Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: karnataka Year: 1998 Page 1 of about 95 results (0.006 seconds)

Sep 21 1998 (HC)

H.T. Somashekar Reddy Vs. Government of Karnataka and Another

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-21-1998

Reported in : 2000(1)KarLJ224

..... the arbitral tribunal remains within the limits of its jurisdiction; (v) to minimise the supervisory role of courts in the arbitral process; (vi) to permit an arbitral tribunal to use mediation, conciliation or other proceedings during the arbitral proceedings to encourage settlement of dispute; (vii) to provide that every final arbitral award is enforced in the same manner as if it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1998 (HC)

Madhava Raja Rao Vs. General Manager (Personnel Wing), Head Office, Ca ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-26-1998

Reported in : (2000)ILLJ1340Kant

..... pros and cons of the matters. the dictionary meaning of the word 'consider' is to review attentively, to survey, examine, inspect, to look attentively, to contemplate mentally, to think over, mediate on, give heed to, take note of, to think deliberately, bethink oneself, to reflect.11: the supreme court in barium chemicals limited and anr. v. a.j. rana and ors ..... sc 561, interpreted the word 'consider' to mean:'it is also mentioned that to consider is to fix the mind upon with a view to careful examination; to ponder; study; mediate upon, think or reflect with care. it is, therefore, manifest that careful thinking or due application of the mind regarding the necessity to obtain and examine the documents in question .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 1998 (HC)

Smt. Lalithawwa and Others Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri Sub- ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-04-1998

Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ680

order1. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.2. this writ petition is directed against the order passed in the matter of mutation. this petition has been filed against the order dated 13-7-1998 passed by the assistant commissioner in rts: appeal : 123: 1997-98 whereby the assistant commissioner has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the deputy tahsildar after having opined that the respondent 2 has been the adopted son of ningawa and that ningawa had executed a will in favour of 2nd respondent and therefore he is only entitled to succeed. on this basis, he set aside the order of the deputy tahsildar who had ordered mutation in favour of the petitioners as well.3. the case in question involves a questions of fact as the learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the adoption as well as the execution of will relied upon by the assistant commissioner. these questions of fact can well be decided on merits after trial of the issues by the civil court. the writ jurisdiction is not meant for that purpose. section 135 of the karnataka land revenue act very clearly provides as per proviso thereof that in case where a person is aggrieved by any entry made in any record or register maintained, he may institute a suit against the person denying interest or interested to deny his title and the entry in record or the register shall be amended in accordance with the declarative decree passed in the suit. the order passed in appeal or revision may be final, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 1998 (HC)

Arunkumar and Others Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwar Revenue D ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-04-1998

Reported in : 1999(2)KarLJ28

acts/rules/orders:karnataka land revenue act, 1964 - sections 128 and 129cases referred:hanumantha gowda v. gidde gowda, ilr 1998 kar. sh. n. 62 (rsa no. 863 of 1990, dd: 27-10-1997)judgement1. this appeal is filed assailing the judgment of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition.2. the case of the appellants is that they filed an application for mutation of their names on the basis of a registered will executed by the testator. according to the facts of the case, the testator registered the will and thereafter cancelled the same. relying on those wills, the appellants filed a petition for mutation. the contesting respondent filed objections stating that there is another will executed by the testator. that request was carried to the high court in a writ petition. the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the parties have to approach the civil court to sort out their rights to the land as there are rival claims.3. learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that when there is a registered document, there is a duty on the tahsildar to make an entry. if any other person has got a right, he has to go and establish it in a civil court. learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment in hanumantha gowda v gidde gowda. we see no dispute about the proposition laid down in the said judgment. in this case, there are rival claims. one is registered and another is an ordinary will. the ordinary will is not produced. we cannot .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 1998 (HC)

K.V. Amarnath Vs. the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New D ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-18-1998

Reported in : 1999CriLJ1558; 1999(4)KarLJ247

orderr.p. sethi, c.j. 1. without impleading him as party respondent but alleging corruption, favouritism and nepotism against sri h.d. devegowda, former prime minister of india, the petitioner herein has attempted to ignite the process of law by invoking action under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, apparently under the patent name of public interest litigation. prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register a criminal case in the matter of offences allegedly committed by former prime minister and his family members which are stated to be punishable under the provisions of the prevention of corruption act and the penal code. the jurisdiction of the court has been invoked for the alleged failure of the respondents to take any action on the memorandum at annexure-a submitted by the petitioner on 10-12-1996 when shri h.d. devegowda had become the prime minister. the omission on the part of the respondent to take action is alleged to be non-performance of their statutory obligations. powers of the court for issuance of appropriate directions have been prayed in the name and furtherance of cause of justice and equity and for strengthening the rule of law.2. the petitioner claims to be a social worker and a life member of karnataka a bhrashtachara virodhi vedike committed consistently in exposing the authorities for their misdeeds and colossal corrupt practices of responsible political leaders and public servants in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1998 (HC)

H. Gopala Gowda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-11-1998

Reported in : 1999(1)KarLJ179

orderchidananda ullal, j.1. two agriculturists of channarayapatna village of devanahalli taluk, bangalore rural district, had resorted to the instant writ petition as a public interest litigation. in filing the same, they prayed for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the official memorandum no. lnd/sr/(1)/16/1976-77, dated 25-5-1979, passed by the respondent 5-tahsildar, devanahalli taluk, devanahalli, copy as at annexure-f to writ petition and also for issue of an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to consider the legitimate grievance of the petitioners as enumerated in their representations, copies as at annexure-b and c to writ petition and further to retain the status quo condition of the gomal land in sy. no. 163 or for grant of any other appropriate writ.2. we heard the learned counsel for the petitioners sri sundaram appearing along with sri k.n. subbareddy, the learned high court government pleader smt. v. vidya appearing for the respondent 1-state and the authorities-respondents 2 to 5 and sri c.g. gopal swamy appearing for the respondents 6 to 10, 13 to 22 and 24 and 29. we have also perused the case records.3. we feel it proper to give a brief narration of the public grievance of the petitioners aired in the instant writ petition in the form of public interest litigation.4. that, there existed reserved gomal lands to an extent of 66 acres and 13 guntas in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 1998 (HC)

Smt. Pullamma Vs. Smt. Padmavathi and Others

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-23-1998

Reported in : 1999(3)KarLJ571

order1. heard. 2. the petitioner is the purchaser of the land in question granted by the government under dharkasth on 13-9-1962 to one baiyanna who was admittedly a member of woddara community. that land was purchased by the petitioner from the grantee on 26-10-1970. subsequently, the grantee died. 3. after the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 ('the act' for short) came into force with effect from 1-1-1979, the grantee's daughter-in-law, who is respondent 1, made an application to respondent 3 seeking resumption of the land under section 5 of the act on the ground that the same had been alienated to the petitioner-purchaser in breach of the non-alienation condition which was attached to the grant prohibiting its transfer for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. 4. on enquiry, respondent 3 passes the order at annexure-a dated 22-8-1997 holding the said sale null and void and directing petitioner's eviction from the land for its resumption to respondent 1. petitioner's appeal against annexure-a order before respondent 2-deputy commissioner was also dismissed by his order annexure-b dated 9-6-1998. 5. the petitioner now prays to quash the orders at annexure-a and b as they are illegal and without jurisdiction. it was maintained by mr. s.v. prakash, learned counsel for petitioner that the grantee was originally a person of andhra pradesh where his woddara community was not a community belonging to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1998 (HC)

H. Gopala Gowda and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-11-1998

Reported in : ILR1998KAR4144

orderchidananda ullal, j. 1. two agriculturists of channarayapatna village of devanahalli taluk, bangalore rural district, had resorted to the instant writ petition as a public interest litigation. in filing the same, they prayed for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certioraris or any other appropriate writ to quash the official memorandum no. lnd/sr/(1)/ 16/1976-77 dated 25.5.79, passed by the respondent no. 5 tahsildar, devanahalli taluk, devanahalli, copy as at annexure 'f' td writ petition and also for issue of an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 to 5 to consider the legitimate grievance of the petitioners as enumerated in their representations, copies as at annexures 'b' and 'c' to writ petition and further to retain the status quo condition of the gomal land in sy. no. 163 or for grant of any other appropriate writ. 2. we heard the learned counsel for the petitioners sri sundaram appearing along with sri k.n. subbareddy, the learned high court government pleader smt. v. vidya appearing for the respondent no. 1 - state and the authorities - respondents no. 2 to 5 and sri c.g. gopalaswamy appearing for the respondents no. 6 to 10, 13 to 22 and 24 to 29. we have also perused the case records.3. we feel it proper to give a brief narration of the public grievance of the petitioners aired in the instant writ petition in the form of pil.4. that, there existed reserved gomal lands to an extent of 66 acres and 13 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 1998 (HC)

Basalingappa Channappa Mamale Pattan Shettar and Others Vs. Dundappa P ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-19-1998

Reported in : AIR1998Kant321; ILR1998KAR2650; 1998(4)KarLJ368

1. this second appeal has been filed under section 100 of the cpc.2. the appellants are the defendants. the respondent is the plaintiff.3. the plaintiff filed the suit in o.s. no. 21 of 1982 before the munsiff, savanur, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property bearing tpc. no. 588 situated in w. no. iii of bankapur village.4. the trial court granted the decree for permanent injunction, but dismissed the plaintiffs suit for declaration.5. the defendants appealed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in r.a. no. 11 of 1989 before the civil judge, haven. the plaintiff filed cross appeal.6. the appellate court by its common judgment dated 20-12-1990 dismissed the defendants' appeal and allowed the plaintiffs cross appeal. in other words, the appellate court confirmed the decree for permanent injunction passed by the trial court and granted the decree for declaration also.7. the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants.8. the plaintiff's case is that the suit property belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff and others and at a family partition, it fell to the share of the plaintiff's elder uncle's son veerappa panchappanavar. mutation was entered after partition in the name of said veerappa panchappanavar and he was in possession since partition.9. said veerappa panchappanavar surrendered the suit property in favour of the plaintiff along with another property bearing t.p.c. no. 359/b and he (veerappa .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 1998 (HC)

Siddappa Hanumanthappa Kori Vs. the Assistant Director of Land Records ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-20-1998

Reported in : ILR1998KAR1834; 1998(3)KarLJ581

order1. the order dated 2-6-1997 is recalled.2. the matter was heard afresh at the instance of the parties.3. the petitioner herein questioned by way of an appeal no. 28 of 1995, before the joint director of land records, belgaum, the orders dated 10-11-1992 and 8-8-1994 and sought cancellation of the mutation entry 2693 pertaining to survey no. 166 of mannikeri village, bilagi taluk, bijapur district.4. the grievance was that the assistant director of the land records, jamkhandi had amalgamated survey nos. 166/1 and 166/2 and further sub-divided it as 166/1+2a and 166/1+2b. various grounds were raised by the petitioner herein against the order of the assistant director of land records. the first appeal under section 49(f) of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964 (hereinafter called the act of 1964) was filed before the joint director of land records, belgaum. the joint director of land records, belgaum as per annexure-b allowed the appeal and the subdivision measurement i.e., p.t. sheet, form nos. 4, 11 and h.f. xii prepared as per adlr.phs.bcc.sr. 608 of 1992-93 was cancelled.5. the respondents 4 and 5 herein challenged the order of the joint director of land records in appeal no. 300 of 1995 before the karnataka appellate tribunal, bangalore. the karnataka appellate tribunal, which heard the appeal, came to the conclusion that the joint director of land records, who heard the appeal apl.sr. 28/94-95, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as an appeal against an .....

Tag this Judgment!


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