Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: allahabad Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 123 results (0.011 seconds)

Mar 16 2005 (HC)

Ram Swarup Srivastava Son of Late Sri Prabhu Dayal Srivastava Vs. Alla ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-16-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)ESC1215

..... industrial disputes between the workmen and employer which would have pernicious effect on industrial peace. under the act the principal techniques of settlement of dispute are (1) collective bargaining, (2) mediation and conciliation, (3) investigation, (4) arbitration, and (5) adjudication. the scheme of the act shows that adjudication is to be resorted to as the last alternative. as laid down by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 2005 (HC)

Smt. Shahjahan Begum and anr. Vs. Xith A.D.J. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-22-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3859M

..... word 'salis'. the trial court after considering the meaning of the word, 'salis' as defined in a authentic hindi dictionary had rightly found it to mean a 'third party', a 'mediator' or an 'intermediary'. no doubt, in the technical legal sense, the word, may mean 'arbitrator' but that will not be determinative of the nature of the document. the meaning of ..... well wishers. it would be worthy of note, though it is not determinative of the real question, that the defendants had admitted in their written statement the role of the mediators into settling the shares but the existence of the agreement/compromise or its validity was denied. the revisional court by adopting a legal technical meaning of the urdu word 'salis ..... no. 2 was not his daughter and in fact the defendant no. 2 was the legally wedded wife. however, it was admitted that certain well wishers were chosen to be mediators for settling the shares between the parties but subsequently they were removed on the ground that they were biased in favour of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the settlement was illegal ..... the word, 'salis' in the common parlance is more used to denote a mediator or an intermediatory and a 'salisnama' would signify a settlement by mediation. the nature of a document should not be determined solely on the basis of a word used, but the entire context and the texture of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2005 (HC)

Vijai Shankar Alias Lal Babu Son of Shiv Shankar and Rama Shankar Alia ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-04-2005

Reported in : 2005CriLJ2765

..... talks about the marriage of his younger sister deepak kumari were going on in village tendui district varanasi. his brother-in-law rajendra prasad upadhyay and deceased vishwanath upadhyay were mediator. about one month prior to the occurrence appellant rama shankar came to his house and asked him as to why he is worried about the marriage of his sister. he ..... is not a fit person for marriage. the accused had threatened him and had also challenged that they will not permit the complainant or any other person who acted as mediator in the marriage. the appellants had not stated about any enmity with the complainant and there is no suggestion for false implication also. rama shankar alias chhotey stated that he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 2005 (HC)

Mirza Ashraf Vs. Qudrat Ullah Alias Chhunnoo

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-02-2005

Reported in : 2005(1)ARC749; 2005(2)AWC1539

s.n. srivastava, j.1. second appeal in hand has been instituted by the plaintiff appellant impugning the judgment and decree dated 2.3.1984 passed by iiird additional civil judge, varanasi whereby civil appeal no. 217 of 1983 was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 23.5.1983 in original suit no. 356 of 1979 was nodded in affirmance.2. the dispute in the instant petition revolves round house no. b-3/430 enumerated in schedule b to the plaint, which is situated in locality known as shivala district varanasi. according to the plaint allegations, the house in question originally belonged to rahmat ullah, grandfather of the plaintiff appellant. the aforesaid rahmatullah executed a will dated 12.5.1913 in favour of asmat ullah, his own brother but subsequently, on a second thought, he, rescinded his earlier will and executed a second will dated 19.5.1917 in favour of his daughter-in-law namely, jafri khanam, wife of amir mirza. the plaintiff being grand-son of rahmat ullah, it is claimed by the plaintiff appellant, the property devolved upon him and he became the exclusive owner of the property in question. in the above perspective, a notice was served to defendant seeking ejectment from the property in question. the defendant in replication to the notice, claimed himself to be the exclusive owner of the property. to be precise, he denied any ownership rights of the plaintiff in the house in question and claimed himself to be the exclusive owner of the house in question. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 2005 (HC)

Shami Ullah Khan S/O Shri Abdul Hamid Khan Vs. Dhruve NaraIn S/O Indra ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-11-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3436

poonam srivastava, j.1. heard shri r.c. singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and shri h.n. singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent2. counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. counsel for the parties have agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally at the stage of admission itself. accordingly, arguments on behalf of petitioner and the contesting respondent was advanced.3. the petitioner, shami ullah khan has filed this writ petition with a prayer to issue writ of certiorari quashing the entire proceeding in civil revision no. 27 of 2001, and the orders dated 31.8.2001, 4.10.2004 passed by the revisional court/district judge mahrajganj, annexed as annexures 9 and 14 to the writ petition.4. the petitioner claims his right through smt. ran rati widow of ganesar (lal chand) viz. a viz. contesting respondent no. 1 dhruv narain. pedigree of ganesar has been detailed in para 4 of the writ petition. the pedigree is given below5. brij mohan had three sons- gokula, chilar and ganesar. chillar died issueless and ram rati is widow of ganesar who also died issueless (ram rati also died during the pendency of proceedings before the court below). gokula had two sons chander and indrajeet. chander also died issueless. indrajeet had two sons dhruv narain, contesting respondent no. 1 and other son mahip naran who is not a party to the dispute. gokula son of brij mohan died first and his 1/3rd share devolved on chander and indrajeet. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 2005 (HC)

Smt. Sureshwati, Widow of Late Sri Ram Vs. State of U.P. Through Colle ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-12-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)AWC74

mukteshwar prasad, j.1. this first appeal under section 54 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') by smt. sureshwati (claimant) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.1.2001 passed by district judge, gautam budh nagar whereby he found that neither the claimant nor m/s nsr farms pvt. ltd. is entitled to receive compensation in respect of khasra no. 554/3 area 5-0-0 bighas situate in village geja tilaptabad, pargana and tehsil dadri, district gautam budh nagar and the land in question would be deemed to have been resumed by the state.2. in brief, the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as under:-it appears that the land recorded as khasra no. 554/3 area 5-0-0 bighas situate in village geja tilaptabad, pargana and tehsil dadri, district gautam budh nagar was acquired for the planned development of new okhla industrial development authority. in the revenue records, the name of smt. sureshwati, widow of shri ram, was recorded as bhumidhar with non- transferable rights. therefore, the compensation under section 11 of the act was prepared in her name. however, m/s nsr farms pvt. ltd. 11, sadhna enclave, new delhi preferred a claim for payment of compensation of the land in question on the ground of being a transferee of smt. sureshwati. an objection was filed. since m/s nsr farms pvt. ltd. and smt. sureshwati were claiming their rights for payment of compensation in respect of the aforesaid khasara no.554/3, area 5-0-0 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 2005 (HC)

P.D. Tandon Vs. Military Estate Officer and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-27-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3514

b.s. chauhan and arun tandon, jj.1. these two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner, p. d. tandon, and pertain to the same property covered by survey no. 143 situate in old cantonment, allahabad. civil misc. writ petition no. 13353 of 1992 was decided by a division bench of this court vide judgment and order dated 7.1.2000 and the writ petition was dismissed while civil misc. writ petition no. 28558 of 2002 was decided and allowed by another division bench of this court vide judgment an order dated 5.3.2003. the aforesaid judgments and orders of this court were questioned by way of civil appeal no. 7284 of 2001 and civil appeal no. 6637 of 2003, before the hon'ble supreme court. the hon'ble supreme court by means of judgment and order dated 19.12.2003 accepted both the appeals. orders under appeals were set aside and the petitions were remanded to the high court for fresh decision by the same bench. it would be worthwhile to reproduce the direction issued by the hon'ble supreme court, as contained in para 11 of the said judgment.'11. the property involved in both the civil appeals is the same. the dispute is between the same parties. in both the cases the high court has interpreted the earlier judgment given by the high court of allahabad in second appeal no. 2866 of 1978. the finding recorded by the high court in the two writ petitions regarding res jadicata is contrary to each other. to resolve the seeming contradiction it would be in the interest of justice .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 2005 (HC)

Kali Charan, Vs. Kalu and Dwarika Sons of Ganpat

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-03-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2504

s.n. srivastava, j.1. this second appeal has been preferred by the appellants against concurrent findings of the two courts below contained in judgment and decree dated 29.5.1982 and 8.12.1982 respectively.2. facts beyond the pale of dispute are that plaintiff and defendants are co-tenure holders of the plots in dispute i.e. plot nos. 169 and 170 each to the extent of one half share and both the parties had a bunch of 64 trees each in their respective shares. according to the plaint allegations, the plaintiffs being in straitened circumstances, obtained some money as loan from defendants and mortgaged the grove in lieu of money. it is further alleged that they never sold off the land but defendants illegally and fraudulently manipulated the same to one of sale of grove land while the fact remains that no sale deed for sale of land was ever executed by plaintiffs. it is in this backdrop that the plaintiffs instituted suit for the reliefs of cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction in respect of plot no. 169 and 170 situated in village bandi patti pargana kewai district: allahabad. the defendants in the written statement repudiated the plaint allegations and averred that the plaintiffs had executed sale deed in favour of defendants after taking sale consideration and there is no fraud in execution of sale deed which was executed by plaintiff in accordance with law and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.3. at the stage of admission of appeal, following .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 2005 (HC)

Shakil S/O Shri NasruddIn and ors. Vs. Nashir Khan S/O Sri Bashir Khan ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-17-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3228

v.c. misra, j.1. mr. n.k. trivedi, advocate along with mr. m.c. dwivedi, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners and mr. s.n. singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.2. the facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners shakeel ahmad and others filed a mutation application under section 34 of the u.p. land revenue act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the act, 1901) on 18.4.1994 on the basis of civil court judgment dated 27.10.1983 passed in original suit no. 456. the tehsildar allowed the mutation application on 23.6.1994, which was challenged by the respondents nashir khan, and others through their restoration application, which was allowed on 12.8.1994. being aggrieved by the order dated 12.8.1994 the petitioners shakeel ahmad and others filed a revision before the additional district magistrate, which was rejected on 9.2.1995. the petitioners shakeel ahmad khan and others filed a second revision before the board of revenue, which was allowed on 1.3.1995 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the respondents- nashir ahmad khan and others thereafter filed a restoration application no. 4/94-95 before the board of revenue for recalling the order dated 1.3.1995. as per record, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record the board of revenue vide its order dated 1.2.1996 recalled its exparte order dated 1.3.1995 and restored the case to its original number and fixed it for final hearing. after hearing both the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 2005 (HC)

Ayub Ahmad S/O Late Zahoor Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. (Through Principal ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-22-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)AWC247

vineet saran, j.1. heard sri ashok trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and sri triveni shanker for the private respondent nos. 3 to 7. counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.2. the brief facts of this case are that in the year 1996 the petitioner filed suit no. 25 of 1996 under section 229-b of the uttar pradesh zamindari abolition & land reforms act before the assistant collector, dhampur, district bijnor with the prayer to pass a decree for declaration that the petitioner is the bhumidhar of plot no. 1 in question measuring 8 bighas 18 biswas. the trial court framed preliminary issue as to whether in view of the provisions of the administration of evacuee property act, 1950 (for short act of 1950) and displaced. persons (compensation and rehabilitation) act, 1954 (for short act of 1954) the trial court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. after recording a categorical finding that the plot in dispute was an evacuee property which was transferred by the government of india in 1963 in favour of jivan das and kripa ram and thereafter by successive transfers to the respondents and no objections to the same had been raised by the father of the petitioner, who was alive till 1980, the preliminary issue was decided holding that the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

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