Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 1981 Page 1 of about 56 results (0.080 seconds)

May 07 1981 (SC)

Needle Industries (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Needle Industries Newey (I ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-07-1981

Reported in : AIR1981SC1298; (1982)1CompLJ1(SC); 1981(2)SCALE959; (1981)3SCC333; [1981]3SCR698

..... . the ketty meeting.thus ended in a stalemate, both sides insisting on what, what they considered to be their right and entitlement. raeburn attempted to play the role of a mediator but failed. in this situation, the parties decided to give further consideration to the matter and to adhere to the following time-table :'mid-decembertad (devagnanam) to submit to the ..... which indian party should take up the excess of 20%- the existing indian shareholders of niil or an outside indian company, the madura coats. raeburn played the role of a mediator but did not succeed. on the conclusion of the ketty meeting, silverston wrote a letter to kingsley conveying his appreciation of the efforts made by raeburn to bring the parties .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 1981 (SC)

Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta Vs. Patel Narandas Haribhai

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-11-1981

Reported in : AIR1982SC121; (1982)1GLR325; 1981(3)SCALE1861; (1982)1SCC223; [1982]2SCR166; 1982(14)LC120(SC)

misra, j.1. the present appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the high court of gujarat at ahmedabad in letters patent appeal no. 6 of 1966 dated the 18th of february, 1970 decreeing the suit for redemption.2. the property in dispute, situated in baroda city, originally belonged to motibhai bapubhai shibandi baxi (for short motibhai). he created a mortgage with possession of the disputed property in favour of one nanaji balwant pilkhanewala (for short nanaji) in 1871 for a sum of rs. 800. in 1890 a second mortgage was created in favour of the same mortgage and the amount secured by this second mortgage was rs. 375. somewhere between 1890 and 1912 the original mortgagee nanaji died leaving behind his two sons hari and purshottam as his heirs and legal representatives. the two sons of nanaji sold the entire mortgagee rights and interest to one ganpatram mugutram vyas (for short ganpatram) on 4th of july, 1912. ganpatram in his turn sold the mortgagee rights in a part of the mortgaged property, viz., common latrine, to one vamanrao laxmanrao nirkhe (for short vamanrao).3. ganpatram died and his son chhotelal ganpatram (for short chhotela) sold away his rights as a mortgagee in possession in respect of the rest of the properties which still remained with him, to chhaganlal keshavlal mehta (for short chhaganlal mehta.)4. mortgagor motibhai also died leaving behind his son chimanrai motibhai baxi (for short chimanrai). chimanrai died leaving behind his widow .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1981 (SC)

Raj Bishambhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-30-1981

Reported in : (1983)1SCC375

r.b. mishra and; s. murtaza fazal ali, jj.1. the short point that arises in this appeal by special leave is regarding the validity of the deeds of gift executed by the tenure-holder in favour of chandra kanta widow of rajinder kumar and another in favour of his grandson raj kishore. both these deeds of gift were executed on february 21, 1970. the prescribed authority rejected the deeds of gift and held that the deeds of gift were not bona fide and really meant to evade the ceiling law. on appeal the district judge affirmed the finding of the prescribed authority and held that as the tenure-holder continued to be in possession of the land covered by the deeds of gift, the gift was not acted upon. the high court affirmed the order of the district judge.2. mr asthana appearing for the appellant submitted that the finding arrived at by the district judge is contrary to the evidence on record. it was pointed out that from the mutation record, it is manifest that the donees were entered therein on the basis of the deeds of gift executed by the tenure-holder and the very lekhpal who has appeared as a witness during the ceiling proceedings had given a statement while attesting the mutation making a categorical admission that the donees were in possession of the land which was the subject-matter of the deeds of gift. subsequently, however, during the proceedings before the prescribed authority the lekhpal stated in his examination-in-chief that the donor continued to be in possession .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1981 (SC)

Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and anr. Vs. Devi Sahai and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-15-1981

Reported in : AIR1982SC989; 1982(1)SCALE191; (1982)1SCC237; [1982]2SCR186

desai, j.1. what constitutes part performance within the meaning of the expression in section 53-a of the transfer of property act ('act' for short) so as to clothe a mortgagee in possession with the title of ownership which would defeat the suit of the erstwhile mortgagor for redemption, is the question canvassed in these two appeals by common certificate.2. facts first. sardar govindrao mahadik original plaintiff 1 (now deceased prosecuting these appeals through his legal representatives) and gyarsilal original plaintiff 2 (appellant 2) filed civil suit no. 14/51 in the court of the district judge, indore, for redemption of a mortgage in respect of house no. 41 more particularly described in plaint paragraph 1, dated february 22, 1951. a loan of rs. 10,000 was secured by the mortgage. the mortgage was mortgage with possession. plaintiff 1 was the mortgagor and the sole defendant devi sahai was the mortgagee. plaintiff 2 is a purchaser of the mortgaged property from plaintiff 1 under a registered sale deed ex. p-i, dated october 14, 1950. plaintiff 1 will be referred to as mortgagor. defendant devi sahai as a mortgagee and plaintiff 2 gyarsilal as subsequent purchaser in this judgment. even though the mortgage was mortgage with possession, it was not a usufructuory mortgage but an anomalous mortgage in that the mortgagor had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12% and the mortgagee was liable to account for the income of the property earned as rent and if the mortgagee .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 1981 (FN)

Metromedia, Inc. Vs. City of San Diego

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jul-02-1981

metromedia, inc. v. city of san diego - 453 u.s. 490 (1981) u.s. supreme court metromedia, inc. v. city of san diego, 453 u.s. 490 (1981) metromedia, inc. v. city of san diego no. 80-195 argued february 25, 1981 decided july 2, 1981 453 u.s. 490 appeal from the supreme court of california syllabus appellee city of san diego enacted an ordinance which imposes substantial prohibitions on the erection of outdoor advertising displays within the city. the stated purpose of the ordinance is "to eliminate hazards to pedestrians and motorists brought about by distracting sign displays" and "to preserve and improve the appearance of the city." the ordinance permits on-site commercial advertising (a sign advertising goods or services available on the property where the sign is located), but forbids other commercial advertising and noncommercial advertising using fixed-structure signs, unless permitted by 1 of the ordinance's 12 specified exceptions, such as temporary political campaign signs. appellants, companies that were engaged in the outdoor advertising business in the city when the ordinance was passed, brought suit in state court to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance. the trial court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional exercise of the city's police power and an abridgment of appellants' first amendment rights. the california court of appeal affirmed on the first ground alone, but the california supreme court reversed, holding, inter alia, that the ordinance was not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 1981 (SC)

Asa Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-21-1981

Reported in : AIR1981SC1634; 1981(3)SCALE1055; (1981)3SCC501; 1981(13)LC703(SC)

r.s. pathak, j. 1. this is a plaintiff's appeal by special leave against a judgment and decree of the high court of punjab and haryana affirming in second appeal the dismissal of his suit for possession.2. the appellant filed a suit for possession alleging that the land in suit had been mortgaged by the original owners with his predecessors in-interest in the year 1949bk., and that as the mortgage had not been redeemed within time, he had become absolute owner of the land the suit was contested by the union of india on the ground that the-successors-in-interest of the mortgagors had become evacuees and as the mortgage was subsisting on october 30, 1951, when the evacuee's interest (separation) act came into force, the mortgagees rights had been extinguished by virtue of section 9(2) of that act.3. the trial court and the first appellate court concurred in dismissing the suit'and the high court, in second appeal, has maintained the decree of dismissal.4. in this appeal the appellant contends that the period of 60 years from the date of the mortgage had expired before the evacuee's interest (separation) act came into force and therefore section 9(2) could have no effect on rights which had already accrued to the appellant. in our judgment, the contention is without substance. it is the case of the appellant that the original mortgagees entered into possession in the beginning of rabi 1949 bk. that corresponds to 1892 a.d clearly, the period of 60 years expired sometime in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1981 (SC)

Jitendra Pratap Singh and ors. Vs. 10th Additional District Judge, All ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-27-1981

Reported in : AIR1982SC678; (1981)3SCC172

1. the only point pressed in this appeal by special leave is that the courts below came to the conclusion that the declaratory decree was held to be collusive without there being any material to prove the same. the high court was greatly influenced by the fact that in the remarks column possession of appellant jitendra pratap singh was not shown. in our opinion, the prescribed authority ought to have gone into this question in detail in view of there being a declaratory decree under section 229(b) of the u.p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act as to whether or not the decree was a collusive one. normally, a decree passed by a competent court is presumed to be a valid decree unless it is shown to be collusive. in the instant case, however, there are two important considerations which seem to have been overlooked by the courts below : (1) that the decree was passed long before the amendment of 1972 in the ceiling act, and (2) that the declaratory decree was also passed on july 14, 1966 and in the mutation register jitendra pratap singh under the decree was shown as a co-tenure holder with the main tenure holder. another important circumstance that is ignored by the prescribed authority was that the lekhapal who had made a spot inspection clearly found that jitendra pratap singh was in possession of the share allotted to him under the declaratory decree. neither the district judge nor the prescribed authority appear to have considered the effect of this important .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 1981 (FN)

Nlrb Vs. Amax Coal Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-29-1981

..... (b)(3), but that the union had acted illegally in attempting to coerce amax to join the multiemployer bargaining unit for the western mines, in failing to notify the federal mediation and conciliation service of its dispute with amax before striking, and by insisting to impasse on certain contract proposals that would have violated 8(e) of the act, 29 u .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1981 (FN)

Barrentine Vs. Arkansas-best Freight Sys.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-06-1981

..... forms, [ footnote 2/1 ] the national institute of justice, under the leadership of attorney general griffin bell, in 1979 launched a multimillion-dollar program of field studies to test whether mediation at a neighborhood level could resolve small disputes out of courts in a fashion satisfactory to the parties. neighborhood justice centers field test: final evaluation report 7-8 (1980). the ..... centers field test: final evaluation report 26 (1980). resolution came within a matter of days or weeks. ibid. interviews were conducted with one or both disputants in 63% of the mediated cases six months later. for both complainants and respondents, 88% were satisfied with the experience; 80% of complainants and 83% of respondents were satisfied with the agreement reached. in addition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 1981 (SC)

Manik Singh and ors. Vs. Prescribed Authority and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-16-1981

Reported in : (1982)3SCC482b

r.b. mishra and; s. murtaza fazal ali, jj.1. in support of the appeal the only point pressed by mr pramod swarup for the appellants was that the prescribed authority and the civil judge as also the high court were wrong in not taking into consideration the area of 16.66 acres in terms of irrigated land which was the subject-matter of a registered gift executed by manik singh in favour of his son nawab singh. the claim regarding other gifts has not been pressed before us. there does not appear to be any substance in them. so far as the gift in favour of nawab singh is concerned, the evidence of lekhpal as placed before us appears to be wholly unsatisfactory. on the other hand, there appears to be unimpeachable documentary evidence to show that immediately after the gift, the land was mutated in the name of nawab singh, the levy and tax papers were shown in his name and from the evidence of lekhpal it generally appears that manik singh had severed all his connections with the land gifted to nawab singh.2. in the circumstances, therefore, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the area in possession of nawab singh, i.e. 16.66 acres is to be left out from the surplus area of the tenure holder. the prescribed authority will now calculate the fresh area and pass orders according to law. the tenure holder will be given the choice in the light of this decision.

Tag this Judgment!

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