Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: kerala Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 79 results (0.020 seconds)

Nov 18 2003 (HC)

Beeyathu Vs. Gopalan

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-18-2003

Reported in : 2005(1)KLT313

..... 22, 1979 to the respondents. by this notice, the tenancy was terminated. they were asked to vacate the premises. on october 10, 1979 the first respondent had sent a reply. mediation followed. the building was got repaired. the monthly rent was raised to rs. 15/-. the rent at the revised rate was paid upto april 1980. thereafter no payment was made .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 2003 (HC)

Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-10-2003

Reported in : 2004CriLJ1462; 2004(1)KLT153

..... prosecution to prove the hostility between the two became hostile to the prosecution. pw.7, another neighbour, also turned hostile, apart from pw10, who had been cited to prove the mediation held to appease the hostility between the two. therefore, the hostility between the two was not proved. the motive was thus not established. there was no eye witness and there .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2003 (HC)

Thomas Alias Tomy Vs. K.C. Thomas

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-09-2003

Reported in : AIR2005Ker129

..... rs. 68,000/- personally in 1994. even though many times the plaintiff demanded the amount from the defendant, he did not pay the same. ultimately, at the instance of the mediators, a cheque for rs. 4,50,000/- was issued by the defendant to the plaintiff taking into account the entire amount due to the plaintiff as well as the interest ..... /- was given. this part of the consideration is not proved. so also, how the total amount of rs. 4,50,000/- was arrived at is not seen. one of the mediators should have been examined to show how this amount was arrived at. thus, the consideration is proved only for an amount of rs. 1,73,011/- (1,35,953 + 37 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 2003 (HC)

Abdul Kadir Vs. Regional Passport Officer

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-13-2003

Reported in : I(2005)BC69; 2003(3)KLT1169

..... language into another;(ha) act as a commissioner to record evidence in any civil or criminal trial if so directed by any court or authority;(hb) act as an arbitrator, mediator or concilator, if so required; (i) any other act which may be prescribed'.apart from the above section, rule 11(8) of the notaries rules provides that a notary may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2003 (HC)

K. Balakrishnan Nair and anr. Vs. K. Gopalan Nair

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-18-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Ker271

..... defendants obstructed the plaintiff from continuing as managing partner, which compelled the plaintiff to retire from the partnership. according to the plaintiff, he was offered rs. 9,95,205/- by mediators to be given by the defendants for his retirement from the partnership. towards that amount, rs. 1 lakh was paid on 30-4-1991 and the defendant agreed to deposit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2003 (HC)

Mohanan Vs. Bibhukumar

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Apr-04-2003

Reported in : III(2003)BC421; 2003(2)KLT825

..... in this context of crucial relevance. the evidence of dw2 would suggest that the matter was talked over and settled between the accused and the complainant in the presence of mediators. thereafter dw2 was sent to get the cheque book from the house of the accused. the cheque book was brought. the obvious intention was to issue a cheque to discharge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2003 (HC)

MerlIn Thomas Vs. C.S. Thomas

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-18-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Ker232

..... the parties and even alleging mental disorder against each other. at last the respondent left the company of the petitioner and started living, with the child, in her parental house. mediators including heads of religious institutions intervened and attempted to bring them together. all these attempts became futile. later, the husband was forced to file o.p. no. 528/2000 before .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 2003 (HC)

Kochu Ahmmed Pillai Vs. Pathummal

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-13-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Ker217; 2003(1)KLT826

r. bhaskaran, j. 1. this second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession and for cancellation of documents executed by the 1st defendant. though the suit was decreed by the trial court, it was reversed in appeal by the 1st appellate court.2. the plaint schedule property belonged to kochu bappu kader pillay. the plaintiff is the son of kader pillay and the 1st defendant is his daughter. kader pillay executed ext. a1 gift deed on 28.7.1967 in respect of the plaint schedule property. the dispute in this litigation is with respect to the scope and content of ext. a1. while the plaintiff states that the gift is in favour of the plaintiff subject to life interest in favour of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant contended that the gift was in favour of her and the plaintiff did not get any right under the gift deed. the 1st defendant executed ext. a2 lease deed in favour of the third defendant, her son-in-law in respect of plaint schedule item 1 and ext. a3 gift deed in favour of her daughter, the 2nd defendant in respect of plaint schedule item no. 2. the contention of the plaintiff is that these documents are not valid and binding on him.3. the question therefore is whether ext. a1 gives absolute right to the 1st defendant or not. in the first portion of ext. a1, the father of the 1st defendant has stated that put of love and affection towards the daughter, he has given all his rights in the property as gift to the 1st defendant and from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2003 (HC)

Parampat Muhammadali, S/O. Alavi and Younger Brother Parampat Ummer, S ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-24-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Ker286

a. lekshmikutty, j.1. these two appeals arise from the common judgment passed in o.s. no. 56/1988 and o.s. no. 67/1988 on the file of the sub court, manjeri. the appellants in a.s. no. 177/1992 are the plaintiffs in o.s. no. 67/1988 and appellants in a.s. no. 43/1993 are the plaintiffs in o.s. no. 56/88 on the file of the sub court, manjeri. both the suits are filed by the respective parties for partition of the properties scheduled in the respective plaint.2. for the sake of convenience the plaintiffs in o.s. no. 56/1988 can be referred as the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in o.s. no. 67/1988 can be referred as the defendants. the case of the plaintiffs in o.s. no. 56/1988 is that the property scheduled in the plaint was set apart to the share of alavi, the father of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 1 to 4 and husband of the 5th plaintiff as per partition deed no. 1684/1977. he was in possession and enjoyment till his death on 12-8-1984. the plaintiffs and defendants are the legal heirs of deceased alavi. the defendants are residing in the property and taking income on behalf of the other co-owners. after the death of alavi, the plaintiffs demanded for partition and separate possession of their share from the property but the defendants did not heed their demand. the property will fetch an annual income of rs. 2256/-. the plaintiffs are entitled to get partition and separate possession of the share in the property.3. defendants 1 and 3 filed a joint written statement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2003 (HC)

NaziruddIn Vs. Hajirambee

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-06-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)KLT896

1. a.s. no. 196 of 1990 is filed by the plaintiff. a.s.no. 243 of 1990 is filed by the first defendant and a.s.no. 299 of 1990 is filed by the second defendant. the suit was filed for partition.2. according to the plaintiff, she is the daughter of late k.b. sheik yusuf saheb. first defendant is the son of k.b. sheik yusuf saheb. defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of k.b. sheik yusuf saheb. seventh defendant is the daughter-in-law of sheik yusuf saheb. defendants 8 to 14 are the children of late k. sheik abdul hasim and 7th defendant. all are muslims. defendants 12 to 14 are minors. 15th defendant is the daughter of mariambee and wife of late shariff. 16th defendant is the son of late mohammad kashim saheb and the 17th defendant is the wife of aziz saheb.3. the plaintiff and defendants are related to one another as shown in the geneology given in schedule a. k.b. sheik yusuf saheb, father of the plaintiff died on 24th december 1964. her mother zulekhabi died on 16th february 1959. zairunnisa sister of the plaintiff died unmarried in 1972 leaving her brothers and sisters as the only heirs and legal representatives. sheik abul hasim, the eldest brother of the plaintiff died in 1983 having defendants 7 to 14, his widow and children as the legal representatives. mariambee, elder sister of plaintiff died in 1956, leaving defendants 15 to 17 as her legal representatives.4. the properties described in item nos. 2 to 4 of b schedule were acquired by sheik yusuf saheb on darkast .....

Tag this Judgment!


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