Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2010 Page 1 of about 110 results (0.025 seconds)

Feb 24 2010 (HC)

Des Raj Vs. Mohan Lal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-24-2010

Reported in : (2010)158PLR356

..... denied the averment, that the firm was dissolved. rather a positive stand was taken, that the persons named in para 3 of the written statement who were said to be mediators, were inimical to the plaintiff/respondent.14. the learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the statement of pw-1 contended, that in the cross-examination it was admitted ..... para no. 3 of the plaint is absolutely wrong and denied. the partnership of this firm with the parties was dissolved on 31.3.1979/1.4.1979 with the mediation and intervention of s/shri om parkash kathania, president, food grain dealers association, cheeka, amar nath of m/s amar nath nanu ram, cheeka and lala narsi dass of m ..... firm having sat pal, raj kumar and pista devi as partners. it was also pleaded, that the persons named in the written statement, who were said to have carried out mediation between the parties were inimical to the plaintiff.8. on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues on 2.12.1981:1. whether the ..... no. 3.5. the suit was contested only by defendant no. 3 by taking a plea, that the partnership stood dissolved on 31.3.1979/1.4.1979 with the mediation and intervention of sarvshri om parkash kathania, som nath, amar nath and lala narsi dass and the accounts were also settled. the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 were allowed to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2010 (HC)

Balwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-20-2010

..... go to her parents' house after being turned out by the accused, she had been staying there for 2/3 months. she had been apprising her parents and jalour singh, mediator, about the maltreatment suffered by her at the hands of the accused. even on the day of the occurrence, jarnail singh, jalour singh and hukamb singh went to the house ..... accused. the deceased had been staying at her parental house for about 2/3 months and during her stay, she had been apprising her parents and jalour singh, who was mediator in her marriage, about her maltreatment by the accused. on 15.4.1994 at about 11.30 am, jarnail singh, jalour singh and one hukam singh went to the house .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 2010 (HC)

Sikander Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-26-2010

..... balbir kaur had come to see her parents, she had stated that she will not go back to her in-laws house. then they had a talk with ravinder singh mediator. he gave assurance that he will take responsibility of in-laws of balbir kaur. they should sent her to her in- laws house. accordingly, she was sent to her in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2010 (HC)

Gurdev Singh Vs. Gejo Devi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-18-2010

l.n. mittal, j.1. defendant no. 1 gurdev singh has filed the instant revision petition under article 227 of the constitution of india impugning order dated 10.09.2009 (annexure p-2), passed by learned civil judge (junior division), pehowa, thereby dismissing petitioner's application for secondary evidence.2. suit has been filed by respondent no. 1 gejo devi against petitioner and proforma respondents no. 2 and 3. the petitioner is brother of all the three respondents, who are his sisters. the petitioner has set up will dated 03.06.1999 allegedly executed by his mother, whereas plaintiff- respondent no. 1 has based her claim on the basis of natural inheritance.3. petitioner, in application annexure p-1, moved for permission to lead secondary evidence of the will, alleged that he had produced the will before the revenue authorities at the time of entry and attestation of mutation no. 3358, but now the said will is not available in the record of the revenue authorities, as stated by sadar kanungo, examined as dw-2.4. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.5. learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that loss of original will is proved inasmuch as the will was produced by the petitioner before the revenue authorities and the same is not now available in the record of the revenue authorities. learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this court in the case of simarpal singh v. hakam singh reported as 2009 (2) lh ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 2010 (HC)

The Punjab State Through Collector Vs. Gram Panchayat

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-09-2010

mahesh grover, j.1. this regular second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 22.1.1981 passed by the additional district & sessions judge, ludhiana (hereinafter described as 'the first appellate court') vide which the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent was accepted and the judgment & decree dated 28.12.1978 of the senior subordinate judge, ludhiana (referred to hereinafter as 'the trial court') were set aside.2. briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent, which is a gram panchayat of village chak kalan, tehsil & district ludhiana, had filed a suit for possession of the agricultural land fully described in the plaint (for brevity, 'the suit property'). it was averred that on 23.8.1902, the proprietors of the village had orally gifted the suit property in favour of mohan dass, chela narain dass; that mutation no. 701 was accordingly sanctioned in that regard by the revenue authorities on 31.12.1903; that after the death of mohan dass, the suit property passed on to his chela mast ram, faqir bairagi and mutation no. 1307 dated 25.2.1938 was sanctioned in his favour; that mast ram died and thereafter the suit property was mutated in favour of the state of punjab on 17.6.1967 on the ground that he had not left any chela or any other member of his fraternity and, therefore, the suit property stood escheated. on the basis of these averments, the respondent had claimed the suit property by pleading that instead of going to the state of punjab, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 2010 (HC)

Shrimati Lakhwinder Kaur and ors. Vs. Sadar Anjuman Ahmediyya Qadian a ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-04-2010

vinod k. sharma, j. 1. this is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.1984, passed by the learned lower appellate court, decreeing the suit for possession of land measuring 33 kanals 1 marla situated in qadian, tehsil batala, district gurdaspur.2. the plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for possession of land measuring 33 kanals 1 marla comprised in khasra nos. 92 (12 kanals) and 94 (21 kanals 1 marla) situated in qadian, tehsil batala, district gurdaspur. the suit was filed against s/sh. balbir singh and amarjit singh, and on death of sh. balbir singh, smt. lakhwinder kaur, rammi and bablu were brought on record as the legal representatives.3. the pleaded case of the plaintiff/respondents was, that the suit land belonged to sadar anjuman ahmediyya qadian. the land was being used as gair mumkin kabristan and as gair mumkin idgah by the ahmediyya community for last over a century. plaintiff no. 1 i.e. sadar anjuman ahmediyya qadian, is a registered society, duly registerred under the registration of societies act, 1860, whereas plaintiff no. 2 mirza wazim ahmad was its nazir-ala, i.e. the principal secretary, trustee and president and he had the right to file the suit. sh. sayeed ahmad was general attorney of sadar anjuman ahmediyya qadian, having been appointed vide resolution no. 344 dated 11.9.1961. it was the case of the plaintiffs, that the governing body of sadar anjuman ahmediyya qadian vide its resolution no. 306 dated 2.12.1979 had authorised .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 2010 (HC)

Joginder Singh and ors. Vs. Chandigarh Administration and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-23-2010

Reported in : (2010)158PLR381

m.m. kumar, j.1. this petition filed under article 226 of the constitution seeks a mandamus to the respondents to issue a notification de-notifying the acquisition proceedings in respect of land measuring 21 kanals 19 marlas, situated at village manimajra, u.t. chandigarh, belonging to the petitioners. a further prayer has been made for setting aside mutation no. 1771, decided on 13.10.1963, declaring the provincial government as owner of the land in question unlawfully and illegally and to re-enter the petitioners' names in the column of ownership with continuity after declaring them as owners and in possession without break.2. the instant petition has been filed by sarvshri joginder singh and mehar singh sons of shri sunder singh, residents of village manimajra, u.t. chandigarh. during the pendency of the petition, shri mehar singh-petitioner no. 2 expired and his legal heirs were brought on record vide order dated 29.5.2003 passed in cm. nos. 12487 to 12489 of 2003. the claim of the petitioners is that they were owners in possession of the agricultural land comprised in khasra no. 439, measuring 12 bighas 5 biswas, situated in village manimajra, u.t. chandigarh, as per jamabandi for the year 1956-57 (p-1). in the year 1958-59, repartition under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act had taken place and the petitioners were allotted land comprised in killa no. 58//13/2, 14, 15/1, 16/2 and 17, total measuring 21 kanals 19 marlas, in lieu .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2010 (HC)

Onkar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-20-2010

m.m. kumar, j.1. this petition filed under article 226 of the constitution seeks a direction to the respondents for payment of amount of compensation to the petitioners in terms of land acquisition award no. 4 for the year 2008-09, dated 15.11.2008, announced by the sub divisional officer (civil)-cum-land acquisition collector, ambala (p-4).2. brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are right holders of village dhakola, sub-tehsil saha, tehsil barara, district ambala. it is claimed that there are more than 500 co-owners of land, who have been described as mushtarka malkan (joint owners) in the revenue record of village dhakola. on 23.12.2005, a notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the 1894 act') was issued proposing to acquire total land measuring 278 acres 1 kanal and 1 marla [out of which 154 acres 5 kanals and 6 marlas of land was falling within the revenue estate of village dhakola] for a public purpose, namely, for setting up an industrial growth centre, saha. the centre was to be developed by the haryana state industrial and infrastructure development corporation (hsiidc). on 29.12.2006, a declaration under section 6 of the 1894 act was made by the land acquisition collector acquiring total land measuring 274 acres 4 kanals and 16 marlas including 154 acres 1 kanal 15 marlas of land pertaining to village dhakola (p-2).3. after issuance of notices under section 9 of the 1894 act and affording opportunity of hearing to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2010 (HC)

Ramji Lal Vs. Chandgi and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-08-2010

Reported in : (2010)158PLR44

vinod k. sharma, j.1. this is defendant/appellant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court decreeing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff/respondents claiming to be owner in possession of half share of the property along with defendant/appellant by way of inheritance from sh. parsada. 2. the case of the plaintiff was that he being son of sh. parsada was entitled to inherit 1/3rd share along with the appellant/defendant, therefore, was in joint possession of 2/3rd share in the property. the other 1/3rd share was under the ownership of their mother being widow of sh. parsada. 3. it is not in dispute that the mother also died intestate, therefore, the property in her name was also to be inherited equally by the plaintiff and the defendant/appellant. 4. the plaintiff/respondent also challenged the mutation dated 10.6.1940, which was sanctioned in favour of the appellant/defendant by treating him to be the sole heir of sh. parsada. 5. on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:1. whether plaintiff and defendant no. 1 are real brothers and defendant no. 2 is the real mother and parties are legal representatives of deceased sh. parsada son of gordhan as alleged? opp 2. whether mutation no. 678 sanctioned on 10.6.1940 is against facts and is not binding on the rights of plaintiff opp 3. whether suit of plaintiff is against law and facts and is liable to be dismissed opd 4. whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2010 (HC)

Rajinder and ors. Vs. Randhir and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-04-2010

Reported in : (2010)158PLR154

rakesh kumar jain, j.1. defendants are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the courts below whereby suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and judgment and decree dated 13.12.1986 passed in civil suit no. 399 of 1986 titled as 'tara chand and ors. v. asha ram' was held to be illegal, null and void having been passed against the dead person and consequent mutation bearing no. 2441 dated 25.8.1987 sanctioned on the basis of the decree dated 13.12.1986 in favour of defendant no. 1 mahinder singh, tara singh father of defendant no. 1 to 6 was also held to be illegal, null and void. sale deed executed in favour of defendant nos. 7, 8 & 9 and mutation no. 2776 dated 23.11.1996 sanctioned on the basis of sale deed in favour of defendants no. 7, 8 and 10 and the mutation of inheritance bearing no. 2794 dated 20.8.1997 sanctioned on the basis of decree dated 13.12.1986 including all other sale deeds, mutation having effect on the basis of said decree in favour of any other person was held to be illegal, null and void as defendant no. 1 mahinder singh and tara chand father of defendant nos.1 to 6 were not held to be competent to alienate the suit land. the defendants were also restrained from alienating or creating any charge over the suit land and the plaintiffs were held entitled to get the possession of the suit land from the defendants being the owners as the father of the plaintiffs, namely, asha ram was the owner in possession of the land measuring 58 kanal 14 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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