Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: rajasthan Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 88 results (0.016 seconds)

Dec 21 2006 (HC)

Kundan Singh Vs. Shri Pustimargiya Tritya Peeth Pranayas and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-21-2006

Reported in : RLW2007(3)Raj1851

..... the surrounding circumstances including the fact that if oral agreement was entered into between the parties then whether it was in presence of any person and if there was any mediator who was he and what negotiations took place and if the agreement was acted upon then all the material particulars ; how it was acted upon which includes the writing of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 2006 (HC)

Smt. Neni and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-17-2006

Reported in : 2006CriLJ4527; RLW2007(1)Raj330

..... and to take them to the residence of p.w. 9 jasraj, elder brother of khetidas at about 1.30 p.m. in the same night. these people wanted to mediate for amicable settlement between the accused and the complainant in lieu of which the accused offered some money also so that the complainant party may not pursue the police case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 2006 (HC)

Daya Singh Lahoriya @ Rajeev Sudan @ Vinay Kumar Vs. State of Rajastha ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-20-2006

Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj1976; 2006(4)WLC240

..... to sale (ex. p. 10) and identified accused daya singh and suman sood. ashu lal lalwani (pw. 13), brahmanand gupta (pw. 14), chandra kumar (pw. 21) were the brokers who mediated in the sale/purchase of the house identified accused daya singh and suman sood. surendra kumar (pw. 33), employee of union bank of india delhi proved the application form for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2006 (HC)

TajuddIn (Deceased) Through Lr. Vs. FaqruddIn (Deceased) Through Lr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-03-2006

Reported in : RLW2007(1)Raj449

narendra kumar jain, j.1. the plaintiff has filed this regular first appeal under section 96 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 31st of january, 1981 passed by the additional district judge, no. 1 jaipur city, in civil suit no. 67/1977, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration permanent injunction and possession was dismissed.2. brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 13th of december, 1976 the plaintiff filed a suit in the lower court wherein it was prayed that a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff be passed declaring him sajjadanashin and mutwali of dargah hazrat ziauddin sahib situated near moti katla, outside chaardarwaja in jaipur city. a prayer for decree of possession was also made in respect of the properties which are in occupation of the defendants. it was also prayed that the defendants be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction not to interfere in the property of dargah erected on khasra nos. 497 to 503.3. the plaintiff, in his plaint, pleaded that there is one well known dargah, namely, hazrat mian ziauddin and the plaintiff is its sajjadanashin, the defendants are in habit to quarrel with the plaintiff about their rights in the dargah. the pedigree was given in para 1 of the plaint. it was pleaded that jaipur his highness had gifted seven bigha of land in khasra nos. 497 to 503 in jaipur city to hazrat mian ziauddin sahib, for the use of residence and for laying down a garden around. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 2006 (HC)

Bhuri Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-11-2006

Reported in : RLW2007(2)Raj997

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the predecessor in title of petitioners narain singh filed a suit for declaration against smt. gainda (predecessor in title of respondents no. 4 to 7) regarding the land in dispute situated in village kakda tehsil deeg claiming to be in possession of the land since svt. 2014 and acquired khatedari rights. since despite service the defendant did not appear the sub divisional officer deeg proceeded exparte and decreed the suit vide judgment dated july 20, 1970. the respondents filed first appeal on june 23, 1973 along with the application under section 5 of limitation act, 1963. on receiving notices the petitioners raised preliminary objections. the appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment dated july 16, 1974. thereafter the respondents filed second appeal before the board of revenue (for short 'board'), who vide judgment dated november 11, 1982 dismissed the same holding that the respondents purchased the land in dispute from gainda after institution of suit, therefore, the transaction was hit by the doctrine of lispendense. it was also held that smt. gainda belonged to scheduled caste whereas plaintiff belonged to caste fauzdar, therefore there was violation of section 42 of rajasthan tenancy act, 1955. the state government was not party to suit therefore the transfer of possession was in violation of section 42. in the year 1973 the respondents 4 to 7 also filed a suit for declaring the decree dated july 20, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 2006 (HC)

Murlidhar Vs. Nand Kishore and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-07-2006

Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1687

prem shanker asopa, j. 1. that by this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.4.2005 passed by district judge, tonk, whereby two applications filed by the petitioner during the pendency of the first appeal one under order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 c.p.c. dated 19.10.01 for amendment of written statement and another under order 41 rule 27 c.p.c. dated 17.1.2002, for taking subsequent events on record were dismissed.2. briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that a decree of eviction was passed on 16.9.1994 against the petitioner-appellant in a civil suit for eviction filed by the respondent plaintiff on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed an appeal before the district judge, tonk.3. during the pendency of the appeal the petitioner filed one application on 19.10.01 under order 6 rule 17 for amendment in the written statement on the ground that in the civil suit decree of the disputed shop dated 16.9.94 was passed on the ground of necessity of gauri shanker, who has opened a shop no. f-4 in new mandi yard, newai on 24.11.1994. therefore, the necessity of the plaintiffs stand satisfied and amendment in the written statement is necessary. alongwith the said application the petitioner filed a photocopy of the inauguration card of the said shop on 24.11.1994.4. the another application was filed on 17.1.2002 under order 41 rule 27 c.p.c. for taking documents/subsequent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 2006 (HC)

Ramesh Minglani and ors. Vs. the Special Judge, Ndps Cases and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-08-2006

Reported in : AIR2006Raj163

orderdinesh maheshwari, j.1. having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this court is satisfied that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order dated 21-1-2006 (annexure-6) and in rejecting the prayer for stay of the suit proceedings under section 10 of the code of civil procedure ('cpc'); and this writ petition being totally devoid of substance deserves to be rejected.2. brief facts relevant for the present purpose are that the petitioners are defendants in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the respondent no. 2. a comprehension of the plaint averments (annex. 1) makes it evident that the dispute relates to a piece of land situated at 7e chhoti, tehsil sriganganagar in murraba no. 14, khatedar of the said land, rawata ram son of mana ram, sold 2 bighas of land through his power of attorney rahul chhabra on 17-11-1998 to mahendra singh and hansraj; and in such sale, the land in dispute comprised in kila no. 23/2 admeasuring 5 biswas and 20 biswansi was included; mutation was effected in the name of the purchasers and thereafter the said purchasers, mahendra singh and hansraj, sold the land to the plaintiff (respondent no. 2) on 10-8-1999 and it was duly mutated in her name too. it appears that the same power of attorney of rawata ram executed another sale deed on 15-10-1998 for a land in the same murraba no. 14 admeasuring 2 bighas 19 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 2006 (HC)

Kunna Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-07-2006

Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1071; 2006(2)WLC288

gopal krishna vyas, j.1. by the present petition moved under section 482, cr.p.c. the petitioners seek to challenge order dated 6.8.1999 whereby the learned judl. magistrate, kuchaman city proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners for offences under sections 148, 447, 427 and 379, i.p.c. in criminal case no. 68/99 and, so also, order dated 6.9.2005 passed by the revisional court of learned addl. sessions judge, parbatsar. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial court has erred in law in taking cognizance of alleged offences against the petitioners in the absence of sufficient evidentiary material on record. he submitted that the case is of civil nature because the land in question was sold to the petitioners by the complainant vide an agreement to sale and the petitioners have filed suit in which stay order was granted upon the application filed under order 39, rules 1 & 2, c.p.c. in which restraining the complainant and other persons it is ordered that they will not sell the land in question situated in khasra no. 456, rakba 1.45 hectare moja jasrana and the state government as well as registration department have been restrained from registering the sale document, if any, executed by non-petitioner no. 2. further, while ordering status quo with regard to the land in question, the court has ordered that no mutation shall be made in favour of mukana ram. it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that fir was also filed for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2006 (HC)

Gulab Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-01-2006

Reported in : AIR2006Raj162; 2006(2)WLC463

orderk.s. rathore, j.1. the substantial question of law involved in this writ petition is whether the provisions of hindu succession act, 1956 is applicable to the member of the scheduled tribes.2. brief facts of the case are that non-petitioners smt. shanti devi & ramdhani filed a suit for declaration of khatedari rights and cancellation of mutation entries and declaration of gift deed dated 6-5-1978 executed by smt. itbai in favour of the petitioner gulab as null and ineffective and also for correction of entries in revenue record with regard to agriculture land in question against the petitioner and one smt. itbai, in the court of sd gangapur city.3. the petitioner also filed a cross suit for declaration of tenancy right, injunction and correction of revenue entries against the non-petitioner nos. 2 to 5 with regard to the same agriculture land in question.4. both the suits were consolidated and transferred to the court of assistant collector, sapotra, gangapur city.5. the assistant collector, sapotra al- lowed the suit of the petitioner and dismissed the suit of the respondents-shanti devi and ram dhani vide judgment dated 12-11-1987.6. the respondents filed an appeal before the revenue appellate authority. the revenue appellate authority vide judgment dated 25 3-1989 upheld the judgment passed by the assistant collector, sapotra.7. aggrieving and dissatisfying with the judgment dated 25-3-1989, the respondents preferred an appeal before the board of revenue. the board of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2006 (HC)

Sukhdev Singh Vs. Baxis Singh and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-24-2006

Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1036

satya prakash pathak, j.1. the first appeal under section 96 cpc has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2003 passed by learned addl. district judge no. 1, hanumangarh, in civil suit no. 114/2002 (22/1999) (47/1998)-baxis singh v. mst. gurdev kaur and anr. whereby the suit against defendant no. 1 was decreed with cost and it was ordered that the defendant no. 1 shall get the sale-deed in respect of the disputed land written and executed at the expenses of the plaintiff and shall get it registered before the competent officer within a period of two months from the date of the order. it was further ordered that on defendant no. 1's failing to do so within the specified period the plaintiff shall have the right to get the sale-deed written and executed and getting it registered in his favour through the court.2. the facts of the case inter alia stated in the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent no. 1 baxis singh in the year 1998 against mst. gurdev kaur for specific performance of the agreement dated 27.5.1996 in respect of various lands, the details of which find mention in para no. 2 of the plaint, are to the effect that defendant in whose name the agricultural lands in various kilas of chak 17 llw, tehsil hanumangarh are entered in the revenue records, is an old aged lady suffering from ailment and is unable to lookafter the same so she has executed a general power of attorney in favour of her nephew baggasingh s/o chandsingh to do all such acts on her behalf .....

Tag this Judgment!

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