Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: chennai Year: 1998 Page 2 of about 141 results (0.094 seconds)

Apr 03 1998 (HC)

Meenakshiammal Vs. Ramasamy Muthiriar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-03-1998

Reported in : (1998)3MLJ390

s. s. subramani, j.1. second appeal no. 1583 of 1984 is filed by the plaintiff in o.s.no. 146 of 1981, on the file of subordinate judge, tiruchirapalli. second appeal no. 527 of 1991, is filed by the 1st defendant in o.s.no. 1799 of 1984, on the file of i additional district munsif, tiruchirapalli.2. the relevant facts in both these second appeals could he summarised thus:the subject-matter of both these second appeals is one and the same. the property belonged to alamelu ammal, wife of late v.k. subramania iyer. she settled the property in favour of janaki ammal, who is none other than her sister-in-law, i.e., her husband's sister. in the settlement deed she settled not only the plaint schedule property in favour of her sister-in-law, but also assigned the mortgage right worth about rs. 16,000. it is stated in that document that she is executing the settlement deed due to her special affection towards her and also for the reason that she was being maintained by her and also under the hope that she will continue to maintain her till her life time. she also declares that from the date of gift, janaki ammal be in possession of the property as absolute owner with full right and she further declares that from that date onwards the executant has ceased any right over the same. she also declares that in regard to the mortgage right, janaki ammal shall receive the entire amount with interest from the mortgagor and realise the same. she further declares that the property is free from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 1998 (HC)

Tata Tea Ltd., Regional Office Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-18-1998

Reported in : (1998)3MLJ306

orderk. sampath, j.1. the prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records before the second respondent ending with the order c.l.a.d. dis t.i.5273/84, dated 29.3.1988 and quash the same.2. the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:an extent of about 1056.06 acres of disafforested area in anamalai hills was assigned by the then government of madras in g.o.ms. no. 932 on 10.5.1929 to m/s. anglo american direct tea trading company ltd.3. the material terms of the grant are as follows:(i) the land shall be used only for the cultivation of coffee, tea, cocoa, chilnchona, cardamoms, pepper, rubber or any other product that the government may by special orders recognise as a plantation product, or for the erection of any buildings or constructing any roads thereon, which may be necessary for effecting and supervising such cultivation and preparing the produce for markets.(ii) in areas where forest growth is cleared, the grantee shall plant plantation crops within such reasonable time as may be fixed by the collector of coimbatore in each case.(iii) the grantee shall pay the cost of surveying the land. he shall keep the boundaries clear of forest growth and maintain the survey marks in accordance with the provisions of the madras survey and boundaries act.(iv) except on the area occupied by public roads or branch roads declared as public, the grantee shall pay assessment at the rate of rs. 3 an acre on lands .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1998 (HC)

R. Surendirakumar Vs. C. Balaji Singh and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-27-1998

Reported in : (1998)3MLJ475

r. balasubramanian, j.1. there were three rent control petitions being r.c.o.p. no. 48 of 1988, r.c.o.p. no. 49 of 1988 and r.c.o.p. no. 51 of 1988 on the file of the rent controller (district munsif) tirupattur. the petitioner in each of these three cases is the same landlord. the respondent in each of these three cases are three separate tenants respectively. in all these three cases, eviction was sought for on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent and for owner's occupation of a non-residential building from each of the tenant. the rent controller agreed with the landlord in all the three cases on both the grounds and ordered eviction. each of the tenant filed three independent appeals and that were taken on file as r.c.a. no. 4 of 1992, r.c.a. no. 5 of 1992 and r.c.a. no. 3 of 1992. all the three appeals were allowed on merits and therefore these revisions before this court namely, c.r.p. no. 3137 of 1993, c.r.p. no. 3145 of 1993 and c.r.p. no. 3577 of 1993.2. i heard mr. r.m. krishna raja, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in each of these three revisions and mr. v. ragavachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in each of these three revisions. according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the appellate authority had completely erred in law and on facts in reversing the order of the rent controller, when the landlord had made out the case the grounds of eviction in each of these three cases. according to him, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 1998 (HC)

C. R. Subramaniam Vs. N. Vasudevan

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-20-1998

Reported in : 1998(2)CTC211

order1. tenant in r.c.olp. no.8 of 1989, on the file of rent controller (district munsif), erode, is the revision petitioner.2. respondent, landlord of the building, filed the petition for eviction on the ground that he needs the schedule premises for his own occupation. in his eviction petition, it is said that he is carrying on wholesale and retail business in hardware and paints under the name and style 'karpal steel agencies' as soleproprietor in a rented premises at door no.134, valayalkara street, erode town from 1963. it is also said that he was also having godown for storing articles in another rented premises in door no.i36 in the same street. his landlord, yusuf, filed a petition for eviction, and the same was ordered. it is further said that the petitioner (landlord) vacated the rented godown and shifted it to no.7, chokkanatha gounder street, fort, erode-1. it is said that the landlord of door no. 134 were harassing the petitioner to vacate the rented premises, and number of petitions were filed against him. they filed r.c.o.p. no. 93 of 1979 in the district munsif's court, erode, and the same was allowed. petitioner (n. vasudevan) filed c.m.a. no.19 of 1981, on the file of sub court, erode and the same was allowed. landlords filed c.r.p. no.976 of 1982 before this court. the order passed by the rent controller was restored. though an application for special leave was filed before the honourable supreme court, leave was not granted, and the order of eviction .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1998 (HC)

Mohamed Ali and ors. Vs. Khader and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-19-1998

Reported in : (1999)2MLJ183

k.p. sivasubramaniam, j.1. this second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned subordinate judge, cuddalore in a.s.no. 132 of 1983 in partly reversing the judgment of the learned district munsif, cuddalore, in o.s.no. 547 of 1979. the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the legal representatives of the first plaintiff are the appellants in the above second appeal.2. the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. according to the plaintiffs, the suit properties situate in kurinjipadi village, originally belonged to the joint family of one arumugha asari and his sons who were in enjoyment of the same till they sold it to the father of the plaintiffs and the senior paternal uncle of plaintiffs under sale deed dated 5.5.1922. but due to clerical mistake the property was wrongly given in the description of the property in the sale deed and instead of mentioning survey numbers as 83/1, order 83, survey numbers 88 and 75 are given. the plaintiffs also pleaded that their father and uncle were put in possession of the property and they were in enjoyment of the same. the vendors under the sale deed had directed the purchasers to discharge the mortgage dated 17.3.1919 executed by some of the vendors. the plaintiffs paternal uncle rahiman sahib died about 40 years back prior to the suit and his wife also died .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 1998 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.T. Balakrishnan (Decd.) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-18-1998

Reported in : [1999]238ITR801(Mad)

n.v. balasubramanian, j. 1. in the above batch of tax cases, following questions of law arising under the income-tax act, 1961, as well as under the wealth-tax act, 1957, for certain assessment years in respect of some of the assessees have been referred to us for our consideration :t.c. no. 31 of 1982:'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the property income of rs. 42,814 assessed by the income-tax officer in the hands of the assessee individual could not be sustained ? 2. whether, the appellate tribunal's finding that the conversion of property into that of a hindu undivided family and the subsequent partial partition was genuine is based on valid and relevant materials and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ? 3. even if the act of conversion of the individual property to the hindu undivided family property is held to be genuine and valid in law still whether the assessee is not liable to be assessed in respect of the income attributable to his interest in the converted property as per section 64(2)(b) of the income-tax act, 1961 ?' t. c. nos. 394 to 398 and 399 of 1983 :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that income from a portion of door no. 301, t. h. road, madras, allotted to the assessee's (bose) sister, ku. chandra, could not be considered as his income and income from another portion of the same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1998 (HC)

Saleem Basha Vs. Mumtaz Begum

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-22-1998

Reported in : II(1999)DMC206

..... there was an attempt for a settlement prior to the divorce and when there was no such attempt prior to divorce to arrive at a settlement by mediators, then there cannot be a valid divorce under mohammedan law.26. in the present case, the reasons given by the revision petitioner in his 'talaqnama' ..... the above decisions and take the view that the divorce must be preceded among muslims by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and wife by two mediators - one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his side. in the above view of the matter a ..... with law and it is valid 'talaq' inasmuch as there were no conciliation proceedings earlier between the revision petitioner and the respondent in the presence of two mediators.18. the learned magistrate of the trial court referred to a passage of the learned author dr. tahir mahmood in his book 'the muslim law of ..... by the revision petitioner/husband to persuade his wife, the respondent herein, to come and live with him or he referred to any conciliation proceedings by mediators to reform his wife and thereby to enable the revision petitioner to run his family. these aspects were totally absent in the 'talaqnama' dated 30.11 ..... in this talaqnama dated 30.11.1992 marked as exhibit p.5 that any conciliation proceeding was initiated between them at any point of time by any mediator nor it is stated in this 'talaqnama' dated 30.11.1992 marked as exhibit p.5 that the revision petitioner/ husband called upon his wife, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1998 (HC)

Saleem Basha Vs. Mrs. Mumtaz Begam

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-22-1998

Reported in : 1999(1)ALD(Cri)182; 1998CriLJ4782

..... there was an attempt for a settlement prior to the divorce and when there was no such attempt prior to divorce to arrive at a settlement by mediators, then there cannot be a valid divorce under mohomedan law.25. in the present case, the reasons given by the revision petitioner in his talaqnama ..... the above decisions and take the view that the divorce must be preceded among muslims by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and wife by two mediators - one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his side. in the above view of the matter a ..... it is valid 'talaq' in as much as there were no conciliation proceedings earlier between the revision petitioner and the respondent earlier in the presence of two mediators.18. the learned magistrate of the trial court referred to a passage of the learned author dr. tahir mahmood in his book. 'the muslim law of ..... the revision petitioner/husband to pursuant to his wife, the respondet herein, to come and live with him or he referred to any conciliation proceedings by mediators to reform his wife and thereby to enable the revision petitioner to run his family. these aspects were totally absent in the talaknama dated 30-11 - ..... in this talaknama dated 30-11-1992 marked as exhibit p. 5 that any conciliation proceeding was initiated between them at any point of time by any mediator nor it is stated in this talaknama dated 30-11-1992 marked as exhibit p. 5 that the revision petitioner/husband called upon his wife, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 1998 (HC)

Balaraja and Another Vs. Syed Masood Rowther and Another

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-28-1998

Reported in : 1998(2)CTC505; (1998)IIIMLJ398

..... under ex.p.l, a specified property has been agreed to be sold for a specified consideration to a specified person. the terms have been agreed in the presence of mediators. the mere contemplation of execution of another document with some more terms cannot invalidate the terms already agreed. in substance, what the parties contemplated under ex.p.1 is some ..... vacant site was agreed to be sold for rs.6 lakhs by the second respondent. it is also stated that the terms and conditions were accepted in the presence of mediators. the parties to the said document are the first and second respondent herein. there is also a clause in the said document, which states that in this regard with other ..... spices board informed the second respondent to take the sale deed, the second respondent was delaying the execution of the sale in favour of the first respondent. there was a mediation by the rajapalayam jamayath. but thesecond respondent failed to attend the jamayath. the jamayath passed a resolution on 12.5.1997 and 16.6.1997 against the second respondent. on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1998 (HC)

L. Dakshinamoorthy, Advocate, 61, Kalianman Koil Street, Komarapalayam ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-05-1998

Reported in : 1998(2)CTC592

..... and two more clauses were added. even according to the complaint, these two more clauses were added without their authority. it must be stated that the petitioner was not a mediator. he only helped the arbitrator, and it is his case that the arbitrator also agreed to have those clauses included. if this is the scope of the complaint, what is .....

Tag this Judgment!


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