Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: rajasthan Year: 2004 Page 2 of about 62 results (0.008 seconds)

Sep 30 2004 (HC)

Kalu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-30-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj863; 2004(1)WLC45

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. prithvi singh and parbat singh, two old aged neighbours were found beheaded in the morning of october 5, 2001, police station pagaria was approached and in the course of investigation the police came to the conclusion that it was kalu singh (herein after described as 'accused') who had committed the crime. the accused was placed on trial before the learned additional sessions judge (fast track) no. 3 jhalawar in sessions case no. 74/2003. learned judge vide judgment dated august 7, 2003 convicted and sentenced the accused as under.-under section 302 ipc: to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment. under section 459 ipc: to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. it is the prosecution case that prithvi singh had five daughters, therefore he took the accused in adoption. on the pursuation of prithvi singh, accused left the house of his original father and came with his wife to the house of prithvi singh and started residing there. soon the dreams of prithvi singh broke into pieces and he ousted the accused from the house and demanded the adoption deed back. thereafter on october 5, 2001 prithvi singh and parbat singh found dead. madan singh son of parbat singh lodged the report with the police station pagaria camp kholkheri. a case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2004 (HC)

Shankar Lal Tiwari Vs. Vaidya Ram Niwas Joshi and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-30-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj458; 2005(1)WLC185

k.s. rathore, j.1. present petition is directed against the order dated 23.7.2001 passed by the commissioner, devasthan department in appeal no. 3/2001 filed by respondent no. 1.2. the brief facts of the case are that there is a temple of shri krishna behariji situated in purani basti, jaipur. this temple was constructed more than 100 years ago. it is allowed that the temple was constructed by the ancestors of the petitioner and the former jaipur state has sanctioned state grants in various villages for the sewapooja and for the maintenance of the temple. the last grantee in whose favour the matmi was sanctioned by the former jaipur state was tiwari govind bus, was died on 20.3.46. thereafter, the board of revenue for rajasthan, jaipur in case no. 49/matmi-jaipur of samvat 2006 vide its order dated 14.8.50 recognised ghisi lal as the successor of last grantee govind bux and sanctioned the matmi in his name.3. the commissioner, devasthan department recommended to the revenue department, which was also the administrative department of the devasthan department vide letter dated 2.9.57 that the temple in question was constructed by the ancestors of ghisi lal and asked for sanction for handing over the temple to ghisi lal and the temple was handed over to ghisi lal.4. the asstt. devasthan commissioner issued a notice under section 70 of the rajasthan public trust act 1959 and after considering the enquiry the asstt. devasthan commissioner vide order dated 6.4.88 set aside the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2004 (HC)

Ghanshyam @ Ghanti and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-30-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj73; 2005(1)WLC316

s.k. sharma, j.1. the appellants four in number, were the accused on the file of learned additional sessions judge no. 3, alwar bearing sessions case no. 28/1997. learned judge vide judgment dated may 25, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellants (herein after described as accused') as under:-ghanshyam @ ghanti & babu lal @ banti:under section 302 ipc:each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer one year simple imprisonment.under section 307 ipc:each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.under section 3/27 of arms act:each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of rs. 200/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.ghanshyam @ ghanti:under section 3/25 of the arms act:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of rs. 200/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.smt. guddo @ nirmala and smt. seema:under section 323 ipc:extended the benefit of probation.the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. it is the prosecution case that informant raghunandan (pw. 2) submitted a written report (ex.p. 2) with the police station malakhera on june 30, 1997 at 4.00 pm, with the averments that while he was on duty his brother shiv charan informed him on telephone that ghanshyam, babulal, guddo, seema, father-in-law of ghanshyam and billu were hurling abuses and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2004 (HC)

Bhateri Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-29-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj877; 2004(4)WLC593

k.s. rathore, j.1. this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the notice for no confidence motion dated 11.8.2004.2. this court while issuing notice given liberty to the respondents to proceed with no-confidence motion which was scheduled to be held on 21.8.2004 at 11 am, but the respondents were restrained not to declare the result without seeking permission of this court.3. the case of the petitioner is that while serving notice for no-confidence motion upon the petitioner, the respondents have not complied with the mandatory provisions of rule 21 of the rajasthan panchayati raj rules, 1996. as per rule 21, for the purposes of no-confidence motion, 15 clear days notice should be given. the said rule was later on amended vide notification dated 6.1.2000 and instead of 15 clear days, 7 clear days has been added in provision of section 37 of the rajasthan panchayati raj act, 1994.4. as per direction of this court, the state has submitted the original record of the panchayat samiti.5. upon perusal of the record, it reveals that resolution to lake the no confidence motion against the petitioner was passed by the members of panchayal on 2.8.2004. to this effect, notice was issued to all members on 11.8.2004 notifying that meeting for no confidence motion will be held on 21.8.2004 at 11 am. the notices were served upon the members on 18.8.2004.6. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, notices were served upon the members on 18.8.2004 which are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2004 (HC)

Surendra Kumar Garg and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-24-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj478; 2005(1)WLC243

r.p. vyas, j.1. the instant appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated august 26, 2003, by which he dismissed the writ petition of the appellant-petitioners on the grounds that to settle the scores against respondent no. 3- smt. surta devi the lady sarpanch of gram panchayat, the petition has been filed, and she is indulged in forgery and prepared forged documents, the petitioner-appellants are free to move a no confidence motion against her. apart from that, the petitioner- appellants are not directly affected by the order of the state government.2. aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned single judge, the instant appeal has been filed.3. in this appeal, the appellant-petitioners have challenged the impugned order of the learned single judge dated august 26, 2003 on two grounds. firstly, it was contended that the learned single judge has committed serious illegality and irregularity while dismissing the writ petition, without taking into consideration the provisions of section 39 and 97 of the rajasthan panchayati raj act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act, 1994')- he also made an attempt to assail the impugned judgment with reference to section 39 of the act, 1994 and submitted that by virtue of the said provisions of the act and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the state government has no jurisdiction to pass such impugned order and there is no reason to hold that the respondent no. 3 is not guilty. secondly, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 2004 (HC)

Ram NaraIn and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-22-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj851; 2005(1)WLC344

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. the appellants, five in number, were the accused on the file of learned additional sessions judge (fast track) no. 2 baran (camp chhabra) bearing sessions case no. 69/2003. learned judge vide judgment dated september 19, 2003 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-under section 302/149 ipc:each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.under section 147 ipc:each to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. under section 447/149 ipc:each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.under section 148 ipc:each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer two months simple imprisonment.the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. we may state and refer to the necessary and bare facts and the relevant evidence for disposal of points involved in this appeal. on march 22, 2002 around 10-10.30 pm while rudra pratap singh had been to his house, four persons viz. pappu, prakash, ram swaroop and prem arrived and pappu told him that his brother madan lal was killed by some unknown assailants and his dead body was lying in the field. rudra pratap singh then telephonically communicated the information to police station kawai. the information was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2004 (HC)

Mohan Lal Vs. Shree Ram and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-21-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj40; 2005(1)WLC245

gupta, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. by the impugned orders the rent control tribunal has decided respondent's application filed under section 6 of the rajasthan rent control act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the act') and an appeal against the order has failed. resultantly, the monthly rent of the premises has been determined at rs. 804.89.3. the facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under section 6 of the act, alleging inter-alia, that the premises have been let out to the petitioner on 15.11.1973 at a monthly rent of rs, 150/- and at present the is paying rent of rs. 200/- per month, while according to provisions of section 6, as on 15.11.1993, monthly rent should have been rs. 460/- and as on 15.11.2003 it should be rs. 805/-. with these allegations it is prayed that monthly rent of the premises be determined at rs. 805/-. the application was supported by affidavit of the plaintiff applicant respondent. the application was contested by the petitioner, contending that the present rent of rs. 200/- has been increased under pressure. in para 6 a plea has been taken to the effect, that the shop was constructed for the first time in the year 1972 and was let out to one kanaram son of bhuraram for operating a lathe machine at a monthly rent of rs. 60/-. thereafter in the year 1973 the premises were let out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of rs. 125/-, and then it was increased to rs. 150/- and presently he is paying rs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2004 (HC)

Ram Deo Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-16-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj765; 2004(4)WLC579

anil dev singh, c.j.1. this appeal arises in the following circumstances:-2. the appellant was elected as sarpanch of gram panchayat singhrawat, panchayat samiti dhod, district sikar. some of the members moved a motion expressing want of confidence in the appellant. on january 29, 2003 the third respondent, the chief executive officer, zila parishad, sikar, convened a meeting of the gram panchayat for consideration of the no-confidence motion on february 10, 2003. on februarys, 2003 the state election commission declared february 16, 2003 as the date for by- elections for the two vacant seats of the gram panchayat singhrawat. the appellant feeling aggrieved by the order of the third respondent dated january 29, 2003, filed a writ petition mainly on the ground that since the by-elections were to be held on february 13, 2003 the fixation of date for consideration of the no-confidence motion before february 16, 2003 was an arbitrary act on the part of the third respondent. the learned single judge on consideration of the matter, dismissed the writ petition. thereupon the appellant filed the instant appeal. along with the appeal the appellant moved an application for interim relief. the division bench on july 7, 2004 while admitting the appeal, permitted the appellant to continue to work as sarpanch of the gram panchayat singhrawat, panchayat samiti dhod, district sikar. the matter has now come up before us for final disposal of the appeal.3. we have heard the learned counsel for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 2004 (HC)

Bundu Khan and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-09-2004

Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj858; 2004(4)WLC574

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. the appellants were accused on the file of learned sessions judge, jaipur district jaipur bearing sessions case no. 89/97. learned sessions judge vide judgment dated may 24, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-bundu khan:under section 302 ipc: to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 2.000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. jarina:under section 302/34 ipc: to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 2,000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 2. the prosecution story is woven like this:-on may 24, 1997 around 6.15 pm nawal kishore sharma (pw.7), who was posted as asi at police station bagru, recorded parcha bayan of smt. kamla (pw. 1) at mridul agricultural farm bindayka. in the parcha bayan smt. kamla stated that her husband mahadev (now deceased) was axed by bundu khan while his wife jarina inflicted lathi-blows. mangej (pw.8) and jagdish bagra (pw.18) had seen the incident. thereafter mahadev was taken to hospital by madan dudi and lallu meena in a jeep. on the basis of parcha bayan of kamla initially a case under sections 307, 324 and 323/34 ipc was registered which was later on converted under section 302 ipc. after usual investigation the charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned sessions judge, jaipur district. charges under sections 302 and 302/34 ipc were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 2004 (HC)

Laxmi Steel Industries Vs. State and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-03-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)42; IV(2005)BC125; RLW2005(1)Raj654; 2005(1)WLC658

h.r. panwar, j.1. both these criminal leave to appeals arise out of disputes between the same parties and involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. both these criminal leave to appeals under section 378(4) are directed against the order dated 07.01.2003 passed by the chief judicial magistrate, hanumangarh (in short the 'trial court' hereinafter) in complaint cases no. 141/01 and 140/01 respectively, whereby the trial court acquitted accused second respondent surendra pal singh of the offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (in short 'the act' hereinafter). aggrieved by the order of acquitted impugned, the complainant seeks leave to appeals to this court.3. i have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the accused second respondent. it was a complaint case by the private firm therefore, learned public prosecutor has nothing to say in the matter. i have carefully gone through the material placed on record.4. the facts which are relevant and necessary are being taken from the complaint case no. 141/01 since the dates are almost common in both these cases.5. briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 138 of the act on 22.2.2001 against second respondent surendra pal singh inter alia alleging therein that the second .....

Tag this Judgment!


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