Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2011 Page 1 of about 124 results (0.024 seconds)

Aug 25 2011 (HC)

Ashok Kumar Vs. Anjna @ Pinki

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-25-2011

Reported in : 2011(2)HinduLR521

..... under section 13 of the act, as noticed above was dismissed. hence the present appeal by the husband. during the pendency of the present appeal the matter was referred to mediation and conciliation center of this court, where the same was mutually settled on 24.2.2011. thereafter on 7.7.2011 the appellant as well as respondent jointly filed cm ..... present appeal to a petition under section 13-b of the act for grant of divorce by mutual consent in view of the aforesaid comprehensive settlement arrived at before the mediation center of this court. vide order dated 18.8.2011 the said application was allowed and the present appeal was converted into a petition under section 13-b of the ..... h.m.act filed by him has been dismissed. during the pendency of the appeal on 30.11.2010, we were directed to be present before the mediation center of this court and before the mediator-ms.sarita sangar, the matter has been compromised. the amount of rs.1,60,000/- as permanent alimony in lump sum has been paid by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2011 (HC)

Baljeet Kaur Vs. Parminderjeet Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-12-2011

Reported in : 2011(2)HinduLR636

..... of 2010, in this court. 2. notice of motion was issued by this court on 29.07.2010. the matter was referred to the mediation and conciliation centre functioning in the high court premises. in the proceedings before the mediation and conciliation centre of this court, the parties decided to part ways amicably. accordingly, the terms of settlement were recorded by the ..... mediator on 23.02.2011. 3. in consequence of the settlement, cm no.7642-cii of 2011 under order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 cpc was filed for amendment .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 2011 (HC)

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-05-2011

1. this is a petition under section 438 cr.p.c. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under sections 406/498a ipc vide fir no.39 dated 29.04.2010 at police station city longowal, district sangrur.2. learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the complainant submit that matter has been amicably settled between the parties before the mediation and conciliation centre. they submit that all terms thereof have been reduced into writing and are on record. learned state counsel does not dispute the aforesaid contentions. he (on instructions from asi labh singh, who is present in court) further submits that pursuant to order dated 2.6.2010, petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation.3. crl.misc.no.m-15359 of 2010 - 2 - in view of the statement made by learned state counsel, the interim order dated 2.6.2010 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged under section 438 (2) cr.p.c. disposed of.

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2011 (HC)

Sanjay SarIn Vs. Payal Sarin

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-01-2011

..... that is being transferred so that both cases can be disposed of by a common order. this will not come in the way of the matter being proceeded with in mediation." 3. thereafter the transfer, the cases were not decided by the trial judge expeditiously. in the wake of civil revision bearing no.4421 of 2011 filed by the respondent-wife .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 2011 (HC)

Suresh Kumar (Died) Through L.Rs and Another Vs. Shiv Kumar (Died) Thr ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-28-2011

..... is denied to have any right of preemption. it is claimed that the defendants are in actual possession of the property in question. it is claimed that the plaintiff was mediator in the sale of the disputed property and that he is estopped from filing the present suit. some additional objections have been taken about the expenses incurred by the defendants .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2011 (HC)

Shamsher Singh Vs. Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-02-2011

alok singh, j. (oral)petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court assailing the orders dated 16.11.2010, 26.9.2007 and 30.3.2007 passed by respondents no.1, 2 and 3, respectively, arising out of the mutation proceedings. 2. petitioner is claiming himself natural heir of mohinder singh being his son while private respondents are claiming inheritance on the basis of alleged registered 'will'. 3. undisputedly, as on day no land revenue is assessed or is being recovered in the states of punjab and haryana. 4. learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that civil suit between the parties is already pending involving the question of inheritance of the estate of mohinder singh. 5. privy council in (thakur) nirman singh and others v. thakur lal rudra partap narain singh and others, a.i.r.1926 privy council-100, has held as under:- "it is an error to suppose that the proceedings for the mutation of names are judicial proceedings in which the title to and the proprietary rights in immovable property are determined. they are nothing of the kind, as has been pointed out times innumerable by the judicial committee. they are much more in the nature of fiscal inquiries instituted in the interest of the state for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several claimants for the occupation of certain denominations of immovable property may be put into occupation of it with greater confidence that the revenue for it will be paid." 6. hon'ble apex court in the case of smt. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2011 (HC)

Karam Chand and Dewan Chand Vs. State of Punjab, Through Secretary (Re ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-29-2011

k. kannan, j. the petitioners, who claim to be legal representatives of mehtab ram, alienee from the landowner, bakhshi ram challenges the order of the disposal of lands after the property was declared as surplus by the competent authority under the punjab security of land tenures act, 1953. the basis of contention of the petitioners is that bakhshi ram was the original owner and he had sold certain portions of his holding on 07.04.1960 to the petitioners' father. the authorities had declared that bakhshi ram had owned property in excess of the ceiling area and the property sold by him had also been included as surplus. consequently, when the allotments had been made in the year 1963-64, they had included the property over which the petitioners had a rightful claim. they would, therefore, challenge in particular the allotments made in favour of respondents 10 to 12 to an extent of 37 kanal-13 marlas on 05.07.1964 and 28 kanal-18 marlas was allotted to the 12th respondent on 02.11.1963. 2. the principal contest is entered by the allottees stating that the determination of surplus area by the competent authority was made on 12.11.1962 and the said order was challenged as late as in the year 1975. responding to the contention that the petitioners had not been served with any notices, the counsel appearing on behalf of the allottees would contend that such a plea itself does not arise, for, no notice was required to be sent to persons whose names had not been entered in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2011 (HC)

Sarup Singh and Others Vs. the Additional Director, Consolidation of H ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-02-2011

k. kannan, j. (oral) the writ petition is filed at the instance of persons, who claim to be lessees of certain portions of the property from the gram panchayat. intervention was sought in relation to the proceedings of the additional director, consolidation on a petition filed by several persons, who are the private respondents here, under section 42, against the repartition made under section 21(1) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act of 1948. 2. the contention of the petitioners therein before the consolidation authority was that the property had been entered in the village records as shamilat deh hasab rasad zar khewat and had vested with the right holders of the village and the mutation ordered in the name of the gram panchayat by the proceedings dated 03.07.1956 and consequent upon such proceedings, the mutation actually effected on 16.07.1956, were wrong and they were required to be set aside and the property allowed to be partitioned amongst the right holders. the additional director accepted the contention partially and held that the mutation effected without giving notice to the right holders was liable to be ignored as non est and the prayer for partition though cannot be granted, the case was required to be remanded to the consolidation officer so as to enable determining the shares of the right holders and appropriate order to be passed taking into account the latest jamabandi. all these proceedings came about in the year .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 2011 (HC)

Maru Ram and Others Vs. Randhir and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-05-2011

ram chand gupta, j. the present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 5.4.2007 passed by learned additional district judge, gurgaon, dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 8.6.2006 passed by learned additional civil judge, (senior division), gurgaon, vide which suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed with no order as to cost. 2. briefly stated, shamlat bachat land of village samaspur, tehsil and district gurgaon alongwith other land of proprietors of the said village was acquired by land acquisition collector, urban estate, gurgaon. respondents- defendants no. 1 to 3 were proprietors of the said village. they had sold their land to bhima son of shri shadi for sale consideration of rs. 60,000/- vide sale deed bearing vasika no. 895 dated 13.7.1965. mutation was also sanctioned in favour of bhima. present appellants-plaintiffs are successors of bhima. plea has been taken that the rights in shamlat deh including the shamlat bachat land of respondents-defendants no. 1 to 3 also devolved upon bhima-vendee and after his death upon the present appellants-plaintiffs. hence, plea has been taken that they are entitled to compensation regarding acquisition of the said land. 3. respondents-defendants no. 1 to 3 contested the suit filed by appellants- plaintiffs by taking the plea that their rights in the shamlat bachat land were never sold to predecessor-in-interest of present .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2011 (HC)

Udham Singh (Deceased) Through His Lrs and Others Vs. Harnek Singh and ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-02-2011

k.kannan, j. 1. the lis and geneology 1. the plaintiffs, who were successful for securing a half share in the suit properties suffered a reversal of the decision at the appellate court. the additional district judge allowed the appeal of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. the plaintiffs are the appellants before this court. 2. the suit related to the estate of jiwan singh. the case will have to be understood in the context of the relationship between parties and it is, therefore, immediately set forth as under:- makhan singh jiwan singh narain singh (died prior to 1930) chand kaur (2nd wife) bholi (1st wife) (died on 09.04.1978) (died in 1930) gurbansi chinti (died on 15.02.1954) harnek singh jagtar singh avtar singh udham singh bakhshish singh nami (defendants) (plaintiffs) ii. history of previous litigation 3. it is an admitted case that jiwan singh died before 1930 leaving behind two widows, namely, bholi and chand kaur. the two widows held their respective widow's estate jointly and on the death of bholi, the properties survived to chand kaur. chand kaur had made a settlement of the property that she inherited in favour of gurbansi, her daughter on 29.06.1929. chinti, who was the only daughter of the first wife bholi, filed a suit impeaching the alienation as not binding on her. jiwan singh's brother narayan singh also filed a suit as a reversioner that the gift will not bind him. both the suits were disposed of together. it was held that the gift would .....

Tag this Judgment!


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