Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Year: 1995 Page 1 of about 80 results (0.014 seconds)

Mar 27 1995 (HC)

Tejbhan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-27-1995

Reported in : 1996WLC(Raj)UC640; 1995(1)WLN295

..... bikaner and remained there for one month and did not turn to hanumangarh during those days. on pouring the water, the fire extinguished. dw 5 jagdish roy is the alleged mediator of the maitiage, has stated that he arranged the marriage of shakuntla with accused satya bhagwan but no talks.regarding the dowry amount took place nor any amount was agreed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 1995 (HC)

Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-19-1995

Reported in : AIR1996Raj154; 1996(2)WLC36

ravani, c.j. 1. where no period of limitation is prescribed under the relevant provision of the statute, can the power be exercised by the authority at any time? the question has arisen in this appeal under section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance, 1949 in the context of exercise of powers by the board of revenue after a period of about 25 years under section 82 of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 and under section 232 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955. 2. this appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned single judge in sb civil writ petition no. 184 of 1987 decided on january 19, 1987. by the aforesaid order, the learned single judge confirmed the judgment and order passed by the board of revenue in lr reference no. 38 of 1984/ kota. 3. the facts giving rise to this appeal, are as follows :-- the dispute pertains to a land admeasuring 43 bighas and 9 biswas, situated in the village -- ulthi tehsil and district -- baran. the land was originally in the name of pujari laxminarain temple. sometime in the year 1951, the pujari died. the land was ordered to be resumed and confiscated to the state as per order dated jaunary 20, 1955 passed by the commissioner, kota. in other words, the land was a 'muafi' land inasmuch as after death of the pujari of laxminarain temple, no one was there to claim the land. by way of escheat, it was ordered to be resumed by the state. 4. on oct. 14, 1955, the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (for short 'the act of 1955') .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1995 (HC)

Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Nirmala Saxena

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-04-1995

Reported in : (1995)126CTR(Raj)1; 1995(3)WLC79; 1995(1)WLN381

v.k. singhal, j.1. the income-tax appellate tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated september 14, 1982, under section 64(1) of the estate duty act, 1953 :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was justified in holding that the share of the lineal descendants in the coparcenary house property was not includible in the principal estate of the assessee for rate purpose under section 54(1)(c)?'2. the facts as stated by the assistant controller of estate duty, jaipur, in his order dated february 5, 1980, are that the deceased had a 1/5th interest in the residential family house property belonging to the deceased, his wife and three sons. it was claimed that the value of the family property should be exempt under section 33(1)(n) as its value was below rs. 1,00,000. according to the assistant controller of estate duty, the value of the house property was assessed at a figure of rs. 65,000. the house property was assessed in land and building tax as on march 1, 1973, at a figure of rs. 56,500. therefore, in order to estimate the value as on april 1, 1973, the assistant controller considered it at a figure of rs. 1,00,000 and the 1/5th share of the deceased therein was exempted and the 3/5ths share of the three legal representatives was held liable to be included in the estate for rate purposes.3. in appeal, the appellate controller of estate duty following the decision in ced v. estate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1995 (HC)

Hanuman Choudhary Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-04-1995

Reported in : 1995(2)WLC124; 1995(2)WLN395

anshuman singh, j.1. this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india has been filed as public interest litigation by mr. hanuman choudhary who is an advocate practising in the high court of rajasthan, jaipur.2. by means of the present petition the petitioner has challenged holding of elections to the panchayat raj institutions in rajasthan in two phases and has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to hold elections on the same day i.e. in one phase or in the alternate it has also been prayed that if the elections are allowed to be held in two phases by the respondents then the result of the elections held in two phases should be declared on the same day. under the provisions of rajasthan panchayti raj act, 1994 (act no. 13 of 1994) the state government has decided to hold elections for panchayat samiti, zila parichad and other panchayti raj institutions and in pursuance of the said decision the election commission has issued a schedule for holding the aforesaid elections which has been published in the newspaper known as rajasthan patrika, dated 29.12.94. a copy of the said schedule (programme of the elections) as published in rajasthan patrika has been filed as annexure-1 to this petition. from the aforesaid schedule, it appears that the election commission has decided to hold elections in two phases. in the first phase a voter shall be called upon to elect a member for the zila parishad and a member for the panchayat samiti. in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1995 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Ratan Lal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-11-1995

Reported in : 1995CriLJ2844

b.r. arora, j.1. these three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 29-11-88, passed by the district and sessions judge, pratabgarh, by which the learned sessions judge convicted accused-appellants ganpat lai and jag ram for the offence under sections 302/34, i.p.c., and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment of life; but acquitted them and the other co-accused, viz., ratan lal, man singh, rod chand, madan lal, dal chand, kanhaiya lal and amrit lal of the offences under sections 148 and 302/149, i.p.c.2. appellants ganpat lal and jag ram, along with accused ratan lai, man singh, rod chand, madan lal, dal chand, kanhaiya lal and amrit lal, were tried by the learned sessions judge, pratabgarh, for the offences under sections 148 and 302/149 i.p.c. the case of the prosecution is that all the aforesaid nine accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to kill bal kishan and in furtherance of that common object, on 14-11-86, at about 8.00 p.m. near the house of laxman balai in village achalpura, they inflicted injuries to bal kishan by kulhari, knife, gupti, khuntli and lathis. according to prosecution case, bal kishan had borrowed voke and wooden levelled from laxman balai. on the relevant day, he went to the house of laxman bala to return the same and after returning the yoke when he was returning from the house of laxman bala, accused-appellant ganpat lal, who was sitting near the fire (dhuni), asked bal kishan why he had got his fodder eaten by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1995 (HC)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Tara Chand and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-18-1995

Reported in : II(1995)ACC250; 1995(1)WLC755

b.j. shethna, j.1. two contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company. first, that the vehicle was not insured at the time of the actual accident. he submitted that the cover note shows that the period was commencing from 1.00 p.m. of 31.3.1992 and actual incident took place at about 12.30 p.m. on that day. this point was not specifically argued before the learned tribunal. learned counsel has shown a copy of the cover note from his record. original one is not produced before the tribunal. therefore, carbon copy cannot be looked into. apart from that the copy of the cover note shows that the period of insurance commenced from 1.00 p.m. of 31.3.1992 which ends on 30.3.1993 at midnight hours. it is not in dispute that the insurance was taken for one year. therefore, the insurance company cannot plead that it starts from 1.00 p.m. on 31.3.1992 and if it ends at 12.00 midnight of 31.3.1993 then it starts from 12 midnight of 31.3.1992 and not from 1.00 p.m. of 31.3.1992. hence this contention is rejected.2. the learned counsel then submitted that there was no valid licence of the driver who was driving the bus in question. it is not in dispute that the driver was having valid licence for medium vehicle. whether the bus in question was a medium vehicle or heavy vehicle is a question of fact. no evidence was led before the learned tribunal. it was never argued before the tribunal in that sense. therefore, this contention cannot be permitted to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1995 (HC)

Madan Lal and ors. Vs. Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering D ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-19-1995

Reported in : 1995(3)WLC130; 1995(1)WLN400

n.c. kochhar, j.1. since the facts of this writ petition filed on 15.11.1988 and the facts of sb civil writ petition no. 1384 of 1989 'vijay kumar v. chief engineer, public health & engineering department & others' (the other writ petition) filed on 12.12.1988 are same and the reply has been filed in this writ petition, both these writ petitions are being disposed of together by mentioning the facts of this writ petition only.2. the case set up by the petitioners is that on the requisition having been received from the respondent no. 3- superintending engineer, phed vide letter dated 11.6.84 (annx.1), the employment exchange, bharatpur had forwarded the names of 52 persons from genera] category and 20 persons from reserved category for making appointments on 4 posts of store munshies and the candidates so forwarded were interviewed by a selection committee on 10.7.1984 and the petitioners were declared successful for being appointed on the posts of store munshies, but, to their, surprise, they received letter dated 12.7.1984 issued by the respondent no. 3 appointing all of them as work charge helpers gr.ii in the pay scale of rs. 360-5-450-10-460 and that, they having no option, joined on the posts of helper gr. ii in the lower pay scale, but, thereafter, made representations complaining that they ought to have been appointed as store munshies and had learnt that under the directions of respondent no. 2 additional chief engineer (head quarter), phed, jaipur, the respondent no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1995 (HC)

Smt. Amina Vs. State of Raj. and 4 ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-30-1995

Reported in : 1995(1)WLN429

arun madan, j.1. this is a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india in the matter of violation of arts. 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of india and in the matter of payment of family pension to the petitioner, a widow of a late retired class iv employee, resident of tehsil jetaran, district pali, rajasthan, who has been subjected to most hostile treatment and denial of family pension opted by her on the death of her husband w.e.f. september, 1961.2. this case has a chequered histry if a poor helpless widow who has not been shown any mercy by the instrumentality of the state government (pension department) which has deprived her of the sanctioned family pension for the past about 30 years, in gross violation of right to life and liberty guaranteed- under article 21 of the constitution of india which includes the right to livelihood which cannot be deprived by instrumentality of the state as has happened in this case.3. the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that late husband of the petitioner was a class iv employee as camel sawar in the office of respondent no. f, the tehsildar, jetaran district pali who retired from service on 2.9.1958 and died on 18.9.1961 and was paid pension by his department till 18.9.1961, the date on which he expired.4. subsequent to the death of her husband, the petitioner being the widow applied for family pension which upon verification of the necessary documents as asked for by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1995 (HC)

Umesh Sharma Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-31-1995

Reported in : 1995(1)WLN563

m.p. singh, j.1. the petitioner is seeking admission in engineering degree course on the basis of pre-engineering test, 1994 through this writ petition.the coordinator pre-engineering test, 199 mohan lal sukhadia university, udalpur, (respondent no. 2) issued a notification which was published in the rajasthan patrika dated 6th august, 1994, for admission in engineering degree course. it was a combined test for as many as 35 institutes in rajasthan. the name of birla institute of technology & science, pilani, rajasthan, (respondent no. 4) was also included in the said list.2. the petitioner appeared in the test. he secured 672 marks out of 900. the merit list was notified. in general category, merit position no. 1 to 762 and in the reserve list merit position nos. 763 to 912 were notified. the petitioner's merit position was 1006. the candidates whose names appeared in the merit list upto 762 were called for interview on different dates and given admissions. there was no question of considering the petitioner for admission, as his position in the merit list was 1006. he has been rightly denied admission.3. the birla institute of technology & science had already issued its own notification for admission. the last date for making applications was 30th june, 1994. all the admissions have been finalised by the beginning of august, 1994. the petitioner was not entitled to get admission in this institute under any circumstance.4. apart from it in the merit list he stood at serial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1995 (HC)

Jagat Prakash Roy Bhatnagar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-02-1995

Reported in : 1995(3)WLC348; 1995(1)WLN441

arun madan, j.1. this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india has been filed by the above named petitioner for violation of his fundamental rights under article 14, 16 & 21 of the constitution of india who is an old man of about 84 years and physically handicapped in the last span of his existence, a poor person with no help from anybody and passing the last days of his life in acute pain and agony for want of pension, since his basic means of livelihood have been taken away by the instrumentality of the state, viz, the department of industries, government of rajasthan, jaipur.2. the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as a weaving instructor, panchayat samiti, masuda on 23.3.1956 in the erstwhile state, of ajmer which was merged into the state of rajasthan on 1.11.1956. he was allowed to continue on the same post by the department of industries in panchayat samiti, masuda. while in service he remained posted at various places and on reaching the age of superannuation, i.e., 55 years as then he retired from service w.e.f. 1.7.1967 but the notional period of 3 years' of service was allowed to be added, i.e., 58 years and thus his qualifying service for the purposes of pension is 14 years 7 months and 8 days. it is rather unfortunate that inspite of the petitioner having served the department of industries for over 14 years he was not confirmed and his services were not regularised by .....

Tag this Judgment!


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