Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: rajasthan Year: 2008 Page 1 of about 70 results (0.030 seconds)

Dec 12 2008 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Rent Tribunal and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-12-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj1947

..... arbitral procedure which is fair and capable of meeting the needs of specific arbitration and minimizing the supervisory role of the court and to permit the arbitral tribunal to use mediation; but, at the same time, the prayer for reference can be made if the subject-matter in question before the court is enumerated in the clause for arbitration in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 2008 (HC)

Subhkaran Singh Vs. Kishan Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-24-2008

Reported in : 2009CriLJ2298; RLW2009(3)Raj2117

orderraghuvendra s. rathore, j.1. this criminal misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 14-12-1989 passed by the learned additional chief judicial magistrate, no. 1, alwar, whereby he had rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner and accepted the final report, submitted by the investigation agency in f.i.r. no. 24/1985. being aggrieved of the said order, the complainant-petitioner preferred a revision petition and the same came to be dismissed by the learned additional sessions judge, no. 2, alwar on 2-7-1998.2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner had lodged a report on 17-2-1985, at police station malkhera, district alwar, for the offences under sections 120-b, 416, 467, 468 and 420, i.p.c. after registration of the report, the police investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that no offence was made out and, as such, they submitted a final report before the concerning court. the petitioner-complainant then filed a protest petition before the learned magistrate. thereafter, the statement of the petitioner and his witnesses were recorded. the learned trial court, by the order impugned dated 14-10-1989, dismissed the protest petition and accepted the final report submitted by the investigation agency. the protest petition was dismissed on the ground that since the petitioner had filed a civil suit and accused persons were party in the said suit, it is the civil court alone which was competent for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 2008 (HC)

Bajrang Lal and ors. Vs. Dal Chand and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-21-2008

Reported in : AIR2009Raj36

orderprakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the appellants are aggrieved against the impugned order dated 26-4-2005 by which the first appellate court - court of the additional district judge, ratangarh (churu) dismissed the appeal of the appellants as abated due to the death of defendant/respondent dal chand as in regular first appeal, the plaintiff/appellant did not choose to file any application for bringing on record the legal representatives of dal chand.3. brief facts of the case are that one of the defendants khetu lal took loan from another defendant revat mal. said revat mal filed a suit for recovery of the money which was decreed by the trial court as back as on 20-10-1965. said revat mal submitted execution petition no. 46/67 for recovery of the said decretal amount of rs. 609/- only and in the said execution, the house of judgment debtor khetu mal was auctioned for a consideration of rs. 9,775/-. the reserve price was rs. 5,000/- only. after the said auction, the present appellants - sons of judgment debtor khetu mal filed a suit for declaration that the suit property was ancestral property of khetu mal and, therefore, he could not have mortgaged it to another creditor dal chand. they also sought relief for cancellation of the mortgage deed executed in favour of dal chand. it may be relevant to mention here that dal chand also obtained the decree on 26-1-1971 for the house in question and the final decree was passed in favour of dal chand. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 2008 (HC)

Ram Rai Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-18-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1674

mahesh bhagwati, j.1. challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of conviction dated 21st february, 1986, whereby the special judge anti corruption cases jaipur convicted the accused appellant ram rai s/o shri narain lal by caste balai, r/o of niwai in the offences under section 161 of ipc and section 5(l)(d)(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as act 1947) and sentenced him as under:under section 161 of ipcone year rigorous imprisonment.section 5(l)(d)(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1947one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment of two months. both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. the nub of the prosecution story as unfolded by pw.l abdul aziz is as under: that on 9th april, 1980 the complainant pw-1 abdul aziz submitted a complaint ex. p/l to dy. s.p. anti corruption department, ajmer stating that the accused ram rai land records officer tehsil devi, district tonk, has solicited for a bribe of rs. 200 for mutation of his land. he has no intention to pay the gratification to the land record inspector, hence necessary action should be taken. the complainant also stated that having settled the time and the place for giving this bribe amount to the accused, he shall again come on 10th april, 1980. since the complainant could not manage 200 rupees, he approached the dy. s.p. a.c.d. on 11th april, 1980 and apprised the dy. s.p. that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 2008 (HC)

Bhanwari (Smt.) and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-18-2008

Reported in : RLW2008(4)Raj3670

chand mal totla, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. this appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.11.2000 passed by the court of learned additional sessions judge, ratangarh (churu) in sessions case no. 42/1992 (91/1989). there was a cross case and that was sessions case no. 54/1992 (34/1990) wherein the accused persons, members of the complainant party in the present case, were convicted by the same court i.e. court of learned additional sessions judge, ratangarh (churu) by judgment and order dated 15.11.2000. the appeal against cross case being sb. criminal appeal no. 682/2000 is also being decided today by separate judgment.3. in village dassusar in town simsiya, agriculture land bearing khasra nos. 229, 357 and 30 total measuring 78 bighas 10 biswas was the agricultural land of one moola ram. mst. seu devi @ mst. sua devi is wife of moola ram. moola ram and seu devi had no issue. moola ram had two brothers kalu ram and chela ram. kalu ram also had no issue. only chela ram had issue. moola ram died about 25 years ago from the year 1988. jetha ram claimed that he was adopted by moola ram and on 27.10.1958, moola ram executed a declaration (pratigya patra) (ex.d/3) admitting jetha ram's adoption, which was verified from the gram panchayat simsiya. however, after the death of moola ram, name of only seu devi was entered in the revenue record. part of the said land was purchased by one girdhari and his son nirayana ram by .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2008 (HC)

Mool Chand Vs. Competent Officer, Zone-b-1, Jaipur Development Authori ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-30-2008

Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2544

narendra kumar jain, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 18th february, 2005 (annexure-4), passed by the divisional commissioner, jaipur, dismissing his appeal against the order dated 23rd june, 2001 (annexure-3) passed by the authorized officer, zone-b-1, jaipur development authority, jaipur, whereby, the authorized officer passed an order under section 90b of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the act of 1956') read with section 63(1)(ii) of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the act of 1955') terminating the tenancy rights and resumption of the disputed land.3. the tehsildar, posted for zone-b-1 of jaipur development authority and duly authorized by the state government, vide notification dated 23.09.1999, filed an application with affidavit before the authorized officer that over the land situated in village manoharpura, tehsil sanganer bearing khasra nos. 194 to 202, 204 to 210, 244, 247, 249, 259, 260, 104 to 107, 138, 139, 127 to 131, 135, 136, 203a, 118 to 122, 114/681, 116/682, 117/683, 123, 126, 261 to 264, 132 to 134,137, 143, belonging to non-applicants no. 1 to 8, the recorded tenants, a residential scheme in the name of siddharth nagar 'h' has been chalked out by the new pinkcity grah nirman sahakari samiti (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the respondent no. 2 housing society') and the said land is being .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2008 (HC)

Purshottam and ors. Vs. NaraIn and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-10-2008

Reported in : AIR2008Raj154

order1. by this appeal the appellant seeks to challenge order of the learned single judge dt. 5.1.2006, whereby the learned single judge allowed the writ petition of the present private respondents no. 1 to 5, and thereby set aside the judgment of the learned board of revenue dated 6.1.1990.2. the brief facts of the case are, that the appellants filed a suit in the court of s.d.m. vallabh nagar for declaration of khatedari rights, alleging interalia, that the land in question belonged to the deceased kana, being the father of the defendants no. 2 to 6, and husband of defendant no. 1, which was sold by him to the plaintiff on jeth sudi 13, samvat 2009, and by executing the sale deed the possession was delivered. then, lalu and manga also sold their share to the plaintiffs' father on phagan sud 7, samvat 2009, by executing sale deed, and delivered possession. then, the fourth brother also sold land to the plaintiffs some 4-5 years before commencement of the tenancy act, and thus the land is in khatedari, and use and occupation of the plaintiffs. however, since the land is not recorded in their name, they want a declaration of the khatedari rights. the plea of adverse possession was also taken. then, it was pleaded that the defendant no. 2 is trying to take proceedings for their dispossession, alleging them to be mortgagees. thus, the suit was filed. 3. this suit was contested, interalia contending, that the alleged sale deed is unregistered and unstamped, and denying the theory .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2008 (HC)

Madan Lal Vijayvergiya Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-17-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1334

mahesh chandra sharma, j.1. petitioner madan lal vijayvergia filed s.b. cr. revision petition no. 56 of 2004 and prabhudayal kumawat filed s.b. criminal revision petition no. 1287 of 2003 against the order dated august 23, 2003 of special judge sessions court (anti corruption cases), jaipur in cr. case no. 24 of 1997 for framing charge under sections 420, 468, 471/120-b and section 13(1)(d) (2) of the prevention of corruption act read with section 109 ipc against them and the state of rajasthan filed s.b. criminal revision petition no. 0963 of 2003 for framing charge for sections 420,468, 471/120-b and section 13(1)(d)(2) of the prevention of corruption act, against the accused non-petitioners. since in all these revision petitions common order dated august 23, 2003 of the trial court court has been challenged, all these revision petitions are disposed by this common order.2. brief facts of the case are that an fir was lodged by addl. s.p. (anti-corruption bureau), jaipur, that govt. sr. hr. secondary school, hasteda jaipur is a project organiser of 'sikho kamao yojna' and registered as an 'industry' for manufacturing of furniture and chalk. on january 23, 1989 head master of the school wrote a letter to the chief accounts officer primary and secondary education bikaner that no tender is required for preparing furniture and they are in position to deliver furniture of rs. 20-22 lacs so order be given. no details were given that which type of furniture is ready for delivery. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2008 (HC)

Gautam JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-15-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1772; 2009(3)SLJ252(Raj)

h.r. panwar, j.1. all the three writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are heard and decided together taking the facts of s.b. civil writ petition no. 6372/05 as a leading case.2. petitioner gautam jain at the relevant time was holding the post of sub-inspector of police and was posted at police station shivganj, district sirohi. in the midnight of 12/13th january, 2000, he was directed by the concerned station house officer (for short 'the sho' hereinafter) p.s. shivganj to proceed along with head constable on a secret information received by him through mukhbir that illicit liquor is being transported in a jeep bearing no. rj 22-c 1673. an entry to that effect was recorded in the rojnamcha at 12.10 a.m. of the midnight of 12/13.1.2000. petitioner himmatdan charan in sbcw no. 1,345/05 was circle inspector at the relevant time and was sho of the said police station shivganj and petitioner tulsha ram was head constable posted to said police station. the copy of rojnamcha has been placed on record as annex. 1. on the instructions of the sho, petitioner gautam jain and head constable tulsha ram with their subordinate staff arranged a nakabandi at the site. while holding nakabandi, the jeep bearing no. rj 22-c 1673 in respect of which secret information was received by the sho through mukhbir, came. the petitioner and other subordinate police staff tried to stop the said jeep, however, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2008 (HC)

Ramjilal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-15-2008

Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1170

mahesh chandra sharma, j.1. this revision petition has been filed by petitioner ramjilal, against the judgment dated october 17, 2008 of addl. sessions judge no. 1 sikar camp neemka-thana in sessions case no. 24/2007 wherein accused respondent no. 2 was acquitted of the charge under sections 3/8 of the rajasthan bovine animal (prohibition of slaughter and regulation of temporary migration or export) act, 1995 (in short bovine animal act).2. brief facts of the case are that on august 12, 2008 at 10.00 a.m. a written report was prepared that bijendra singh son of kalyan singh resident of village jilo beating a cow indiscriminately by stone over eye, vertebra bone and tongue. the cow is lying in. jilo school waiting for her last breath. signature over this report was made by mahatma bairam on august 14, 2007. names of two witnesses namely malaram and saitan. gurjar was made as witnesses. this report was registered by the incharge police station patan on august 4, 2007 at 3.45 p.m. crime details form was prepared by the police station along with site plan on august 14, 2007. dr. vinod kumar tyagi on august 14, 2007 at 4.30 p.m. prepared injury report ex.p.3 at primary jilo school where cow was lying alive. he found following injuries:injury by the blunt object on the lumber region measures about 1.5 cm. x 1.0 cm. there may be fracture of the colossal lumber vertebrae so that animal unable to move.injury on the skullblood was oozing out from both the nostrils.injury on the right .....

Tag this Judgment!


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