Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: chennai Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 91 results (0.037 seconds)

Dec 12 2003 (HC)

Manikkundu and anr. Vs. State By, Inspector of Police

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-12-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)CTC197

..... further deposed that frequent quarrels between the deceased and the first accused arose and the deceased used to come to her mother's (p.w.11s) house and they would mediate the matter and send her back to her husband. she further deposed that 31/2 years prior to the occurrence, a-1 beat the deceased and drove her to her ..... (p.w.11's) house. p.w.12, one of the panchayatdars, and others pacified both and mediated the matter and sent back the deceased with a-1. after 10 days, as p.w.11's husband was to go to ayyappan temple, he wanted to see his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 2003 (HC)

Mrs. P. Syamala, Proprietrix, Prajwal Associate and anr. Vs. R. Gopina ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-31-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)CTC117

..... the property by s.c.m. jamaldeen and j.c.shameem cassim is only on behalf of the respondents-1 to 6. that is, the suit property is in the 'mediate' possession of the defendants. therefore, the possession of the suit property is only with the defendants 1 to 6.19. this power of attorney was executed on 22nd august, 2002 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 2003 (HC)

R. Kasthuri Vs. R. Raveendran

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-03-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Mad302; (2003)1MLJ738

..... of the mother and brother of his wife, misunderstanding arose between them and the wife left the matrimonial home on 2.7.1991 taking the child with her. subsequently, some mediators intervened to resolve the dispute and the dispute was resolved and she came back to the matrimonial home to join her husband on 13.4.1991 and lived with him .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2003 (HC)

Shankaran Narayan Vs. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-05-2003

Reported in : 2003(2)CTC482

..... ; this made d-4 leave her matrimonial abode and take shelter under her father; d-1, with a view to bring peace between the spouses, asked p.w.5 to mediate; p,w.5 told d-1 to send his daughter; however, d-1 insisted that unless a-3 conies, he will not send his daughter; p.w.5 is the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 2003 (HC)

Kalidoss Pillai Vs. Palani Subban Pillai (Died) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-10-2003

Reported in : (2004)1MLJ329

..... compromise and hence, he filed an application to pass a decree in terms of the compromise entered into among the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 in the presence of mediators. the plaintiff, however, contended that there was no division and he never singed the memorandum of compromise. learned subordinate judge, after enquiry found that there was a compromise which was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2003 (HC)

The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-03-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)CTC48; (2004)1MLJ381

ordern. kannadasan, j. 1. these appeals are filed by the tamil nadu housing board challenging the common order passed by the learned single judge in w.p.nos. 5748 and 5749 of 1989 dated 1.9.1998. the writ petitions were filed by the land owners challenging the land acquisition proceedings wherein the appellant/tamil nadu housing board was impleaded as third respondent. the writ petitioners have primarily contended that the mandatory requirements of rule 3(b) of the tamil nadu land acquisition (tamil nadu) rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules) have not been complied with and as such the enquiry under section 5-a of the land acquisition act is vitiated and the authorities have not chosen to notify the names of the land owners/petitioners in the notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act viz., 165, housing and urban development department dated 3.2.1986, even though the land owners have purchased the properties in question in the year 1984 and 1985 respectively.2. per contra, the government has filed its counter-affidavit and contended that all the formalities required under the act and rules were followed and the proceedings are valid and sustainable in law,3. the learned judge by order dated 1.9.1998 has allowed the writ petition on the ground that rule 3(b) of the tamil nadu rules have been violated and as such, the enquiry under section 5-a has been vitiated since they were not informed the comments of the acquiring body regarding the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 2003 (HC)

K. Velmurugan and Mrs. V. Rajabakkiyam Ammal Vs. R. Kannan (Died) and ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-23-2003

Reported in : (2003)2MLJ666

n.v. balasubramanian, j.1. defendants 2 and 3 are in appeal before us. they have filed the appeal challenging the judgment and decree in o.s. no. 197 of 1985 dated 13.9.1988 by the learned subordinate judge, poonamallee in a suit for recovery of money due on a mortgage. the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of one murugaiya thevar, the mortgagee of the suit property. 2. according to the plaintiffs, the first defendant, r.kannan had borrowed a sum of rs. 43,000/- from murugaiya thevar and executed a registered second mortgage deed dated 20.7.1978 in his favour agreeing to repay both principal and interest at the rate of 18% per annum on demand. the first defendant agreed to repay the amount with interest on or before 10th of every month and the default clause is also provided in the mortgage deed. in the deed it is provided that the mortgagee was empowered to recover the amount due under the mortgage after the loan under the first mortgage dated 23.1.1973 was discharged and a reconveyance deed was obtained thereof. the original mortgagee murugaiya thevar died on 14.5.1981 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal representatives. 3. according to the plaintiffs, the first defendant/ mortgagor has not paid to the original mortgagee either principal or interest during his lifetime, nor has he paid any amount after the demise of murugaiya thevar. according to the plaintiffs, on the date of institution of the suit, the first defendant was liable to pay a sum of rs. 43,000/- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 25 2003 (HC)

Tayub Khan Alias Tayub Sultan Vs. Hairunnissa Beevi,

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-25-2003

Reported in : (2003)3MLJ103

orders.r. singharavelu, j.1. the plaintiff in o.s. no. 8/86 on the file of district munsif, ramnad, whose suit for partition was on reversal of the judgment and decree of the trial court, was dismissed in the first appellate court, against which the second appeal was preferred.2. the averments found in the plaint are as follows:the suit property belonged to one nalla meera ravoothar, from whom his second wife kadar beevi purchased it on 23.8.1915 and was in enjoyment thereof. her only son varusai mohammed predeceased her. kadar beevi also died in 1949. the issues of varusai mohammed are tayub khan, the plaintiff, hajee mohamed zackariya, the fourth defendant and one syed mohammed, whose wife was the first defendant and children are second and third defendants. after the death of kadar beevi, syed mohammed and the fourth defendant were commonly in enjoyment of the suit property and assessment was also made only in the name of brothers. thus, the plaintiff is entitled to one fourth share, which is equivalent to 48/144 share. as syed mohammed died, his share of 48/144 would devolve on the second and third defendants jointly entitled to 32/144; the first defendant entitling to 6/144 share and the plaintiff and the fourth defendant each entitling to 5/144, thus making the plaintiff in total entitling to 53/144. the plaintiff issued a notice on 6.1.86 and defendants 1 to 3 sent a reply on 13.1.1986 containing false averments. hence the suit was filed.3. the fourth defendant has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 19 2003 (HC)

P.G. Gopal Vs. V. Manickavelu (Died) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-19-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)CTC257; (2003)3MLJ696

e. padmanabhan, j.1. the above second appeal has been preferred by the defendant in o.s. no: 6586 of 1989 on the file of the iv assistant judge, city civil court, madras challenging the judgement and decree dated 22.1.1991 made in o.s. no. 6586 of 1989 on the file of the iv assistant judge, city civil court, madras as confirmed by the judgement and decree dated 27.11.1991 made in a.s. no. 252 of 1991 on the file of the additional judge, city civil court, madras.2. pending the appeal, the sole respondent-plaintiff passed away and respondents 2 to 7 were brought on record as his legal representatives by order dated 19.8.2002 made in cmp. no. 6125 to 6127 of 2001.3. heard mr. a. palaniappan, for mr. m. devendran, for the appellant and mr. j.r.k. bhavanantham, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. the parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial court for convenience.4. the deceased first respondent instituted the suit o.s. no. 6586 of 1989 for declaration of title and permanent injunction besides other consequential reliefs. after contest the learned trial court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence let in by either side decreed the suit granting the relief of declaration of title as well as relief of injunction and other consequential reliefs. the defendant being aggrieved by the said judgement and decree of the trial court dated 22.1.1991. preferred a.s. no. 252 of 1991 on the file of the i additional city civil judge, madras. the first .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2003 (HC)

Land Acquisition Officer-cum-deputy Collector (Rev) Vs. Angeline Devad ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-28-2003

Reported in : (2003)2MLJ7

a.s. venkatachalamoorthy, j. 1. an extent of 4 acres (1.58.19 hectares), belonged to respondents 1 to 3, comprised in t.s. nos.151, 152, 163/1 and 163/2 in valatheru village, was acquired by the government of pondicherry for the implementation of housing scheme. notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act came to be published on 13.4.1982. declaration under section 6 of the act was issued by the revenue department in g.o. no. 3 dated 6.1.1985. the land acquisition officer conducted the award enquiry as contemplated under the act and passed the award dated 31.3.1986, wherein he has fixed the compensation payable at rs.4,581/- per are. possession of the land was taken on the very next day, that was on 01.04.1986. 2. the dissatisfied land owners/claimants sought for reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act before a civil court. the additional district judge, pondicherry at kariakal, took the reference on file and the same was numbered as laop no. 5 of 1991. before the reference court, both the parties let in oral and documentary evidence. on the basis of the materials available on record, the reference court fixed the compensation at rs.15,120/- per are.3. the state of pondicherry, being aggrieved by such fixation, filed an appeal before this court in a.s. no. 1097 of 1993. during pendency of the said appeal, the appellant/state of pondicherry deposited a sum of rs.35,00,000/- on 04.03.1994. the 3rd respondent herein thereafter filed a petition in .....

Tag this Judgment!

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