Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: karnataka Year: 2010 Page 1 of about 93 results (0.009 seconds)

Jan 13 2010 (HC)

Sri N. Ramachandrappa Vs. Smt. M. Geetha

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-13-2010

Reported in : 2010(2)KCCR1069

..... of the phrase lawful' can be pressed into service. the said phrase lawful' cannot be stretched to an absurdity to render the proceedings before the mediation center otiose. it is no doubt true that the court is also required to assure itself of the maturity and the comprehension of the spouses: ..... minimal or even remote, the courts are required to grant a decree for dissolution of marriage. it is no doubt true that rule 25 of the mediation rules would contemplate that the settlement arrived at between the parties is lawful. usage of the phrase 'lawful' in medication rules is only to ascertain ..... with the terms of settlement accepted by the parties. further, in this view, there is no question of the court which refers the matter to mediation/conciliation being debarred from hearing the matter where settlement is not arrived at. the judge who makes the reference only considers the limited question as to ..... tried to play fraud with law, but however, the situation on hand is not identical.5. as observed earlier, the proceedings were referred to the mediation center by the family court. the parties have even found that there is no possibility of them continuing to stay as husband and wife. hence they ..... their claim. the said order is impugned in this writ petition.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was referred to the mediation center by the family court itself so that the matter could be thrashed out without going through the agony of a full-fledged trial. he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2010 (HC)

Sudha Enterprises, a Partnership Firm,vs. Cave Caterers Private Limite ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-01-2010

..... . petitioner/defendant has filed written statement and counter claim on 14.11.2006. plaintiff has filed a rejoinder on 27.1.2007. suit was referred to mediation by the bangalore mediation center on 16.11.2007. mediation having not materialised, the suit was referred back to the court on 6.2.2008. issues in the suit have not been framed and no progress .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 04 2010 (HC)

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer and Sri Nir ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-04-2010

..... , a peremptory order was passed on 2.9.09, emitting the appellant to comply with the office objections within one week by depositing cost of rs. 1,000/- in bangalore mediation centre. the office objections having not been complied with within the time allowed, the order took effect and as a result, the appeal stood dismissed for non-prosecution.3. seeking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2010 (HC)

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer and Assista ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-03-2010

..... , a peremptory order was passed on 2.9.09, permitting the appellant to comply with the office objections within one week by depositing cost of rs. 1,000/- in bangalore mediation centre. the office objections having not been complied with within the time allowed, the order took effect and as a result, the appeal stood dismissed for non-prosecution.3. seeking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2010 (HC)

The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) South Western Rathray Vs. the ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-03-2010

..... , a peremptory order was passed on 2.9.09, permitting the appellant to comply with the office objections within one week by depositing cost of rs. 1,000/- in bangalore mediation centre. the office objections having not been complied with within the time allowed, the order took effect and as a result, the appeal stood dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. seeking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2010 (HC)

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer and Sri. H. ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-03-2010

..... , a peremptory order was passed on 2.9, 09. permitting the appellant to comply with the office objections within one week by depositing cost of rs. 1,000/- in bangalore mediation centre. the office objections having not been complied with within the time allowed, the order took effect and as a result, the appeal stood dismissed for non-prosecution.3. seeking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 2010 (HC)

Dr. Sudhakar Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-10-2010

..... of the church of south india and respondents 2 to 9 are the members of the said constituent churches.3. accused no. 1 is presently serving as bishop and deputy mediator of karnataka central diocese and church of south india, and by virtue of he being the bishop is also the chairman of all the boards that fall under the karnataka .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 2010 (HC)

Dr.Shama Rao D, S/O Late Doraiswammy S, Vs. Dr (Mrs) Anupama

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-29-2010

..... them for the reason it defied reasonable logic as to how the sale receipt could contain some amount which is actually not paid by him. he felt there was some mediator on behalf of the petitioner's father and the concerned company to misuse the name of the respondent, which in the process hurt the respondent, he felt cheated and insulted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2010 (HC)

D.N.Annaiah S/O Late S Narayana Rao and ors Vs. D.N.Shankar Kumar S/O ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-03-2010

..... have to examine the evidence of dw-4 venkatarayappa. according to him, in regard to nine sale deeds total sale consideration payable was rs .4,34,000/-, he was the mediator to the transaction and out of rs 4,34,000/- was paid to the plaintiff at the instance of the defendants. but in the cross-examination he stated that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 04 2010 (HC)

M. Chandra Keerthi Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-04-2010

order1. learned aga is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 4.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned aga.3. the petitioner instituted a suit in o.s.no.337/2004 seeking partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family properties. the said suit came to be decreed vide judgment and order dated 11-08-2005. the copy of said judgment has been produced at annexure-c. the court below declared that the petitioner is entitled to l/19'h share in the properties bearing s.nos.43/14 and 43/15. in pursuance of the preliminary decree drawn by the court, the petitioner requested the revenue authorities to enter his name in the records to the extent of his share granted under the decree of the court. the cop}/ of his representation has been produced at annexure-g. the said representation was submitted to the special tahsildar - respondent no.4 on 18-10-2010. it is the grievance of the petitioner that no action has been taken by respondent no.4 despite the representation submitted.4. to effect the mutation entry, the revenue authorities will have to issue notice to the persons interested and hold an enquiry and thereafter, pass appropriate order directing the entry of the names and after the issuance of the notice, the authorities have to wait for a period of 30 days and thereafter, in case, if the objections are not filed, the entry has to be certified. under the circumstances, the respondent no.4 -tahsildar is directed to consider the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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