Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: chennai Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 60 results (0.030 seconds)

Jul 18 2005 (HC)

Rt. Ref. T. Aruldoss, Bishop, Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church Vs. D. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-18-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)CTC362

..... on my part. i sincerely regret for such action and i once again tender my unconditional apology. as a measure of true repentance i undertake to pay the tamil nadu mediation and conciliation centre, high court, madras a sum of rs. 10,000 within three days. i once again pray that this hon'ble court may be pleased to accept my ..... as donation. accordingly, the same is treated as donation.20. in view of the undertaking that the appellant would pay a further costs of rs. 10,000 to tamil nadu mediation and conciliation centre, high court, madras, it would be appropriate to direct him to pay the said costs namely, rs. 10,000 as donation to the tamil nadu ..... mediation and conciliation centre, within three days from today, since in our opinion, it would reflect the realisation of the mistake committed by him. accordingly, the same is ordered.21. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 2005 (HC)

P. Suyambulingadurai Vs. State Rep. by the Secretary to Govt. of Tamil ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-27-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)CTC264; (2005)3MLJ693

..... not to indulge in this kind of practice in future, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay rs. 25,000/- as costs to be paid to tamilnadu mediation and conciliation centre, high court, madras, within one month.14. with the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. consequently, w.p.m.p. nos. 7605 and 7606 of 2005 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 2005 (HC)

Chinnu @ Pacha Gounder Vs. Periakaliammal @ Ponnammal

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-16-2005

Reported in : (2006)1MLJ177

..... to show indifferent attitude. thereafter, the plaintiffs demanded the defendant to hand over the suit properties to them. the defendant refused to hand over possession of the suit properties despite mediation that took place about one year prior to filing of the suit. therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit with the aforesaid prayer.3. the suit was resisted by the defendant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2005 (HC)

The Management of Reckitt and Benckiser (India) Ltd., Rep. by Its Fact ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-01-2005

Reported in : (2006)IILLJ641Mad

..... to an amicable settlement by persuasion, reasoning, etc. without the need to go in for adjudication. it may be mentioned that the duty of the conciliation officer is only to mediate and try to promote a settlement of the industrial dispute without going to court. the functions of the conciliation officer are not judicial or quasi-judicial but are only administrative .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2005 (HC)

iqbal Mohammed Bijili Vs. K. Arumugam and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-01-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)CTC420; (2005)2MLJ411

orderprabha sridevan, j.1. the second appeal was admitted on 13.12.2004 on the following substantial questions of law:1. whether the findings of the courts below are vitiated by its failure to consider the absence of any evidence on the side of the respondents 1 and 2 regarding possession except the recitals under exs.a-3 and a-4 which came to be registered pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in o.s. nos. 358 and 360 of 1991 without notice to the appellant ?2. whether the courts below are right in not considering the question on the indisputable fact that the suit is barred under order 2, rule 2 of civil procedure code especially when the cause of action in the present suit is the same as that of in the previous suits in o.s. nos. 358 and 360 of 1991 ?2. when the application for interim order was moved, both the counsel submitted that they would argue the main second appeal itself and therefore the second appeal was heard.3. the suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein. the case of the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs is as follows: respondents 1 and 2 are brothers. according to them, the appellant entered into agreement for sale on 21.4.1989, marked as exs. a-1 and a-2, agreeing to sell the suit property to them and pursuant to the said agreement, exs.a-3 and a-4 sale deeds were registered on 3.12.1989 and mutation of records were also effected and thereupon they were in enjoyment of the suit property. it is necessary for this case to extract the actual recitals in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 2005 (HC)

Kasiappa Gounder, S/O. Manthiriappa Gounder Vs. Karuppan, S/O. Karuppa ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-16-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)CTC412

r. banumathi, j.1. these civil revision petitions are preferred against the order of the principal district munsif, coimbatore dated 4.2.2003 in i.a. nos. 1588 and 1517 of 2002 in o.s. no. 1641 of 1994, allowing the application in i.a. no. 1517 of 2002 to deposit the mortgage amount and allowing the amendment in i.a. no. 1588 of 2002. the first defendant is the revision petitioner. 2. case of the respondents/plaintiffs is that the suit property and other properties comprising the total extent of 8.88 acres originally belonged to chinnavadukan, who is the great grandfather of the plaintiffs. he owned the said properties under inam patta no. 3 dated 01.10.1910. after the death of chinnavadukan, the property devolved upon his four sons. chinna sadayandi, who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs had got 2.22 acres, out of which, the plaintiffs' father karuppan had acquired 74 cents. plaintiffs' father karuppan was the absolute owner of the said 74 cents, which the suit property herein and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. after the death of karuppan, the plaintiffs have acquired the suit property - 74 cents and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same till 1985. they were living in a small hut in the said property. since the plaintiffs could not cultivate the lands due to lack of irrigation facilities, eking out their livelihood, the plaintiffs were forced to leave their lands seeking for employment elsewhere. taking advantage of the absence of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 2005 (HC)

R. Somasundaram and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Commissio ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-10-2005

Reported in : (2006)1MLJ89

f.m. ibrahim kalifulla, j.1. this writ appeal arises under the land acquisition act.2. the challenge in the writ petition was to the notification issued under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act dated 9.8.1978 and section 6 declaration dated 23.12.1981.3. the writ petition came to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches because after the 4(1) notification and 6 declaration, the award came to be made in award no.7 of 1986. pursuant to the said award, possession was also taken over by the tamil nadu housing board as early as on 30.10.1986. thereafter, it is stated that the tamil nadu housing board handed over the lands to chennai metro water supply and sewerage board on 17.5.1994. the appellants, who slept over the matter, suddenly woke up in the year 1996 and came forward with the abovesaid writ petition contending that though the name of the writ petitioner tmt. rajeswari was specifically mentioned in section 6 declaration, the appellants were not issued with necessary notice by the acquisition officer prior to the passing of the award. in fact, when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, we find that the learned judge seemed to have called upon the writ petitioners/ appellants to produce the necessary records to show that after the purchase of the land mutation was carried out in the revenue records and that the appellants were in possession of any such document in support of the said claim. unfortunately, in spite of three opportunities extended to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 2005 (TRI)

Kay Arr Enterprises Vs. Joint Cit, Special Range Ii

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Decided on : Jul-26-2005

Reported in : (2005)97ITD291(Chennai)

these appeals are filed by different assessees. since common issue is involved in these appeals and the assessees are of the same group, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. in these three appeals of the assessees, the relevant assessment year involved is 1996-97 pertaining to the financial year 1995-96.the only common issue in these appeals is that as to whether, in view of family arrangement as arrived at by the assessees to rearrange their shareholdings to avoid possible litigation among themselves will attract capital gain or not and whether it is a transfer or not.the briefly stated facts are that the assessees, along with their family members in the previous year ended 31-3-1996, had transferred shares owned by the assessees and family members in m/s. lakshmi mills ltd. and lakshmi card clothing co. ltd. to the family members of shri g.k. sundaram. the assessees in regard to these transfers had submitted as under: "the assessee has transferred icc and imc shares and converted into vijayeswari textiles ltd. share. in this connection we beg to submit the following: shri k. rajagopal and his family members are part of the lakhsmi group of families, certain companies were managed and controlled by the families of sri g.k. sundaram and sri k. rajagopal, jointly subsequent to certain family arrangement in which certain companies were allotted for the control and management of sri g.k. devarajulu. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 2005 (TRI)

Kay Arr Enterprises Vs. the Jt. Commissioner of I.T.,

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Decided on : Jul-26-2005

Reported in : (2005)279ITR163(Chennai)

1. these appeals are filed by different assessees. since common issue is involved in these appeals and the assessees are of the same group, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. in these three appeals of the assessees, the relevant assessment year involved is 1996-96 pertaining to the financial year 1995-96.2. the only common issue in these appeals is that as to whether, in view of family arrangement as arrived at by the assessees to rearrange their share holdings to avoid possible litigation among themselves will attract capital gain or not and whether it is a transfer or not.3. the briefly stated facts are that the assessees, along with their family members in the previous year ended 31.3.1996 had transferred shares owned by the assessees and family members in m/s. lakshmi mills ltd. and lakshmi card clothing co. ltd. to the family members of shri g.k. sundaram. the assessees in regard to these transfers had submitted as under: "the assessee has transferred icc and imc shares and converted into vijayeswari textiles ltd. share. in this connection we beg to submit the following: shri k. rajagopal and his family members are part of the lakshmi group of families, certain companies were managed and controlled by the families of sri g.k. sundaram and sri k. rajagopal, jointly subsequent to certain family arrangement in which certain companies were allotted for the control and management of sri g.k. devarajulu. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2005 (HC)

Pappayammal Vs. Palanisamy, Sellammal (Died) and Rukmani

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-29-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Mad431; 2005(3)CTC292; (2005)3MLJ32

m. karpagavinayagam, j. 1. pappayammal, appellant herein, filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants 1 and 2 and the said suit was dismissed. aggrieved by the said dismissal, she filed an appeal before the lower appellate court, which, in turn, confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal. hence, this second appeal, as against the concurrent judgments.2. the case of the plaintiff is as follows :one kuppanna gounder purchased two items of the suit property under ex.b-1, dated 14.12.1932, and ex.b-2, dated 19.07.1934 respectively. the said kuppanna gounder had two wives, namely, muthammal and sellammal. he got a son through his first wife, muthammal, by name duraisamy gounder. after the death of muthammal, kuppanna gounder married sellammal, the second defendant, through whom, the first defendant palanisamy was born. the said kuppanna gounder died on 30.07.1939, leaving behind his son duraisamy gounder, born through his first wife muthammal, and the second wife sellammal, the second defendant, and her son palanisamy, the first defendant. the plaintiff pappayammal is the wife of the said duraisamy gounder. in the year 1956, there was a partition through the deed ex.b-22, in which some properties were allotted to duraisamy gounder. thereafter, he settled the same in favour of his wife pappayammal, the plaintiff, on 04.09.1962, through the settlement deed ex.b-26. however, the suit properties were not partitioned then. later, duraisamy gounder died. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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