Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: gujarat Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 53 results (0.008 seconds)

Sep 03 2004 (HC)

Parmar Karsanbhai Raghubhai Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-03-2004

Reported in : [2005(106)FLR767]; (2005)2GLR946

..... , a step in social justice direction.2. the learned advocates appearing for the parties in this group of petitions, upon long drawn, inter-se, as well as, in the court, mediation, negotiation has fruitfully culminated into a common and agreed formula, which is, evidently, reflected in the form of additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.1ahmedabad municipal corporation ..... . the affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondent is filed, which is in the form of additional affidavit, which upon inter-se, as well as, during court's proceedings mediations and negotiations is articulated and transcribed in it. the said additional affidavit shall form part of it.3. it is noticed from the said additional affidavit that the deponent has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 2004 (HC)

Malpati Sevasangh Vs. Gujarat State Khadi and Village Industries Board

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-15-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)ARBLR521(Gujarat); (2004)2GLR1728; [2004]53SCL288(Guj)

..... regarding the facts or the law and the facts together. an agreement or arrangement by which, in consideration of mutual concessions, a controversy is terminated.see alternative dispute resolution; arbitration; mediation; settlement.' the concise law dictionary by p. ramanatha aiyar (1977 edition), emphatically defines 'compromise' as under :'compromise.--to adjust by mutual concession; to settle without resort to the law; to .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2004 (HC)

Ajendraprasadji Narendraprasadji Pande Vs. Swami Keshavprakashdasji Na ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : May-06-2004

Reported in : (2004)3GLR2081

..... in getting their grievances redressed, which would not make this suit unsustainable. mr. justice s. d. dave (retired) was required and appointed to mediate between the parties by the government. he was not to function as an arbitrator as required under the provisions of the arbitration & conciliation act and it is on record that ..... no arbitration agreement between the parties and none of the parties especially present plaintiffs are signatories of such agreement. there is no evidence on record to show prima facie that mediation or attempts to resolve the disputes were made by the parties who have requested mr. justice s. d.dave (retired) to help them to come out and to help them ..... by the appellants that as some arbitration proceedings i.e. proceedings in the nature of conciliation and endeavour to bring the dispute to an end with the help of a mediator were pending, the plaintiffs can not be granted any of the reliefs as prayed by them. the suit is likely to fail being filed pending the suit proceedings or for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2004 (HC)

Sahyog Mahila Mandal and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-18-2004

Reported in : (2004)2GLR1764

..... each of the sex workers which would include training programme, food bills, stipends etc. at the said meeting, it was resolved that the police would play the role of a mediator to get the deposit amounts belonging to the sex workers back from the landlords. however, no sex worker was ready to accept the said package. it is stated that, even .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 2004 (HC)

Gandabhai Dalpatbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-25-2004

Reported in : (2005)2GLR1370

m.r. shah, j.1. in this petition under article 226/227 of the constitution of india the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 17th january 2004/21st february 2004 passed by the secretary (appeals), revenue department, government of gujarat, in revision application no. 44 of 2003 partly allowing the same and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the collector, surat, dated 9th april 2003 as well as teh order passed by deputy collector, choryasi prant, surat dated 6th july 2002 and confirmign the order passed by the mamlatdar, choryasi prant dated 11.6.2001 in respect to the revenue entry no. 4892 dated 15th february 2001 and further passing an order to make necessary entry with regard to injunction granted by civil court in regular civil suit no. 156 of 2001 and the entry would be subject to the ultimate outcome of the suit pending between the parties.2. the petitioner, gandabhai dalpatbhai patel was owner of land bearing survey no. 306, block no. 287 situate at village pal, taluka choryasi,district-surat. the petitioner had executed one power of attorney in favour of jagjivanbhai madhabhai patel on 11th march 1982. the power of attorney holder jagjivanbhai madhabhai patel had executed the sale deed in favour of respondent no.5 herein on 20th april 2000 and sold the land in question to the respondent no.5 vimalkumar khandubhai patel. necessary entry was also made in the record of rights vide entry no. 4892 on 15th february .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 28 2004 (HC)

Valjibhai Jagjivanbhai Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-28-2004

Reported in : (2005)3GLR1852

akshay h. mehta, j.1. these two petitions have been placed before us in view of the order passed by the learned single judge [coram : m r shah, j.] dated 11th august, 2004. by said order the learned judge has directed that these petitions be placed before the division bench since the controversy involved in these petitions is identical to the controversy that forms subject matter of special civil application no. 5742 of 1984, which is already referred to the division bench by the learned single judge [ coram : a n divecha, j. as he then was] by order dated 4th april, 1996. the reference has been made by the learned single judge by framing the question to be decided as under :-'can inordinate delay come in the way of authority acting under the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act, 1947 in declaring some sale transaction to be invalid on the ground of contravention of the relevant provisions contained therein?the reference has been made in view of two conflicting decisions of this court on the same point. according to the reference there is conflict between decisions rendered in the case of koli nagjibhai varjan v. state of gujarat reported in 1992 (1) g.l.r. p.14 [coram : r.k. abichandani, j.] and in the case of ranchhodbhai lallubhai patel v. state of gujarat reported in 1984 (2) g.l.r. p.1255 [coram : s.b. majmudar, j.]. the view taken in ranchhodbhai lallubhai patel's case is that power for annulling a transaction in contravention of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 04 2004 (HC)

Gasfulbhai Mohmadbhai Bilakhia Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-04-2004

Reported in : (2005)1GLR575

k.a. puj, j.1. the petitioner has filed this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for quashing and setting aside the circular dated 27.05.1992 issued by section officer, revenue department, state of gujarat, gandhinagar and consequentially praying for direction to the state officials to certify mutation entry no. 5100 in respect of the lands in question effected in favour of the petitioner.2. the petition was admitted on 18.10.1994 and interim relief was granted in terms of para 11 (b) whereby the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned circular was stayed by this court.3. it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and one smt. bhuriben nagarji desai had family relations and had mutual love and affection for each other's families. on account of such relations between the two families, the said smt. bhuriben nagarji desai had decided to include the name of the petitioner in the will executed by her on 18.05.1992. by the said will, the said smt. bhuriben nagarji desai gave lands bearing survey nos. 712/1 and 707/6 of village tukwada, tal. pardi, dist. bulsar to the petitioner. the said will was attested by witnesses as required by the provisions of the transfer of property act and the hindu succession act, 1956. it is also the case of the petitioner that after the execution of the said will, the said smt. bhuriben nagarji desai expired on 07.11.1993 at village tukwada, tal. pardi, dist. bulsar. it is also the case of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2004 (HC)

Om Prakash B. Khare Vs. the State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-27-2004

Reported in : AIR2004Guj285

k.a. puj, j. 1. this appeal from order is filed against the order passed by the learned civil judge (s.d.), vadodara below an application exh.5 in special civil suit no. 1051 of 2001 whereby the injunction application preferred by the original plaintiff - present appellant was partly allowed and relief claimed in paragraph 21 (2) of the said application was granted and rest of the relief claimed was rejected.2. the original plaintiff - present appellant has filed the present appeal from order against the rejection of the relief claimed in the injunction application.3. this appeal was admitted on 16.09.2003 and notice was issued in civil application no. 6539 of 2003 and parties were directed to maintain status-quo qua the possession and title of the land in question including the superstructure erected on the date of the said order i.e. on 16.09.2003. the court has also made it clear in the said order that the status-quo qua the possession of the land will be maintained and the respondents were directed not to transfer possession of the land to any third party and were also directed not to transfer the superstructure erected, if not transferred or altered on or before that date. the court has also made clear that the construction, if carried out, would be subject to the outcome of the appeal from order. the said arrangement was made till the civil application was heard and finally disposed of. the said civil application was finally heard and disposed of on 11.11.2003 and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2004 (HC)

Govindji Chhabaji Vs. Prant Officer

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-31-2004

Reported in : AIR2004Guj309

m.r. shah, j.1. the petitioners, who are owners of block no. 431 situated at village kujad, taluka dascroi, have preferred the present special civil application under article 226 of the constitution of india challenging the judgment and order dated 22.9.1993 passed by the learned special secretary (appeals), revenue department, state of gujarat, dismissing revision application and confirming the judgment and order passed by the collector, ahmedabad, dated 30th december 1988 by which the collector, ahmedabad, has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the deputy collector, viramgam dated 20th august 1988 in cancelling the entry no. 1729.2. the petitioners had purchased the land bearing block no. 431 situated in village kujad, taluka-dascroi by registered sale deed from the respondent no. 4 herein and names of the petitioners were entered into the record of rights vide entry no. 1729 dated 13th march 1987 which was certified on 2.5.1987. that the said entry no. 1729 dated 13th march 1987 which was certified on 2.5.1987 came to be reviewed by the deputy collector, viramgam prant exercising suo motu powers on the ground that there is breach of provisions of bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act ('the act' for short). that the deputy collector, viramgam prant by his judgment and order dated 20th august 1988 not only quashed and set aside the entry no. 1729 but also passed an order of imposing the penalty under section 9 of the act and further .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 2004 (HC)

Manjibhai Govindbhai Chikani Vs. Mulji Lakha and Co.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-08-2004

Reported in : AIR2005Guj183

ravi r. tripathi, j.1. these two appeals are filed by the defendants in special civil suit no. 136 of 2002. four appellants in appeal from order no. 294 of 2002 are the original defendants nos. 9 to 12, while eight appellants in appeal from order no. 295 of 2002, are original defendants nos. 1 to 8. both these set of appellants are aggrieved by order dated 29.06.2002, passed below exh.5 by the learned 6th joint civil judge (s.d.), rajkot. the learned judge was pleased to restrain defendants nos. 9 to 12 (appellants in appeal from order no. 294 of 2002) from selling, transferring, assigning and constructing on plot nos. 1 to 31 and plot nos. 33 to 40 of revenue survey no. 110 of village madhapar, admeasuring 20529-3 sq. yds. = 17165-18 sq. mtrs. the learned judge was also pleased to restrain defendants nos. 1 to 8 (appellants in appeal from order no. 295 of 2002) from selling, transferring, assigning and constructing on plot no. 32 of revenue survey no. 110 of village madhapar, admeasuring 924-1 sq. yds. = 772-68 sq. mtrs.2. the suit was initially filed by one m/s. mulji lakha & co., a partnership firm, having its registered office at raghav meghjibhai parsana, arjun 5, kisanpara, rajkot. thereafter, shri mahendrakumar prabhudas and shri govardhanbhai haribhai kanabar were allowed to join as plaintiffs, who are respondent nos. 1 to 3 in both these appeals, while the appellants of each of these appeals are joined as respondents, respectively in each of the appeals. to be .....

Tag this Judgment!


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