Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: mumbai Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 258 results (0.009 seconds)

Apr 11 2005 (HC)

Sondur Rajini Vs. Sondur Gopal

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-11-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)MhLj688

..... , we made sincere efforts to persuade the parties to settle their dispute amicably, for and in the interest of the children. we also suggested to the parties to go for mediation, which was not acceptable to the respondent. it is against this backdrop we heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. mr. muchhala, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submitted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2005 (HC)

Rohit Vanmalidas Mehta Vs. Harshad Vanmalidas Mehta and ors. and Manis ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-30-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALLMR206; 2006(1)BomCR232

..... premises of the said building i.e. 1st floor is awarded to the plaintiffs exclusively whereas the godown is exclusively allotted to defendant no. 2 under the decision of the mediator. business of jyoti silk mills is also jointly held and the shop premises standing in the name of sons situated at shop no. n-13, sahara gate, p.o. box ..... of the plaintiff that during the life time of the said late shri vanmalidas j. mehta there were differences and disputes between the parties and in the year 1998 the mediator gave a decision which is dated 8.8.88 wherein the substantial assets were distributed among the parties under a family arrangement. the said decision of the ..... mediator is accepted by all the parties and thus, under the said decision all the properties are divided save and except the interest in the sonal building which is required to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 2005 (TRI)

G.G. Diamond International Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-22-2005

Reported in : (2006)104TTJ(Mum.)809

..... statement subsequently and disproved by several documents, which is also part of the seized material. hence assessee contended, the finding now arrived at by the ao is pre-determined, pre-mediate and based only on presumptions and assumptions, ignoring the facts on record. it was further submitted, assessee was not required to prove the details of the sources/transactions of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 08 2005 (HC)

Mrs. Usha Badri Poonawalla Vs. K. Kurien Babu and

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-08-2005

Reported in : II(2006)BC210

..... .12.1996. it is true that i have not mentioned the above said compromise and receipt of three cheques in my complaint. adv.chanddar parwani was also one of the mediators. i am not going to examine adv. chandar parwani nor surendra sanas. today i cannot state whether i am going to examine any other witness in support of my case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2005 (HC)

Sindhu Education Society Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-27-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALLMR585; 2006(1)BomCR898

..... at the same time affirming the rights of the individual under article 29(2). there is need to strike a balance between the two competing rights. it is necessary of mediate between articles 29(2) and 30(1) of the constitution between letter and spirit of these articles, between traditions of the past and the convenience of the present, between society .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 2005 (HC)

Tulsabai W/O Narayanrao Deshpande (Died) Through L.R. Madhavrao Naraya ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-25-2005

Reported in : 2006(3)ALLMR144; 2006(2)MhLj219

vasanti a. naik, j. 1. this letters patent appeal involves two important questions, one regarding the applicability of section 14(1) and (2) of the hindu succession act, 1956 and the other about interpretation of a document called tamliknama.2. the facts giving rise to the controversy in question are narrated as under.the appellant is the legal heir of plaintiff tulsabai. plaintiff tulsabai filed special civil suit no. 94 of 1972 for declaration of right of ownership and for recovery of possession of land s. no. 100/b, commonly known as palsa babat admeasuring 7 acres 17 gts. and land s. no. 139 admeasuring 35 acres 4 gts. situated at barahalli, tq. mukhed, district nanded.3. according to the plaintiff, one gangadharrao deshpande was the owner and possessor of the suit lands. that gangadharrao deshpande died 65 years prior to the institution of the suit leaving behind him his wife haranabai and one daughter tulsabai - the plaintiff. that after the death of gangadharrao, his wife haranabai became the owner of the properties of gangadharrao deshpande and enjoyed the possession thereof. that the defendants nos. 2 to 8 are the sons of one venkatrao deshpande, the defendants nos. 9 and 10 are the real brothers and the defendant no. 11 is the nephew of defendants nos. 9 and 10. the defendants nos. 2 to 11 are the distant kindred of gangadharrao. the mother of the plaintiff died on 26th november, 1969 after coming into operation of the hindu succession act, 1956. it is the case of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 2005 (HC)

Shri Damodar Jivan Mhatre Vs. Smt. Bebibai Baburao Mhatre and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-21-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)BomCR70; 2006(1)MhLj805

b.h. marlapalle, j.1. this second appeal arises from the decree of partition passed by the learned civil judge, junior division at palghar on 3/1/1989 in regular civil suit no.4 of 1986 and duly confirmed by the 4th additional district judge at thane in civil appeal no.61 of 1989 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 23/1/1991. while admitting this appeal on 26/8/1991 this court framed the substantial question of law for consideration in the following words: 'there involves a relating to the procedural framing the points for lower appellate substantial question error in not determination by the court.'2. it is seen from the judgment and order of the lower appellate court that it had framed the following issue and answered in the negative: is there any necessity to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the lower court?' it is also pertinent to note that in the memo of this second appeal the appellant has not framed any substantial question of law for the consideration of this court though the grounds of objection to the decision appealed against are set out. in the case of girijanandini devi v. bijendra narain choudhary, : [1967]1scr93 a three-judge bench observed in para 12 as under: 'the trial court, as we have already observed, on a consideration of the entire evidence and the subsequent conduct of the parties came to the conclusion that there was no severance of bijendra narain from his uncle bidya narain and with that view the high court agree. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2005 (HC)

Dharma Radhya Vartha and ors. Vs. Ramesh Vrijlal Shah and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-22-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)BomCR108; 2005(3)MhLj352

a.m. khanwilkar, j.1. this writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the maharashtra revenue tribunal dated october 25, 1985, in revision no. ten.a. 169 of 1983.2. briefly stated, the lands in question are agricultural lands. in the present proceedings, the respective petitioners claim to be in occupation of the lands, which were subject-matter of applications under section 70(b) of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, preferred by the petitioners for declaration that they were tenants in respect of the said lands. the holding of the respective petitioners as against the concerned land claimed by them is as of the petitionerland involved in the suit village gargaons. no.nisaarea ac.-guns.1.dharam raghya varatha391-25-02.raja ziparya vanga3716-19-03.devya barkya varkhanda9420-03-0520-02-47100-11-81280-11-83970-21-839102-19-05760-06-04.chintu dama varatha1720-39-42960-03-123010-02-83060-03-123120-1-03150-3-03750-11-037100-26-05.laxya raghya dalvi210-6-12320-36-123332-10-03913-1-05821-4-126.chintu narya warare3171-15-037130-18-05020-33-07.rama zipra varatha3110-1-03140-3-03170-2-03210-23-03320-3-03412-18-037111-4-08.narshya mavji guhya4622-20-09.kanya badhya varatha3070-34-03110-13-83160-7-03420-23-03220-27-1210.marya barkya gadag220-19-4310-20-83312-6-03920-7-05810-5-011.dharma govind ambat330-9-4350-37-12410-6-03930-31-03950-17-85620-9-05630-16-05720-30-1212.madhya vitha varatha36pan0-103. the petitioners filed 13 separate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 2005 (HC)

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority Vs. the State of Mahar ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-24-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)BomCR812; 2005(4)MhLj893

v.m. kanade, j.1. petitioner is challenging the order passed by the minister for state (revenue) dated 27/08/2004 in proceedings no. lpo 34/2003/748/matter no. 90/a-3, revenue & forest department, mantralaya. by the said order, the minister of state (revenue) deleted the land bearing no. 1130 situated at mouje chikhali, taluka haveli, district pune, which was acquired by the government purportedly exercising power vested in him under section 48 of the land acquisition act, 1894. facts :2. petitioner is an authority which is established for the purpose of setting up a new township in pimpri chinchwad area by virtue of notification issued by the government under section 113(2) of the maharashtra regional town planning act, 1966 (for short 'm.r.t.p. act'). the petitioner - authority was established in the year 1972. the acquisition proceedings were initiated by the government for the benefit of the petitioner since 1972 and large tracts of land were sought to be acquired, admeasuring 2400 hectares in the designated area which was declared by the government covering about 10 villages in and around pimpri chinchwad and nigadi. in 1974, a draft development plan which was prepared under the provisions of the m.r.t.p. act was submitted to the government for obtaining its sanction and, accordingly, the plan was finally sanctioned on 08/09/1977. 3. the land bearing gat no. 1130, admeasuring 2 hectares situated at village chikhali was notified for acquisition and, accordingly, a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 2005 (HC)

Tanaji Satuppa Waghmare Vs. Krishna Satuppa Patil and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-19-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR417; 2006(3)BomCR799; 2006(2)MhLj120

s.u. kamdar, j.1. all these three matters are in respect of the property being gat no. 174 admeasuring 2 hector 83.9 ares situated at village tevurvadi, tal.chandgad, district kolhapur arising between the same parties and thus are disposed of by the present common judgement. the learned counsel for both the sides have agreed that the decision in writ petition no. 6996 of 2005 shall govern the other writ petition no. 4536 of 2005 and second appeal no. 257 of 2004.2. the petitioner in this writ petition is claiming to be a tenant in possession and it is his case that he was inducted as a tenant prior to 1988 in terms of the provision of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948 and since 1988 he is cultivating the suit land till today. the original owner of the said property being domiyav kaitan shirodkar filed a suit in civil court being no. 116 of 1988 for perpetual injunction. according to the petitioner, the said suit came to be dismissed and no appeal was preferred therefrom. thus, the order and judgement in civil suit no. 116 of 1988 has become final. it is the case of the petitioner that in 1989 the survey officer acknowledged that the petitioner is in possession of the said property and recorded the name of the petitioner in 7/12 extract as the tenant in possession of the suit property. it is the case of the petitioner that sometime in or about 1997 the said deceased sold the land to respondent no. 1 being tanaji satuppa vaghamare. in 1998 the respondent no. 1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

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