Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: kerala Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 81 results (0.045 seconds)

May 19 2005 (HC)

Narayan Murti Vs. Thankamma Sebastian

Court : Kerala

Decided on : May-19-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)KLT102

..... , this respondent is ready and willing to purchase the property at a reasonable price. this respondent craves the indulgence of the tribunal in settling the matter out of court through mediation and conciliation'. before the rent control court, pws.1 to 4 were examined and exts.a1 to a9 were marked on the side of the landlord, pws. 1 and 2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2005 (HC)

Ummer Farooque Vs. Naseema

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-05-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)KLT565

..... to effect a divorce under mohammadan law. as held by the supreme court in shamim ara's case (2002 (3) klt 537 (sc), there should be an attempt of mediation by two mediators; one on the side of the husband and the other on the side of the wife and only in case it was a failure that the husband is entitled ..... was for arrears of maintenance, the chief examination is by affidavit. though it is stated in paragraph 8 of the affidavit that one abdulrahiman haji and valappil mohamed were the mediators and that the wife did not agree for further continuing the marriage, none of them was examined in court. there is no case that there were two ..... mediators; one on the side of the wife and the other on the side of the husband, to settle the disputes which was a failure. 'even assuming that the wife has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 2005 (HC)

Paulina Joseph Vs. Idukki District Wholesale Co-operative Consumer Sto ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Dec-19-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)KLT603

..... full-fledged strike by the employees and the dispute between the employees and the management were settled as per the settlement dated 19.3.1992, arrived at as per the mediation by the honourable minister for co-operation and also the local member of legislative assembly. ext.b8 would prove that salary was paid to the employees from september, 1991 to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 2005 (HC)

State of Kerala Vs. Hariharan

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-04-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)KLT173

..... the person whom he offended.the only suggestion made by the investigating officer is that there were some matrimonial disputes between the deceased and his wife and a1 was a mediator and that may be the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. that is only a suggestion made by the investigating officer. there is no evidence to show that ..... there was any matrimonial dispute between the wife of the deceased and the deceased and a1 was the mediator. no effort was made by the prosecutor to prove the motive. as held by the apex court in ramgopal v. state of maharashtra : 1972crilj473 if in a criminal case, if .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 2005 (HC)

Arumughan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-17-2005

Reported in : I(2006)BC518; [2006]131CompCas66(Ker); 2005CriLJ3259; 2005(3)KLT506

..... and dw1 and dw1 had won the case. in order to compromise the civil case, which is pending between the appellant and dw1, the 2nd respondent took stand as a mediator and ext.p1 cheque was given to the appellant. exts.d1 and d2 would reveal that there were civil disputes between the appellant and dw1. it is proved before the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 2005 (HC)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indus Motor Co. (P) Ltd.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-05-2005

Reported in : IV(2005)ACC469; 2005(4)KLT391

..... relate to claims;(e) delay in settlement of claims;(f) non-issue of any insurance document to customers after receipt of premium.(2) the ombudsman shall act as counsellor and mediator in matters which are within his terms of reference and, if requested to do so in writing by mutual agreement by the insured person and insurance company.(3) the ombudsman .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2005 (HC)

Omana Vs. Kesavan

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-27-2005

Reported in : 2005(1)KLT893

r. bhaskaran, j.1. the questions of law formulated in the second appeal on which learned counsel on both sides were heard read as follows:1. whether the courts below were right in interpreting ext.a1 as a gift deed?2. whether the suit had not abated as a whole when the petition to implead the legal heirs of the 1st plaintiff was dismissed?after hearing the learned counsel on both sides at length i feel that both questions are substantial questions to be considered in the appeal.question no. 12. the facts of the case are not in dispute. the first defendant kalyani was the admitted owner of the plaint schedule property. kalyani has no issues. the plaintiffs are the children of kalyani' s sister and defendants 3 and 2 are the son and daughter-in-law respectively of kalyani's brother. ext.a1 is the alleged gift deed executed by kalyani in favour of plaintiffs. ext. a3 is the cancellation deed of ext. a1 by kalyani and exts. a2 and a4 are the sale deeds of portions of plaint schedule property to defendants 2 and 3 respectively by kalyani.3. if ext.a1 has taken effect as a gift, kalyani has no right to execute exts.a2 to a4. if it was not a gift exts.a2 to a4 cannot be challenged. both courts have interpreted ext. a1 as a gift deed. the first question to be considered is whether ext.a1 is a gift deed or not. the document is styled as a gift deed. the relevant clause in the document read as under:4. the entire disposition is contained in one sentence. translated into english it will .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2005 (HC)

Augustine Vs. Thankamma Thomas

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-30-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)KLT653

r. bhaskaran, j.1. this appeal is filed against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court in a.s.no. 308 of 1995. the 1st defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant in the a.f.a. the trial court dismissed the suit finding that the 1st defendant has prescribed title by adverse possession and limitation with regard to plaint a-schedule properties and has obtained valid title on the basis of a gift deed executed by his mother with regard to plaint b-schedule properties. in appeal, the learned single judge reversed the findings on both points and has granted a decree for partition of both a and b-schedule properties.2. the plaintiff is the sister of the 1st defendant. plaint a-schedule properties belonged to the father of the plaintiff and 1st defendant and plaint b-schedule properties belonged to their mother. the defence to the claim for partition of plaint a-schedule properties is adverse possession and limitation and for b-schedule properties is a gift deed executed by the mother of the plaintiff and 1st defendant in favour of the 1st defendant.3. ouseph ouseph the father of the 1st defendant died on 10-7-1976. the parties are syrian christians in kottayam district. there is no dispute that after the decision of the supreme court in mary roy v. state of kerala : [1986]1scr371 , female children are also entitled to claim share in the properties of their parents. the points for consideration are (1) whether the claim of adverse possession and limitation set .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2005 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mother Hospital (P) Ltd.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-15-2005

Reported in : (2005)195CTR(Ker)269; [2005]275ITR563(Ker); 2005(3)KLT14

c.n. ramachandran nair, j.1. the revenue is the appellant in these two appeals filed under section 260a of the it act against separate orders of the tribunal for the asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97 on the very same question pertaining to the very same assessee. when appeal for the asst. yr. 1996-97 was admitted, this court framed some questions of law arising from the order of the tribunal. however, during hearing of appeals, we felt there is only one issue to be decided in both the cases and accordingly we framed the following question, the answer to which will be sufficient to dispose of the two connected appeals :whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the tribunal right in granting depreciation under section 32 of the it act for the building occupied by the assessee-company by reversing the first appellate order confirming disallowance in assessment 2. the controversy arose because the assessee-company admittedly is not the owner of the building under general law of the land inasmuch as the firm which constructed the building on the land belonging to it has not transferred the title to the land or the building to the assessee-company but only allowed use of the building by the assessee under an agreement dt. 1st feb., 1989. while the assessee's case is that the right conferred on it under the above agreement and the reimbursement of construction cost by it to the firm make it eligible for depreciation as owner under section 32(1) of the act, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2005 (HC)

Janardhanan Pillai Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-29-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)KLT522

r. bhaskaran, j.1. this writ petition is filed challenging the judgment of the mahatma gandhi university appellate tribunal, thiruvananthapuram, in appeal no. 4 of 2003. the petitioner, a selection grade lecturer in the department of economics, devaswom board college, sasthamcottah, challenged the denial to him of promotion as principal and granting promotion to respondents 5 and 6, who according to the petitioner are his juniors in the feeder category of selection grade lecturers. the appellate tribunal has dismissed the appeal without adverting to the crucial and basic contention of the petitioner. the facts of the case are not in serious dispute.2. the travancore devaswom board is a corporate management having four colleges under the university of kerala and mahatma gandhi university; section 59 of the mahatma gandhi university act which is corresponding to section 57 of the kerala university act reads as follows:'59. appointment of teachers in private colleges:--(1) appointments to the lowest grade of teacher in each department of a private college shall be made by the educational agency by direct recruitment on the basis of merit.(2) appointments of principal shall be made by the educational agency by promotion from among the teachers of the college or of all the colleges, as the case may be, or by direct recruitment.(3) where the appointment of principal is made by promotion, the educational agency shall make the appointment on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness.(4) .....

Tag this Judgment!


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