Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: karnataka Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 95 results (0.009 seconds)

Jun 27 2005 (HC)

The Managment of S.K.F. Bearings India Ltd. Vs. Mr. S.M. Ravi Kumar an ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-27-2005

Reported in : [2006(109)FLR580]; ILR2006KAR445

..... officers - (1) the appropriate government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint such number of persons as it thinks fit, to be conciliation officers, charged with the duty of mediating in and promoting the settlement of industrial disputes.(2) a conciliation officer may be appointed for a specified area or for specified industries in a specified area or for one ..... and keeping in mind the object of the power conferred on him. from the scheme of the act, it is clear that conciliation officers are appointed with a view to mediate and bring about settlement and create a congenial atmosphere for the purpose of industries peace. therefore, once the conciliation officer is satisfied that there is an existing industrial dispute or ..... as convening of a meeting between the management and the workmen. from the scheme of the act it is clear that the conciliation officers are appointed with a view to mediate and bring about settlement and create a congenial atmosphere for the purpose of industrial peace. therefore, it would not be permissible for him not to initiate conciliation proceedings, if in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 2005 (HC)

V. Bhujanga Shetty Vs. the State of Karnataka, Rep. by Revenue Secreta ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-26-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR6059; 2006(5)KarLJ443

orderk. ramanna, j.1. this writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.8.1980 passed by the land tribunal, kundapura, in lrt- 11-160-tri-10929/80-81 granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent no. 3-shesha shetty.2. the brief facts leading to this case are that the petitioner herein said to be purchaser of the various items of lands bearing sy. no. 95 and 96/3 from the original owners manjamma, chikkamma and paddamma, who are the daughters of smt. y. nagamma shedthi in the year 1972. because of prohibition for registration of immovable properties, the said three persons registered three separate sale deeds on 06.9.1974. it is the further case of the petitioner that respondent no. 3-shesha shetty who is none other than the father-in-law of the petitioner filed form no. 7 on 21.12.1975 claiming occupancy rights of various items of the landed properties belonging to the petitioner and the petitioner's name has been shown in column no. 1 of form no. 7 at item no. 10 as bhujanga shetty. though respondent no. 3 filed form no. 7 including the name of the petitioner, the tribunal has not issued any notice as contemplated under rules 17 and 19 of the karnataka land reforms rules and without issuing notice either to the petitioner or to the general public passed the impugned order in favour of respondent no. 3, even though he was not at all cultivating the said land. the impugned order under challenge is not a speaking order, so also the finding recorded .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 2005 (HC)

Hanumath Bheemappa Sanadi and ors. Vs. Rudrappa Thammanna Sanadi and o ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-20-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Kant393; ILR2005KAR3430

v.g. sabhahit, j.1. this appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the court of civil judge (senior division) gokak, in ra. 30/1998 dated 5.12.2002 reversing the judgment and decree passed in 692/89 by the court of additional civil judge (junior division) raibag and consequently dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs in 692/89.2. the essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial court are as follows:the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking for a decree for equitable partition awarding 2/3rd share or legitimate share of the plaintiffs with separate possession in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for mesne profits and costs.3. it is averred in the plaint that hanamant sanadi was the original propositus. he had three sons by name tammani, yamanappa and bhimappa and two daughters kallawwa and kashavva. kallawwa and kashawa have died. the plaintiff no. 6 is the wife. plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the children of bhimappa. plaintiff no. 5 is the son of yamanappa. plaintiff no. 6 is the wife of late yamanappa. plaintiff nos. 7 and 8 are daughters of yamanappa and defendants 1, 2, 3 are the sons of tammani. defendant no. 4 is the wife of late tammani. tangewa is the wife of defendant no. 2 and defendants 6 and 7 are the sons of defendant no. 1. it is averred in the plaint that original propositus was serving as sanadi for the village alakanur and he was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 2005 (HC)

Roshanbi and ors. Vs. Usmansab Shaikaji Attar Since Deceased by His Lr ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-16-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR560; 2006(4)KarLJ336

huluvadi g. ramesh, j.1. this second appeal is by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the ii addl. civil judge, (sr. dvn.,) belgaum, in r.a. no. 75/1988 allowing the appeal filed by the defendant and dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.2. the plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 7/8th share in the suit property. the suit property is a residential house bearing cts. no. 883/a and 883/b situate at aralikatti deshpande galli, belgaum. the original propositus - shaikji had two wives namely halimabi and roshanbi. the defendant is the son of halima bi, the first wife of shaikji. the plaintiffs - 2 to 8 are the children of second wife who is plaintiff no. 1 - roshanbi. the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant is that the defendant is the step - son of plaintiff no. 1. plaintiffs - 2 to 8 are the step brothers. the suit property was said to be purchased by shaikji on 28.9.1926 and he died in the year 1969. it appears that the mother of the defendant halimabi died prior to shaikji and after that, shaikji married plaintiff no. 1. another brother of defendant namely, umarsab also died prior to shaikji. it is stated that there was a division effected, by way of family arrangement, in respect of suit property bearing cts no. 883/a and 883/b in the year 1979 and there is no partition in the suit house and since there was some misunderstanding between the parties, they started living separately from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 2005 (HC)

S. Shivanna Vs. the Special Tahsildar and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-24-2005

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. non-interference is the rule insofar as the orders passed by the revenue authorities under the provisions of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964 (for short, 'the act'), for the purpose of mutating names of persons who have acquired rights by showing their names in the revenue records.2. it is for this reason this court dismisses a good number of such writ petitions, directing the parties to make good their claims, rights, title and interest etc., before the civil court and whereupon to seek the revenue authorities for changes in the revenue records also in terms of the determination by the civil court vis-a-vis warring parties. but interference, though an exception and on rare occasions, will be in a case where it is warranted.3. the writ jurisdiction of this court whether for issue of certiorari or writ of mandamus or even for issue of writ of prohibition, will be exercised when this court notices that the administrative authorities have exercised the power given to them under the statutory provisions in an arbitrary, whimsical and unreasonable manner which shocks the conscious of the court. i find the present writ petition brings to the notice of this court one such situation and therefore compels interfere in the matter.4. the brief facts leading to this petition are:that the petitioner is complaining of orders passed by the tahsildar in terms of his order dated 4-8-2001 purporting to act under the provisions of section 128 of the act and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2005 (HC)

Moulasab Bandgisab Goundi Vs. Yamanappa Ameenappa Hikodi

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-02-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Kant412; ILR2005KAR5230; 2006(5)KarLJ295

huluvadi g. ramesh, j.1. this second appeal is by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the ii addi. district judge, bijapur in r.a. no. 7/88 wherein the learned district judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the addl. civil judge, bijapur in o.s. no. 169/83.2. the plaintiff had filed a suit to declare that the defendant no. 5 has not acquired any right, title or interest in the alleged sale deed dated 10-5-1982 executed by defendants 1 to 4 and also to issue permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 5 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the plaintiff and to order for delivery of possession if the court finds that the plaintiff is not in possession or lost the possession of the suit land. the plaintiff said to have purchased the suit schedule property from defendants 1 to 4 for a valuable consideration of rs. 10,000/- under a sale deed dated 30-7-1979 which is to the extent of 3 acres 10 guntas situated at tadalagi village, basavana bagewadi taluk. it is stated that immediately after the sale deed the title of the suit property passed to the plaintiff and the possession was also given and he started cultivating the property, and that subsequently, defendants 1 to 4 without the knowledge of the plaintiff have executed the sale deed dated 10-5-1982 in favour of defendant no. 5 in respect of the same property for a sale consideration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2005 (HC)

Murigayya Gurubasayya Muttinamath (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. the Land Trib ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-26-2005

Reported in : 2006(5)KarLJ475

ordern.k. patil, j.1. the instant land reforms revision petition is directed against the order dated 17th march, 1989 passed by the additional land reforms appellate authority, bagalkot in l.r.a. (tr)no. 53 of 1987, setting-aside the order passed by the land tribunal, badami, dated 3rd december, 1981 in no. klr.t.s.r. 2488.2. the third respondent herein-sri yellappa neelappa bharamagoudra, claiming to be a tenant in respect of land in sy. no. 60/1+2, measuring 16 acres 39 guntas situate at gangana budihal village, badami taluk, bijapur district is alleged to have filed form 7 for grant of occupancy rights before the first respondent-land tribunal, badami on 15th march, 1989. the said application filed by third respondent-applicant had come up for consideration before first respondent-land tribunal, badami on 3rd december, 1981 in the land tribunal, after evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, and on the basis of the admission stated to have been made by third respondent himself, to the effect that, he is not cultivating the said land as tenant, has passed the order, rejecting the application filed by third respondent-applicant in form 7. being aggrieved by the said order passed by the first respondent-land tribunal, badami on 3rd december, 1981, the third respondent herein had filed writ petition no. 13050 of 1982 before this court. when the said writ petition was pending adjudication before this court, the writ petition stood transferred to the land .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2005 (HC)

Dattappa (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Dasharath (Deceased) by L.Rs and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-03-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)KarLJ585

ordern.k. patil, j.1. petitioner, now represented by his legal representatives, being aggrieved by the order dated 14th september, 1989 on the file of the land reforms appellate authority, bijapur in l.r.'- no. 68 of 1989, setting aside the order passed by land tribunal, bijapur, dated 31st january, 1989 in no. 220, has presented the instant revision petition.2. the deceased tulajaram also, represented by his legal representatives as respondents 1 to 6 herein, claiming to be tenant, had filed form 7 under rule 20(1) of the karnataka land reforms rules, 1974 read with section 48-a(1) of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 for registration of occupancy rights on 30th june, 1976. the said application filed by deceased tulajaram had come up for consideration before the land tribunal, bijapur on 15th march, 1979. the land tribunal, has ordered for registration of occupancy rights in favour of deceased tulajaram in respect of an extent of 4 acres 3 guntas in sy. no. 471/2c (03 guntas of pot kharab), holding that, the land in question is a tenanted land and the same vested in government as on the relevant date and therefore, he is entitled for registration of occupancy rights in his favour. aggrieved by the order passed by the land tribunal, bijapur, dated 15th march, 1979, the petitioner herein filed a writ petition no. 6143 of 1981 before this court. the said writ petition had come up for consideration before this court on 5th october, 1982 and the writ petition filed by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2005 (HC)

M.N. Venkateshaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Commissioner ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-05-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR5084; 2005(6)KarLJ452

s.r. nayak, j.1. the writ petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge dated 27th september, 2001 passed in writ petition no. 26831 of 2000, has preferred this writ appeal. the learned single judge has dismissed the writ petition.2. the background facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal, in brief, are as follows:the grandmother of appellant, one late smt. kalamma, was granted 11 acres 34 guntas of land in sy. no. 50 of mallepura village, channarayapatna hobli, devanahalli taluk, bangalore rural district during 1940s. in the same survey number, 5 acres of land was also granted to the father of the appellant, narayanappa by name. thus, an extent of 16 acres 34 guntas of land, in total, in sy. no. 50 of mallepura village was granted in favour of the grandmother and father of the appellant. the said land is hereinafter referred to as the 'schedule land', for the sake of brevity. it is the case of the appellant that from the date of the grant, all through the schedule land has been in actual possession and personal cultivation of the family of the appellant and all the revenue records also support that claim. when the matter stood thus, in the year 1995, on account of rivalry in the village, some of the residents of mallepura village made an application to the tahsildar, devanahalli taluk-4th respondent herein, to set aside the entries in column no. 9 and column no. 12(2) of pahanis which were standing in the name of the appellant and his predecessors .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 15 2005 (HC)

Uppar Malleshappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-15-2005

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. writ petition is by a purchaser of agricultural land measuring an extent of 0.54 acres of land in sy. no. 62/b and also an extent of 0.85 acres of land in sy. no. 63/b of chikkajayeganur village, hospet taluk, bellary district, in terms of a sale deed dated 3-11-1976 claiming to have been executed by one shiddalingappa.2. though the petitioner was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of this land the 4th respondent one smt. dasara lingamma, w/o. shivappa claiming to be a granddaughter of the original grantee had filed an application before the assistant commissioner in the year 2001 under the provisions of the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 (for short, the 'act') praying for invalidation of the present sale transaction and the earlier transactions on the premise that the original grant being one in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste community; that it had been imposed with a condition that the land should not be sold in favour of non-scheduled caste community persons for ever etc., and such a land having been sold by the legal heirs of the original grantee and presently the respondent in the application viz., the present writ petitioner being in possession and enjoyment of the land who had claimed such ownership and possession under the sale deed dated 3-11-1976 said to have been executed by the said shiddalingappa the transactions are required to be invalidated .....

Tag this Judgment!

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