Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: mumbai Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 214 results (0.012 seconds)

Aug 11 2004 (HC)

Sayaji Hanmant Bankar Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-11-2004

Reported in : 2005CriLJ412

..... , which is a submission based on the second clause of section 300 of i.p.c. at the same time, one has also to note that there was no pre-mediation or planning. the accused came drunk on that day and without any cause being given by his wife, firstly attacked her with a water pot. he proceeded to throw the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2004 (HC)

Taherbhai Abdullabhai and anr. Vs. Mohammed HussaIn Abdullabhai and or ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-01-2004

Reported in : 2004(3)ARBLR371(Bom); 2004(6)BomCR4; 2005(1)MhLj566

..... ) it is not incompatible with an arbitration agreement for an arbitral tribunal to encourage settlement of the dispute and, with the agreement of the parties, the arbitral tribunal may use mediation, conciliation or other procedures at any time during the arbitral proceedings to encourage settlement. (2) if, during arbitral proceedings, the parties settle the dispute, the arbitral tribunal shall terminate the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2004 (HC)

Syndicate Bank Vs. East India Hotels Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-12-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)BomCR514; 2005(2)MhLj363

..... is not open to the defendant to contend that without first restoring the possession the plaintiff is trying to extinguish, through the court of law, the mediate possession of the defendant and thereby seek legal possession. in view of our .finding that on the basis of the averments made in the plaint the ..... getting rid of the right of the defendant for possession under the decree passed in 6(1) suit would arise. therefore, whether the defendant is in mediate possession or not is wholly irrelevant while determining the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. thus, on the basis of the averments made in ..... of the defendant's right to possession is only on the basis that the defendant does not have any right to claim back possession. the mediate possession of the defendant is sought to put an end to in the present suit. the present suit certainly concerns the question of possession of ..... by virtue of the decree passed in 6(1) suit the plaintiff is in immediate possession and the defendant is in mediate possession and, therefore, the suit filed to extinguish the mediate possession would be covered within the meaning of the words relating to recovery of possession contained in section 41(1) of ..... the present case, the plaintiff without first restoring possession wrongfully obtained, is trying to extinguish through the court of law the mediate possession of the defendant and thereby is seeking legal possession. such a suit which in effect relates to recovery of legal possession or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 2004 (HC)

The Tata Power Company Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the India ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-24-2004

Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR867

..... mseb a monthly reduced sum of rs.15.125 crores from april, 1999, instead of rs.24.75 crores.37. tpc approached the government of maharashtra in january, 1999 to mediate in the issue. in march, 1999, government determined that rel should pay an ad hoc additional amount of rs.2.25 crores per month from december, 1998 to march, 1999 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 2004 (HC)

The Abu Marble Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Regional Directors, Employees' ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-27-2004

Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR358; [2005(105)FLR978]; (2005)ILLJ937Bom

..... this function, the principal employer, no doubt can delegate to his agent who in eye of law is his second self, i.e., a substitute of the principal employer. the mediate employer, instantly, the electrical contractors can be statutory compulsion never be the agent of the principal employer. if such a relationship is permitted to be established it would not only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 2004 (TRI)

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Shri Mohammed Rahiman

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-26-2004

..... imported in utter defiance of law and by way of fraud. the fraud perpetuated by shri mohammed rehiman in importation of the car is a very well planned and pre-mediated action. as per well thought out plan, shri mohammed rehiman has fabricated the documents of registration at dubai to not just mis-represent, but to totally mis-lead the authorities .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 2004 (HC)

Rama Vithal Kalantre Since Deceased by His Heirs and Legal Representat ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-27-2004

Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR88; 2005(1)BomCR726; 2005(2)MhLj961

khanwilkar a.m., j.1. this writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the maharashtra revenue tribunal, pune dated february, 11, 1985 in revision no. mrt-ns-iv-1/80 (tnc.b. 112/80) pune. the property in question is eastern portion of section no. 698 admeasuring 32 gunthas situated at village kumbhargaon, taluka patan, dist. satara out of total area of 1 acre and 32 gunthas. it is the case of petitioners that the grand father of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 vithu kalantre was permanent tenant in respect of the suit land. mutation entry recording this fact came to be noted in the village record as back as on 17th october, 1949. after the death of original tenant his son rama continued to remain in possession of the suit land. it is stated that the land was originally owned by the predecessor of respondent which was however, transferred in favour of pandurang as guardian during the lifetime of hindurao who was minor at the relevant time. mutation entry recording this fact is noted on 23rd november, 1956 being entry no. 7976. it is not relevant for our purpose to examine the effect of such transfer. suffice it to observe that as the predecessor of the petitioners were in lawful cultivation of the suit land on the tillers day i.e. 1st april, 1957. proceedings under section 32-g of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948 were commenced. in the said proceedings, the father of the predecessor of the respondent hindurao appeared and made statement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2004 (HC)

Rahibai Vithoba Pashankar and ors. Vs. Pandurang Kundlik Gujar and ors ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-28-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)BomCR887

khanwilkar a.m., j.1. this writ petition under article 227 of the constitution of india takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the maharashtra revenue tribunal, pune dated february 22, 1990 in revision no. mrt/p/x/9/1982 (tnc.b. 32-b/1982. the land in question is agricultural land survey no. 45 admeasuring 16 acres 6 gunthas situated at village malalung, taluka mulshi, district pune. the said land was remoshi inam land, which was class iii inam. that was abolished under the provisions of the bombay inferior and village watans abolition act, 1958 with effect from 1 st may, 1959. the holder of the land paid the requisite amount on 21 st april, 1962, on which date the land stood regranted to him. the predecessor of the respondent, one rama arjun ramoshi, who was the owner of the suit land, died in the year 1952. his son shripati also died on 3rd october, 1975, leaving behind respondent no. 3 herein, the second wife, and his daughter shantabai from the first wife, and his daughter shantabai from the first wife. the predecessor of the petitioners vithoba pashankar, who was the husband of petitioner no. 1; father of petitioner no. 2; and uncle of petitioners nos. 4 and 5 was in possession of the suit land as protected tenant as is mentioned in the mutation entry no. 513 effected on 21st january, 1959. his name appeared on the village record since 1949. the entries in the village record for the subsequent years from 1964-65 till 1966-67 indicate as 'khud' in 'tenant' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 08 2004 (HC)

Ashok Baburao Ingavale and ors. Vs. Pralhad Hari Bhate and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-08-2004

Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR115; 2005(1)BomCR956; 2005(1)MhLj446

a.m. khanwilkar, j.1. this writ petition under article 227 of the constitution of india takes exception to the judgment and order dated april 16, 1981, passed by the maharashtra revenue tribunal, pune, in revision no. mrt ms-xi @ 4/81 (tnc.8.371/81) pune. the land in question admeasures 7 acres 15 gunthas bearing gut no. 606, situated at village kidgaon, taluka and district satara. the land was originally owned by father of respondent no. 1. the petitioners' predecessor was the tenant in the suit land prior to the tillers' day; on account of that, he became the-deemed purchaser by operation of law. the tenant paid the purchase price, consequent to which certificate under section 32m of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act was issued in his favour on 28-11-1971. thereafter, the tenant entered into sale deed in respect of 55 per cent, share in the suit land in favour of shaikh akbar ibrahim on 3rd january, 1972 for consideration. he also entered into a lease deed in respect of remaining 45 per cent, share in the suit land by lease deed dated 7th february 1976. it is not in dispute that the alleged transactions entered into by the tenant in respect of the suit land for transfer of the suit land were without obtaining prior permission of the collector, as was required by section 43 of the act. this complaint was received in the office of the tahsildar, who initiated suo motu proceedings for resumption of the suit land. the tahsildar, after giving opportunity to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 2004 (HC)

Nivrutti S/O Shankar Shewale Since Deceased Through Lrs. Chandrakant S ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-02-2004

Reported in : 2004(3)ALLMR668; 2004(4)MhLj147

s.b. deshmukh, j.1. heard shri s.k. shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner, and shri n.h. borade, learned a.g.p. for the respondents.2. this petition takes an exception to the government notification dated january 25, 1988 issued by respondent under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1894 and published in the maharashtra government gazette dated april 7, 1988, as well as notification under section 6 of the land acquisition act, 1894 dated july 31, 1989, published in maharashtra government gazette dated august 3, 1989, holding that the land to the extent of 0 hector, 81 ares out of gat no. 30/4 (part) situate at village takli, taluka akole, district ahmednagar, is required for public purpose. by way of consequential relief, the notification issued under section 11 of the maharashtra re-settlement of project displaced persons act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act of 1976', for short) is also sought to be quashed and set aside to the extent of petitioner's land from gat no. 30/4 of village takli, taluka akole, district, ahmednagar.3. division bench of this court, by order dated october 18, 1989, issued rule and, initially rule on interim relief was also granted, returnable on november 27, 1989. on november 27, 1989, stay in terms of prayer clause (c) was issued. admittedly, there is no return filed by the respondent-state or its authorities.4. with the able assistance of shri s. k. shinde, learned counsel for the petitioners, i have seen the documents annexed .....

Tag this Judgment!


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