Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: karnataka Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 118 results (0.008 seconds)

Nov 27 2003 (HC)

Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. Mehrunisa Begum

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-27-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Kant261

..... the same roof. the defendant husband claims that the plaintiff wife on her own abandoned the matrimonial home and stayed with her parents and in spite of repeated attempts for mediation and for settlement made by the khazi failed, therefore, the defendant on 22-5-2002 sent a written notice of talaq returnable divorce which was received by the plaintiff, but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2003 (HC)

A. Achutha and ors. Vs. Sri Rama Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-29-2003

Reported in : ILR2003KAR3826; (2004)IILLJ755Kant

..... modified or altered by the management and the only thing he could tell us is that annexure c is not accepted by the trade union and after necessary negotiation and mediation, they agreed to include only those employees whose names are included in annexure-a appended to annexure r-1 settlement. 14. there is no controversy between the parties that if .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2003 (HC)

Mallappa Adiveppa Hadapad Vs. Smt. Rudrawwa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-04-2003

Reported in : ILR2003KAR1774; 2003(3)KarLJ470

majage, j.1. this appeal is by the appellant, who was 1st defendant in o.s.no. 20/1986 on the file of the court of civil judge at dharwad, challenging the judgment and decree passed therein by which the sard suit brought by the 1st respondent, who was plaintiff therein, has been decreed in part holding her as owner of land in block no. 111/1 measuring 4 acres 9 guntas of haletegur village and entitled to its possession, though dismissed the suit for other reliefs claimed and also for land in block no. 111/2 covered by sale deed dated 24.4.1972, and also against the judgment and decree passed in r.a.no. 20/1990 on the file of the court of ii addl. district judge at dharwad, since the judgment and decree passed by the trial court came to be affirmed by the said 1st appellate court.2. for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereafter as shown in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court, i.e, plaintiff and defendants.3. the brief facts, which gave rise to the present appeal, are: the plaintiff, who is the wife of 2nd defendant, claiming as the owner and possessor of the two suit lands on the basis of inheritance through her mother, brought suit for various reliefs with injunction, including the relief of declaration of ownership over suit lands and also with regard to two sale deeds executed by defendants no. 2 to 4 in favour of 1st defendant and, alternatively claimed possession of suit lands from 1st defendant with mesne profits, if found by court not .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 2003 (HC)

Balappa Naikappa Naik (Since Deceased by L.Rs.) Vs. Neelappa Khemappa ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : May-26-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Kant320; ILR2003KAR5043; 2004(1)KarLJ618

a.v. srinivasa reddy, j.1. this appeal arises from an order dated 14-1-2001 passed by the court below in r.a. no. 14/96 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court passed in o.s. no. 423/90 and remanding the matter for fresh trial and disposal in accordance with law.2. the facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows :the suit property is a piece of agricultural land bearing sy. n. 82 and measuring 1 acre 2 guntas. the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale entered into between himself and late tayawwa. the plaintiffs case was that the original defendant-tayawwa was given the suit property by her mother laxmawwa and, therefore, under section 14 of the hindu succession act she had become the absolute owner of the suit property and in that capacity she had entered into an agreement of sale with him. as she refused to execute the sale deed despite the plaintiff expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance. the trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish that tayawwa was the owner of the suit property. in appeal, the court below set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded the matter back to the trial court to consider the additional evidence produced in the case and then dispose of the suit in accordance with law. hence the present appeal by the aggrieved defendant.3. i .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2003 (HC)

Sadashivaiah and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-26-2003

Reported in : ILR2003KAR5088

ordern. kumar, j.1. petitioners in w.p. nos. 7540/2001 and 9155-9204/2001 and 26275-77/2001 are all owners of lands which are notified for acquisition by the government for establishment of an industrial area for karnataka industrial area development board, the fourth respondent herein. notification under section 28(1) of the karnataka industrial area development act was issued on 15.4.1997 and final notification was issued under section 28(4} of the act on 16.7.1997. thereafter, the possession of the land was taken in pursuance of a notice issued under section 28(6) on 17.7.1997. notices under section 9 and 10 of the land acquisition act (hereinafter for short called as 'the act') was issued after holding an enquiry for passing of an award. the compensation was mutually agreed to be paid at the rate of rs. 6,00,000/- per acre for agricultural lands and rs. 7,00,000/- per acre for converted land. accordingly, compensation was paid to the petitioners. however, in so far as kharab land is concerned, the land acquisition officer declined to pass any award on the ground that the said kharab land is not assessed to land revenue, there is no provision for payment of compensation and accordingly an endorsement came to be issued as per annexure-j dated 2.11.2000 informing the petitioners that they are not entitled to any compensation for the kharab land. aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.2. respondents have filed a counter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2003 (HC)

Rayanagouda Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-18-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)KarLJ450

ordern. kumar, j.1. the petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the order dated 1-6-2001 passed by the first respondent as per annexure-d, by which mutation entry has been made in favour of respondents 2 to 5 on the basis of the compromise decree entered into between the parties in the civil court.2. the first ground of attack is that the said order is' against the petitioner showing him to be dead. secondly, it is contended that by the impugned order mutation entry has been made in the names of respondents 2 to 5 in respect of property bearing sy. no. 110/2, when actually the said property has not fallen to their share. thirdly, on the ground that though the right of respondents 3 to 5 to the properties in dispute is not in question, admittedly, they are not in possession of those properties and therefore their names could not have been entered in column 12 of rtc. if only the petitioner had been served with a notice, he would have appeared before the deputy commissioner and would have brought to the notice of the deputy commissioner the aforesaid facts, in which event, order adverse to his interest would not have been passed. therefore, it is contended that the impugned order passed by the deputy commissioner is liable to be set aside.3. in fact, the impugned order was challenged before this court in w.p. no. 24457 of 2001 by respondents 6 to 9. after contest, the said writ petition came to be dismissed by a considered order. the facts set out in the said order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2003 (HC)

Basamma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-04-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)KarLJ129

ordern.k. patil, j.1. these petitioners are the owners and in peaceful possession of the land bearing sy. no. 63 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas situated at noo-lagere village, hirekerur taluk. the land in question is a service inam land. the father of the petitioners was the inamdar of the land in question. when things stood thus, one shanthaveerappa alleged to have (claiming as a tenant) filed form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. the said application had come up for consideration on 25-9-1975. on that day, the tribunal passed the impugned order in no. klr sr 95. in pursuance of that order, the 3rd respondent has issued notice to the petitioners on 20-8-1985 to give possession of land in question. these petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 25-9-1975 and the notice dated 20-8-1985 before this court in w.p. no. 13563 of 1985. when the matter was pending for hearing, in view of the amendment to the land reforms act, the said petition filed by the petitioners has been transferred to the land reforms appellate authority (for short the 'appellate authority'). the appellate authority has assigned no. lra 300 of 1987. when the matter was pending for consideration before the appellate authority in view of the amendment to the land reforms act, 1990, the appellate authority was abolished and the parties were permitted to file civil petition under section 17 of the amendment act. accordingly, the petitioners have filed civil petition no. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 2003 (HC)

Ganapathi Parameshwara Bhat (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. State of Karnataka ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-26-2003

Reported in : 2004(3)KarLJ425

ordern.k. patil, j.1. the petitioners, assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the 2nd respondent-land tribunal, dated 22-11-2002 in no. lrm.sr.48c/10/765 appointing tahsildar, honavar, as the receiver of the lands bearing survey nos. 4/4, 3/1 and 299/1 measuring o.16 guntas 4 annas, 11 guntas and 1 acre 1 gunta respectively, situated at karki village, honavar taluk, u.k. district, have filed this writ petition.2. the petitioners claim to be absolute owners of the lands in question and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. the lands in question fell to their share in the partition entered into between the family members and in pursuance of the partition, the petitioners submitted a wardy to the revenue authorities on 21-3-1983 along with other family members. thereafter, mutation has been certified in respect of these lands in question and the petitioners' name have been entered in the record of rights and the same is continued till date. to substantiate the same, the petitioners have produced annexure-d, e, f and g and submitted that for the agricultural year 2001-02, in the kabsedar's column and cultivator's column i.e., column nos. 9 and 12(2), the name of the father of the petitioners is shown. he further submitted that when the matter was pending consideration, respondent 3 herein filed an application for appointment of a receiver. the petitioners filed objections to the said application. without considering the said objections and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2003 (HC)

Mallappa Vs. Srinivasa Rao (Dead) by L.Rs

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-18-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Kant31; 2003(5)KarLJ517

k. sreedhar rao, j.1. this appeal along with the cross-objections are filed against the judgment and decree dated 9-7-1997 in r.a. no. 48 of 1989 on the file of the district judge, gulbarga arising out of the judgment and decree dated 8-10-1982 in o.s. no. 49 of 1978 on the file of the civil judge, gulbarga.2. the appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. the respondents filed a suit for specific performance of the contract to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule land, in respect of which a written agreement for sale was executed on 31-8-1975. under the terms of agreement, the plaintiff had paid the full consideration amount of rs. 31,001/- towards the sale value, the plaintiff was put in possession. the defendants undertook to execute the sale deed as and when called upon. based on the agreement of sale, ex. p. 14, the plaintiff made an application for mutation in his name in the revenue records. the tahsildar by his order dated 22-12-1977 directed mutation in the name of the plaintiff. during the said proceedings the defendants contended that the agreement of sale is concocted and denied his liability to execute the sale deed. the defendants also filed a suit in o.s. no. 408 of 1977 seeking permanent injunction against the plaintiff herein not to interfere with the possession. the said suit came to be dismissed. during the pendency of o.s. no. 408 of 1977, the present suit came to be filed by the plaintiff. the trial court decreed the suit of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2003 (HC)

Mohandas Dattaram Prabhu and ors. Vs. U.F.M. Mukund Honnappa Naik

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-16-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Kant428; ILR2003KAR2420; 2004(2)KarLJ126

srinivasa reddy, j 1. in this appeal the appellants-plaintiffs call in question the judgment and decree of the court-below allowing the appeal and remanding the matter back to the trial court with a direction to allow the parties to lead further evidence and to dispose of the case afresh.2. the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the defendant has no right whatsoever in an area measuring 0.4.0 of sy.no. 113 of shedageri village and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction. the plaintiff also gave the boundaries of the area in respect of which the suit was filed. the plaintiff claimed that the suit land was granted to them on 19.1.1972 under a kabulayat executed by him in favour of the government and possession was handed over to him on 21.1.1972 and mutation entry no. 3023 has also been effected in that regard. the plaintiff further averred that on 1.10.1973 the survey of the land was conducted and in the month of december, 1972 an area of 0-2-5 in sy. no. 113 and 114 a was granted to the defendant and in respect of the said grant in favour of the defendant the mutation entry 3102 has been effected. taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff the defendant trespassed over the suit land and has put up some construction over part of the suit land. on the basis of these averments the plaintiff sought for the decree of declaration and prohibitive injunction.3. the defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement to the effect that the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!


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