Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: guwahati Year: 2014 Page 1 of about 44 results (0.011 seconds)

Mar 19 2014 (HC)

Michi Tayang Vs. Dulley Tajo

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Mar-19-2014

..... belong to whom. 3) we both the parties i.e. duley and ati uru agreed to follow and accept the last decision given by the mediator for settlement of the casesl. norepresent from dulley clan:sl. norepresent from ati uru michi1.shri. duley uja1.shri. michi taker2.shri. duley tallo2. ..... tage village and absiibo uru of michi village to solve the case in amicable way. 2) that we from both parties fully empower the mediator with boundaries owners to identify/check/and to judge the side wise boundaries owners whether the ati uru or duley clan, of michi village, the ..... the following points: 1) that we from both side the forest owner i.e. dulley and ati uru both from michi village fully authorised to mediator shri, bamin siri, honble zpm along with boundary owners of rachi or langkhu forest, like, kime clan of hija village, tage nami of mudang ..... and 40 of the assam frontier (administration of justice) regulations, 1945 nor as arbitrator under arbitration and conciliation act, 1996. he was simply appointed as mediator to settle the dispute amicably. the learned trial court also failed to appreciate that the respondent filed a petition in the court of deputy commissioner, ziri ..... that the family members of respondent have lodged the oral complaint against the family members of the petitioner, shri bamin siri, zpm was requested to mediate and settle the matter amicably. thereafter, both the parties were summoned and their signatures were obtained on a deed of agreement prepared in advance on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 2014 (HC)

Don Ayengia, Assam and Another Vs. The State of Assam and Another

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Apr-02-2014

..... liable against the debts of the payer/drawer of the cheque. according to sri choudhury, learned senior counsel for the accused, the appellant at best can be treated as a mediator. the impugned judgments have also been assailed on the ground that neither the promissory note (exhibit-2) nor the endorsement made thereon on 15.9.2007(exhibit-3) can transfer ..... the liability from the principal debtor (a-2) to the mediator/accused no.1. the appellant further argued that the cheques were handed over to accused no.2, nazimul islam, only to be used as security with the complainant but the ..... case of arumughan pillai ??vs- state of kerala; (2005 crilj 3259). in this case, the complainant had a dispute with dw-1 and the second respondent played the role of mediator and he issued a cheque to the complainant/appellant to compromise the dispute. the dispute between the appellant and dw-1 led to filing of a civil case and ultimately ..... the civil case and no consideration was given to dw-1. referring to section 43 of the ni act, the high court has held that the cheque was issued by the mediator without any consideration. hence, it would not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque. the case before me is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2014 (HC)

Dipak Kumar Choudhury, Kamrup, Assam Vs. The State of Assam, Represent ...

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : May-06-2014

(oral). 1. heard mr. k sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. the state respondents are represented by mr. j handique, the learned govt. advocate, while the respondent no.3 is represented by dr. g lal, advocate. 2. the matter pertains to a mutation dispute and the petitioner challenges the judgment dated 20.8.2009 (annexure-5) in case no.r.a.(k)-11/2009, rendered by the assam board of revenue (hereinafter referred to as ??the revenue board), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent no.3 against the order of the settlement officer dated 31.12.2008, granting mutation to the petitioner was allowed and the impugned order of the settlement officer was quashed by the revenue board. 3. the original pattadar of the land measuring 5 bighas 10 lechas covered by dag no.565 of periodic patta no.32 of village hengrabari under beltola mouza was late hema prabha choudhury, wife of late rohini kumar choudhury. the petitioner bases his claim as the grandson of the original pattadar, through his father late prabin choudhury. 4. on the other hand, the respondent no.3 smti sagarika basumatary purchased the land through two sale deeds dated 4.9.2007 and 11.9.2007, executed by the three vendors, namely, renu das, dwijen das and bikramjit kakati through their attorney padmeswar basumatary. earlier these 3 vendors purchased the land in the year 1987 from naren sarma and the 3 purchasers were granted chitha mutation of the purchased land on 18.2.2000. the vendor naren sarma derived .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2014 (HC)

Md. Alam and Another Vs. Dr. Ambica Prasad, Guwahati

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Apr-04-2014

(cav), j. 1. this revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment passed by the learned civil judge no.3, kamrup, guwahati, in title appeal no. 97/2010 allowing the appeal and thereby decreeing the suit for eviction of the defendants. 2. plaintiff dr. ambica prasad filed title suit no. 484/2007 in the court of learned munsiff no.4, kamrup for eviction of the defendant abdul karim on the ground of default and bona-fide requirement. it is the case of the plaintiff that he was original owner of a plot of land measuring 1 katha 6 lechas covered by dag no. 514 which he exchanged with his brother ranjeet prasad and thereupon he became owner of land measuring 2 kathas 1 lecha under same dag and patta. this exchange was affected on the basis of registered deeds bearing no. 4091 and 4092 executed on 23.04.1975. a market, known as gauhati market, was situated on the r.c.c. construction standing on the said land and the said market was registered as gauhati municipal holding no. 13 of ward no. 33. previously, in the year 1968, when the said land and the building was under ownership and possession of ranjeet prasad, the brother of the plaintiff, he had let out one of the rooms identified as room no. b-1 to one rahim baksh, the father of the original defendant. the tenancy was a monthly one at a rental of rs. 1,000/- per month payable within 7th day of the succeeding month as per english calendar. even after execution of the exchange deeds, as referred to above, the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 03 2014 (HC)

Pabitra Kumar Ghosh, Goalpara Vs. Uttam Kumar Ghosh, Assam

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Jun-03-2014

(oral). 1. this second appeal at the instance of plaintiff in title suit no. 1 of 1997 has been preferred challenging the concurrent findings of the learned courts below. 2. plaintiff instituted title suit no. 1/1997 in the court of munsiff no.1 at goalpara against principal defendants no. 1 to 8 who are the legal heirs of his own brother and against three proforma defendants who are his two brothers and one sister. the case of the plaintiff is that suit land originally belonged to one prasanna kumar ghosh who having died in the year 1962 his four sons, namely, paresh, sadananda, pratul and pabitra and one daughter, sujita and their widowed mother sailaja inherited the property in equal shares. paresh subsequently died leaving behind three sons, namely, defendants no. 1, 2 and 3, his widow, defendant no. 4 and four daughters, namely, defendants no. 5 to 8. it is the case of the plaintiff that after death of prasanna kumar ghosh the property was amicably partitioned among all the legal heirs and by such partition the schedule-b property within schedule-a described in the plaint fell in the share of the plaintiff. this schedule-b property is the eastern half of schedule-a land alongwith the three rooms of the partitioned house. the eastern half of schedule a land with other three rooms fell in the share of paresh ghosh, the predecessor-in- interest of defendants no. 1 to 8. the plaintiff claimed that subsequent to such amicable settlement a memorandum of family settlement was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2014 (HC)

Harendra Ojha and Another Vs. Suresh Choudhury, Tinsukia and Others

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Apr-11-2014

(cav), j. 1. the order, dated 11.02.2013, passed by the learned munsiff, margherita in title suit no. 17/2007 is in challenged in civil revision petition no. 150/2013 aforesaid and the order, dated 11.02.2013, passed by the learned munsiff, margherita in misc (j) case no. 12/2010 (in ts no. 16/2007) is in challenged in civil revision petition no. 159/2013. 2. by both the impugned orders aforesaid, the learned munsiff refused to accept the counter claims filed by the respective defendants (present petitioners), in the said title suits. 3. i have heard mr. g.n. sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by md. aslam, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners/ defendants in both the revision petiutions. also heard mr. g.p. bhowmik, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents/ plaintiffs in both the cases. 4. by the impugned orders, aforesaid, the learned munsiff, margherita rejected the prayers, made by the petitioners for accepting their counter claims in t.s. no. 16/2007 (misc. (j) case no. 12/2010) and t.s. no. 17/2007 (petition no. 593/2010). 5. as both the revision petitions, represented by the same set of lawyers, involve same question of law based on identical facts, for the sake of convenience and as agreed to by the leaned counsel, appearing for both the parties, i propose to dispose of both the revision petitions aforesaid by this common order. 6. the predecessor in interest of the respondents in both the cases instituted title suit no. 16/2007 against shri .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2014 (HC)

Harendra Ojha and Another Vs. Suresh Choudhury, Tinsukia and Others

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Apr-11-2014

(cav), j. 1. the order, dated 11.02.2013, passed by the learned munsiff, margherita in title suit no. 17/2007 is in challenged in civil revision petition no. 150/2013 aforesaid and the order, dated 11.02.2013, passed by the learned munsiff, margherita in misc (j) case no. 12/2010 (in ts no. 16/2007) is in challenged in civil revision petition no. 159/2013. 2. by both the impugned orders aforesaid, the learned munsiff refused to accept the counter claims filed by the respective defendants (present petitioners), in the said title suits. 3. i have heard mr. g.n. sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by md. aslam, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners/ defendants in both the revision petiutions. also heard mr. g.p. bhowmik, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents/ plaintiffs in both the cases. 4. by the impugned orders, aforesaid, the learned munsiff, margherita rejected the prayers, made by the petitioners for accepting their counter claims in t.s. no. 16/2007 (misc. (j) case no. 12/2010) and t.s. no. 17/2007 (petition no. 593/2010). 5. as both the revision petitions, represented by the same set of lawyers, involve same question of law based on identical facts, for the sake of convenience and as agreed to by the leaned counsel, appearing for both the parties, i propose to dispose of both the revision petitions aforesaid by this common order. 6. the predecessor in interest of the respondents in both the cases instituted title suit no. 16/2007 against shri .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 2014 (HC)

Paresh Ch. Nath Vs. Khargeswar Baishnab and Others

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Nov-07-2014

oral judgment: [1] heard learned counsel for the appellant. [2] this second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiff in title suit no.11 of 2008. both the courts below concurrently held that plaintiff could not prove his right, title and interest over the suit land and consequently, trial court dismissed the suit which was confirmed by the learned first appellate court. [3] paresh chandra nath as plaintiff instituted title suit no. 11 of 2008 in the court of learned munsiff no.1 at kokrajhar stating that his father owned 1 bigha 4 kathas 6 lechas land under dag no.4 and 5 of khatian no.4 (old) in village totpara under kokrajhar revenue circle. after death of his father, plaintiff continued possessing the same. however, subsequently he had to shift from the plot of land to some other place in view of erosion by river. the plaintiffs father died in the year 1979 and thereafter, name of the plaintiff was mutated in respect of 1 bigha 3 kathas 9 lechas of land under the aforesaid dag and patta by way of inheritance. he also obtained possession certificate on 05.10.2005 from the revenue authority. according to the plaintiff, defendants dispossessed him on 08.01.2008 from the suit land measuring more or less 2 kathas within the schedule a of the plaint. the plaintiff protested, however, to no avail. it is also stated that in the year 2004 a similar attempt was made by the defendants but the same was foiled by the plaintiff. the defendants do not have any right, title .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 2014 (HC)

Nanibala Dutta and Others Vs. Rupama Dutta and Others

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : May-20-2014

1. this is a second appeal filed by the plaintiffs under section 100 of c.p.code against the judgment/decree dated 24.1.2005 passed by civil judge (senior division), jorhat in title appeal no.24 of 2003 which in turn arise out of judgment/decree dated 4.8.2003 passed by civil judge (junior division) no.1, jorhat in title suit no.95 of 1993. by impugned judgment/decree, both the courts below dismissed the appellants (plaintiffs) suit for declaration of their title and share in the suit land, for confirmation of their possession over the suit land, and for injunction restraining the respondents (defendants) from disposing of the suit land in relation to the suit land etc. so the question which arise for consideration in this appeal is whether two courts below were justified in dismissing appellants suit and thereby were justified in not granting them any relief which they had claimed in the suit against the respondents (defendants) in relation to the suit land. this second appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law: ??1. whether the learned courts below are justified in dismissing the suit holding that the defendants are legal heirs of nandaram dutta ( since deceased) though the defendants have admitted in written statement that the plaintiff no.1 is the first wife of the deceased and therefore the property of the deceased cannot devolve on them as per schedule 1 of section 8 of the hindu succession act, 1956. 2. whether the learned courts .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2014 (HC)

Laxmi Hazarika and Others Vs. Manjur Ali

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Jan-24-2014

this is a civil revision filed by the plaintiff/landlord under section 115 of the code of civil procedure code against the order dated 30.3.2005 passed in title appeal no.23/2004 by civil judge (sr. division), sibsagar which in turn arise out of the judgment/decree dated 16.11.2004 passed by civil judge (jr. division) no.1, sibsagar in title suit no.9/93. by impugned order, the first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court which had decreed plaintiffs suit for eviction against the defendant and while allowing the defendants appeal dismissed the plaintiffs suit. so the question which arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether first appellate court was justified in allowing the defendants appeal which resulted in dismissal of plaintiffs suit facts of the case are these:- the petitioners are the plaintiffs whereas the respondent is the defendant. the petitioners (plaintiffs) claiming to the owners and the landlords of the suit accommodation through their predecessor in title namely - late ?? chitra nath hazarika and other filed a suit out of which this revision arises against the respondent (defendant) . the suit was filed for eviction of the respondent from the suit accommodation (shop) under the provisions of the assam urban areas rent control act 1972 (for short hereinafter called the act). it was interalia averred in the plaint that plaintiffs predecessor in title ?? namely late chitra nath hazarika was the owner and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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