Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Year: 1990 Page 1 of about 32 results (0.010 seconds)

Feb 26 1990 (HC)

Mohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-26-1990

Reported in : 1992CriLJ449; 1990(1)WLN119

i.s. israni, j.1. this criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated june 16, 1982, passed by learned special judge, a.c.d. jaipur, in special criminal case no. 24/1979, by which the accused appellant was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under section 161 i.p.c. and also to a fine of rs. 500/-. in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to under further simple imprisonment for three months. under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act 1947, the accused appellant has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of rs. 500/-. in default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo three months further simple imprisonment. both the substantive sentences are to run concurrently. !2. it will suffice for the purposes of this appeal to state that on november 9, 1978, complainant vishambhar dayal resident of village borni, tehsil kishangarhbas, district alwar, lodged a report at police station alwar to deputy superintendent of police, a.c.d., alwar, in which it was stated that some years ago, the complainant had purchased some agricultural land in his own name and in the names of his sons and registration of the sale deed was done at tehsil. thereafter all the said registries were given to appellant mohar singh halqa patwar borni for mutation, who demanded rs. 200/- for doing the same. this amount was paid to him last year. it was further alleged that the appellant returned four .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1990 (HC)

Ram Kalyan Vs. Motilal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-18-1990

Reported in : 1990(2)WLN609

m. kapur, j.1. the petitioner in this case has challenged the order of the learned sessions judge, tonk dated january 6th, 1989 by which he accepted the revision petition against the order of the munsif and judicial magistrate, niwai dated april 26th, 1988 by which charge under sections 204 and 466 ipc was framed against the respondents. the respondent no. 1 is the sarpanch of gram panchayat khanddawat, while respondent no. 2 is the patwari of this area and the respondent no. 3 is the ward member of this panchayat. it so happened that on the application of the petitioner for mutation of four khasra numbers on the basis of a will executed by bhagwan das the panchayat met on march 23rd,. 1984 and accepted the application and the entry about mutation was made in the record. however, on the same day this entry was crossed and a remark was made on the reverse that rampratap bairwa had moved an application that he was in possession of the three of the four khasra numbers. on this basis, the application of ram pratap was accepted and necessary entries in respect of three khasra number was made by the patwari.2. the order framing charge is an interlocutory order and it has been held in namichand v. state of rajasthan 1987 (2) rlw 632 that a revision against the order framing charge does not the as this is an interlocutory order. on the basis of this is said that the revision court had no jurisdiction to entertain revision and on this ground the order of the learned sessions judge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 1990 (HC)

Kalu and ors. Vs. Karnidan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-01-1990

Reported in : 1990(2)WLN181

v.s. dave, j.1. this in an application under section seciton 482. cr. pc against the order passed by learned sessions judge, bundi, on march 10, 1989 by which he dismissed the part of the prayer of the petitioners in revision filed against the order, dated 26th august 1988 passed by the learned bundi in proceedings under section 145, cr. pc.2. brief facts giving rise to this petition are that non-petitioner nos. 1 and 2 karnidan and kishan singh aged 75 years and 70 years respectively are real brothers. they filed an application under section 145 cr. pc before learned a.c.m. bundi on 17 august, 1988, wherein it was alleged by them that they are the khatedars and are in cultivatory possession of 15 bighas 15 biswas of land in khasrn no. 75 old khasra no. 25 in village theekariya charans, tehsil in district bundi. this land is known as peeplibala. it was alleged by them that they had given the land for cultivation on aadoli in erstwhile bundi state to rodu, father of petitioner no. 1 kalu, for a period of two years but later on they cultivated the laud themselves. it was alleged by applicant's non-petitioners that non-applicants got the land entered in their name in the revenue record in connivance with the land settlement officers, though cultivatory possession remained with them since last 45 years. it was stated in the complaint that non-applicant petitioners bad filed a suit in respect of this land against rodu son of bholu wherein a receiver was appointed on 25-5- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1990 (HC)

Smt. Pephi Devi Vs. Legal Representatives of Sumer Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-22-1990

Reported in : 1990WLN(UC)336

milap chandra, j.(a) that writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs;(b) that rights title and interest of the petitioner so accrued vide annexure 1 & 2 & 3 and she be khatedar the said rights should be protected.(c) that an appropriate writ, order or direction be passed to restrain the respondents from disturbing peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land comprising of khasra 284 rakba 231/2 biswas situated in village bapore, tehsil & distt. nagaur as the petitioner has got dhani in the field.(d) that other relief/reliefs with this hon'ble court may deem just and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner which is in possession of the land in question so that justice could be muted out to her otherwise she would be debarred from her valuable rights.(e) that other relief/reliefs with this hon'ble court may deem just and proper may kindly be granted.2. the petitioner has averred in her writ petition in short, as follows. her husband late pema ram nayak (harijan) purchased the abovementioned land from sumer singh rajput (father of the respondents ganga singh and hanuman singh) through sale-deed dated august 22, 1958. its true copy is annexure 1. patta was issued in his name on 1-5-65 whose photostat copy is annexure 2. jambandi of the sambat years 2033 to 2040 was also recorded in his name. a true copy of it is annexure 3. its mutation was effected in his favour on 30-10-77 and true copy of the mutation order is annexure 4. sumer singh filed a suit for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1990 (HC)

Padam Chand JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-11-1990

Reported in : 1991CriLJ736; 1990(1)WLN284

orderm.b. sharma, j.1. this is an application for cancellation of bail under section 439(2), cr. p.c. which bail was granted by shri r. k. chachan, addl. sessions judge, jaipur city jaipur in cr. misc. bail application no. 473/-89, under his order dated 17th may, 1989. the said bail application was granted in a case under sections 306 and 498a ipc, a charge-sheet having been filed after investigation by the police.2. before i take up the facts of the case, it be stated that cancellation/bail has been sought on two grounds, firstly, this court (hon'ble kapur, j.) in an application for bail made on behalf of the accused-non-petitioner under section 439 cr. p.c. has declined bail to the accused-non-petitioner in misc. bail application no. 1314/1989 arun kumar v. state on april 13, 1989 and secondly the grant of bail to the accused-non-petitioner who is the husband of deceased anjana, was not in accordance with law and was illegal.3. first the facts, which are these. marriage of anjana took place in accordance with hindu rites on july 10, 1988 with the accused-non-petitioner arun kumar son of shri kanchanlal, resident of shastri nagar, jaipur. it appears that the relations between the deceased anjana and arun kumar were not cordial for one reason or the other, and a few days before the date of her death, she had gone to the house of her parents and it was on february 17, 1989 at about 9 p.m. that the accused-non-petitioner arun kumar along-with others had gone to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1990 (HC)

Chhagan Kanwar and ors. Vs. Pep Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-19-1990

Reported in : 1991ACJ162; 1990(2)WLN495

milap chandra, j.1. this appeal has been filed by the claimants under section 110-d, motor vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter to be called as 'the act') for the enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated july 23, 1988 passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal, jodhpur, awarding rs. 70,000/- as compensation. the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. on december 26, 1984 at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased gangadan was returning on his moped from diesel training school, northern railway, bhagat ki kothi, jodhpur. he was going on his correct side of the road. the truck no. gty 4359 dashed him from his back side. as a result thereof, he sustained serious injuries. his colleagues immediately shifted him to the railway hospital, jodhpur. due to his serious condition, he was referred to mahatma gandhi hospital, jodhpur. despite best efforts of the doctors, he could not be saved and died on december 29,1984. the appellants filed a petition under section 110-a of the act claiming rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation. the respondents filed their written statements traversing all the allegations of the claim petition. after framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of rs. 70,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, against the owner, insurer and driver of the said truck.3. it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 1990 (HC)

Surja Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-01-1990

Reported in : 1(1990)WLN(Rev)289

m.c. jain, actg. c.j. 1. this petition is directed against the order of the deputy commissioner colonisation, rajasthan canal project dated 7-5-76 (ext. 2), of the order of the additional commissioner colonisation dated 19-2-1977 (ex. 3) and of the order of the board of revenue dated 27-12-1979 (ex. 4).2. the petitioner was allotted 25 bighas command land by the assistant commissioner colonisation, raisinghnagar vide order dated 26-9-72. thereafter, according to the petitioner 5 bighas 18 biswas land ceased to be command land and became baraini, so he submitted that he may be allotted 3 bighas 7 biswas command land in place of the land, which has ceased to be command land. this, prayer of the petitioner was rejected by all the three revenue authorities. the petitioner's claim, according to the authorities, was a belated one.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under rule 4 of the rajasthan colonisation (allotment and sale of government land in the rajasthan canal colony area) rules, 1975, the petitioner's original application for allotment shall be deemed to be pending and is required to be heard and decided under and in accordance with the aforesaid 1975 rules and as such the petitioner is entitled to allotment of 3 bighas 7 biswas command land.4. the stand of the government is that the petitioner is only entitled to adjustment of price under rule 17(5).5. for the proper appreciation of the controversy in question, it is essential to read the relevant part of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1990 (HC)

Ramesh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-02-1990

Reported in : 1990(2)WLN43

m.b. sharma, j.1. the main and important question in this revision petition which is directed against the order dated 14th sept, 1989 of the learned sub-divisional magistrate, hindaun, is as, to whether in proceedings under section 147 cr. pc any interim order can'be made?2. mewasi and others filed) an application under section 145 cr. pc in the court of learned sdm, hindaun where in it was stated that in village dhandhawali there is a public pond in khasra no. 893, present no. 1002 measuring two hactrea and since time immemorial the catties of the village were drinking water from the pond the non-petitioners (petitioner complainants) wanted to cultivate their fields from that pond and wanted to obstruct the cattle from drinking water. in safeguarding the pond, the petitioner wanted to make a wall around that pond. it was stated that in case the non-petitioners (petitioner here in) were successful in taking possession of the pond then the cattle of the villgge will be deprived of taking water and may die. it was also stated that there was apprehension of breach of peace. on the said complaint, the learned sdm mentioning that he was satisfied from the contents of the complaint, ordered that it be registered. he also ordered as under:vr% blrxklk ntz gks uksfvl xsj jk[kyku dks tkjh fd;k tkos fd os xzke fks/kkoyh ds rkykc [k-u- 1002 udck 2 gsdvj 8 ,oj es xzke ls eos'kh dks ikuh fiykus ls ugh jksds a bl vkns'k ls dskbz vkifrr gks rks og fnukad 21&8&89 dks u;k;ky; es miflfkr gksdj .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 1990 (HC)

Sultania Kanjar Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-09-1990

Reported in : 1990(1)WLN113

by the court1. this criminal appeal is directed against judgment dated 30-1-1980 of the sessions judge, jhalawar where by appellant, sultania has been convicted for the offence under section 302, ipc, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.2. briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 4th april, 1979 at about 8 a.m. an oral report was lodged by ram singh to hari singh solanki, station house officer of camp kali talai with the assertions that, on the intervening night of 3rd and 4th april; 1979, narsingh lal dangi pw9 informed the villagers that some body has broken into his house; thereupon, the villagers who were reciting sacred songs in the praise of god in the mid-night, went to the house of narsingh lal but nobody was found there, so all returned back to their respective house; that, how ever, after a few seconds, madan. singh heard hue and cry from northern side of the village and he armed with 'jeli' went towards that side duly followed by bajrang and moti; and that, they saw some miscreants upon one of them, madan singh inflicted a 'jeli' blow on the hand, but, at that time other miscreants fired gun which hit madan singh thereby madan singh sustained injury and died due to that injury. none of the miscreants were caught by the villagers. on the basis of the aforesaid information, a case was registered for the offences under sections 302/34, 457/511, ipc, at police station raipur, (jhalawar) investigation commenced.3. appellant, sultania, is said to have been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 1990 (HC)

Rahim Bux Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-20-1990

Reported in : 1990WLN(UC)43

r.s. verma, j.1. rahim bux has been convicted for an offence under section 302 i.p.c. by the learned. addl. sessions judge, bhilwara, vide his judgment date 06-10-89 and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs. 100/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for two months. aggrieved, he has come in appeal.2. the facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. the case of the prosecution is that pw 1 kamaruddin and appellant rahim bux are neighbours and their houses are situated at a distance of about 300' from each other. kamaruddin bad three sons, namely, pw 4 amaruddin, one fakhruddin and rahim [email protected] it is said that rahim bux's brother fakhruddin was having some sort of illicit relations with miss bhuri daughter of appellant rahim bux. naturally rahim bux was annoyed with this and on 15-8-88 at about 7 p.m., rahim bux went to the house of pw 1 kamaruddin at dadabadi, bhilwara, to remonstrate kamaruddin on this account. he had some loud verbal altercation with kamaruddin. at that time, kamruddin's daughter pw 9-jenab was also present there. on seeing this verbal altercation, smt. jenab proceeded to the factory of rahim bux alias pappu, which was situated nearby and where pw 4 amaruddin and some other persons used to work. on being informed by jenab about this verbal altercation, rahim bux alias pappu his brother pw 4 ajaruddin their employees pw 2 abdul razak, pw 3 mohd. hussain went to the place where kamaruddin pw 1 and appellant .....

Tag this Judgment!

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