further ri for 6 months;(7) lakha) 147 ri for 1-1/2 years.(8) kesa ) ' ' '(9) sawa ) ' ' '(10) kalia) ' ' '2. the prosecution case may be briefly summarised thus. at about 10 a.m. on 7-10-1975, the accused-appellants along with 30 other persons formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing dacoity in field, bearing khasra no. 591 situated in village hema gudha (sanchore). in pursuance thereof, they came armed with gun, kulharis, lathis and dharias in three tractors. they tied the hands of harchand pw 12 and meera pw 11, broke open the iron box and took away 'bajri sattis' and also .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1987 (HC)

Pesticides India and anr. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise an ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-06-1987

Reported in : 1987(30)ELT651(Raj); 1987(1)WLN370

k.s. lodha, j.1. these two writ petitions involve a common questian of law and arise out of similar facts and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. the petitioners in both the cases are licencees of private bonded warehouses under section 58 of the customs act, 1962 (no. lii of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and now their licences have been threatened to be cancelled/or renewal refused by the assistant collector, central excise, udaipur on the ground that now public bonded warehouses have already been constructed by the warehousing corporation of india and, therefore, the private bonded warehouses should not be allowed to continue. it is on account of this invasion of their rights to hold the private bonded warehouses, that the petitioners have come up before this court. the private bonded warehouses of petitioner no. 1 is situated at udaisagar road and that of petitioner no. 2 at fatehpura crossing, nathdwara road, at udaipur, which have been declared as warehousing stations. the licences granted to the petitioners since march, 1978 had been renewed upto 1983. the petitioner applied for renewal of their licences for the year 1984. in the mean time, by order dated 14.11.83, the assistant collector, central excise division, udaipur has appointed a public warehouse at shreeji industries, pratap nagar, udaipur and on this ground in december, 1983, show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners as to why their licences may not be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 1987 (HC)

Motilal Chunnilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-09-1987

Reported in : 1987(2)WLN126

dwarka prasad, j.1. this is a reference by the income-tax appellate tribunal, jaipur bench, jaipur, by which the following questions of law were referred to this court for its opinion :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the firm was not valid and that the object of the agreement was of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the public policy as contained in the provisions of the rajasthan excise act, 1950 ? 2, if the answer to the above is in the affirmative, whether the tribunal was justified in holding that the firm was not valid and, therefore, not entitled to registration under section 185 of the income-tax act, 1961 ?' 2. the government of rajasthan granted a licence for the retail sale of country liquor during the year 1966-67 at bhilwara including the shops situated at bhupalganj, gulmandi and dhanmandi, in the joint names of motilal, chunnilal and bhanwarlal, son of motilal. it appears that with a view to carry on the aforesaid business of retail sale of country liquor, the aforesaid licensees entered into a partnership with five other persons and constituted the firm, m/s. motilal chunnilal, bhilwara, consisting of the following eight partners :1. motilal, 2. chunnilal, 3. bhanwarlal, 4. smt. vijaylaxmi, wife of satishchandra, 5. poonamchand, son of gangaram, 6. bhuralal, son of devilal, 7. ram nath, son of magniram, and 8. smt. kamala, wife of mangilal. 3. on the basis of the deed of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1987 (HC)

Bapu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-23-1987

Reported in : 1987(2)WLN859

1. this appeal by the accused bapu lal is directed against the judgment of learned sessions judge, jhalawar dated 4th march, 1986 by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302, ipc and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of rs. l,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. shortly stated the facts of the case are that on 13th december, 1984 at 11.30 p.m. mst. dhapu bai pw 1 lodged a report at police station aklera. it was submitted in the report that her father had come to meet her at about 6-7 p.m. the accused bapu lal came with a lathi in his hand and started fighting with her father. thereafter, the accused struck 2-3 blows on the head of her father. when the informant went to rescue her father then she was also given beating. at that time the accused devia and motia also came on the spot and told bapu accused to beat her father and to throw him in a ditch. thereafter, dhoolia, kalu, kanahiya son of bhanwar lal meena came on the spot and they intervened and took her father to their house. thereafter, the informant went to village maithoon, her father's village and narrated the incident to her mother. thereafter ram singh and son of baldev meena brought a bulluck-cart to devli and from there she along with the above persons had brought the injured in the bulluck-cart and lodged the report. it was further mentioned in the report that her husband was beating her for the last 2-3 days without any reason and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 1987 (HC)

Sahib Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-28-1987

Reported in : 1987(1)WLN647

shyam sunder byas, j.1. the appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned additional sessions judge (i), hanumangarh dated july 28, 1981 convicting the appellant under section 302, i.p.c. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased prithvi singh was going to village hadhai. he met the accused there. the accused was indebted to him for rs. 550/-. the deceased asked the accused to make the payment of the money. thereupon the accused took out a knife and plunged it to the deceased. as a result, the deceased fell down. he was removed to the hospital. a report of the occurrence was lodged by the deceased in the mid-night on the same day.i.e., 7-7-1980, at the police station, sangariya. the police registered a case under section 307, i.p.c. and proceeded with investigation. the deceased was removed to the hospital where, despite medical treatment, he passed away on july 10, 1980. the police added section 302, i.p.c. during investigation, the accused was arrested. before the deceased breathed his last, his dying declaration ex p. 27 was recorded by a judicial magistrate. on the information furnished by the accused, the knife was recovered. on the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of the munsif-cum-judicial magistrate, sangariya, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial in the court of sessions. the learned additional sessions judge framed a charge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1987 (HC)

Kanwara Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-02-1987

Reported in : 1987(1)WLN367

navin chandra sharma, j.1. undisputed and admitted fact is that cartilaginous part of the nose of kishna ram pw 1 was completely chopped off from his face by kanwara ram accused at about 2.00 p m. of august 27, 1976 along with a part of the medium nasal septum by a sharp edged cutting instrument. facts disputed, however, are that while according to kishna ram pw 1, when he was returning with his son beerbal aged 4 years and the herd of his cattle after making the herd drink water in a 'nadi' (water pond) adjoining the public way leading from village benan to village rama bas in tehsil bilara, district jodhpur, the accused persons kanwara ram, bhaga ram and kheeya ram, all sons of lixman ram, came following each other, started beating him, dragged him to their field which is at a distance of about 40 foot steps from the public way, bhaga ram straightway asked the remaining accused persons to cut his nose, bhagaram sat on his chest, kheeyaram and shamboora on his shoulders and the two ladies misrai and uchki on his both legs, kanwararam played the leading role of cutting his nose by a knife, his hands had been tied with a leather string, bhagaram brought 'akra' flowers, kanwararam dropped the milk of 'akra' flowers in his both eyes and made him naked by untying the 'dhoti' which he was wearing and challenged baboo lal bhambi pw 2 who had raised an alarm and who happened to see the incident from a distance of about 50 foot-steps while going from village benan to village ramra .....

Tag this Judgment!


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