Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2014 Page 4 of about 192 results (0.098 seconds)

Apr 25 2014 (SC)

Vikram Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-25-2014

not-reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.1958 of2003vikram singh & anr. appellants vs. state of rajasthan & ors. respondents judgment pinaki chandra ghose, j.1. this appeal is directed against an order passed by the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ-petitioners with liberty to the writ- petitioners to raise the defence before the collector which was available to them.2. the issue raised before the high court on the question is whether in view of the provisions of section 15(2) of the rajasthan imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1973 ), the collector has any jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings for making reference to the board of revenue in respect of an order passed on june 30, 1970 for determining the ceiling area of the land that could be held by the petitioners (appellants) under chapter iii-b of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1955 ). the facts of the case, in brief, which are necessary for deciding the question are that chapter iii-b of the act of 1955 was introduced by section 3 of the rajasthan tenancy (amendment) act, 1980 published in the rajasthan gazette extraordinary, part iv-a dated 21.3.1960 vide notification no.f.6(2) rev. b/70 (i) and this chapter came into force with effect from 15.12.1963. chapter iii-b provides restriction of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2014 (FN)

Lozano Vs. Montoya Alvarez

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-05-2014

..... the child. shortly after montoya alvarez left in november 2008, he called her sister gloria in london, but eventually received legal advice not to speak with montoya alvarez family. a mediation service also sent several letters to montoya alvarez on lozano s behalf without receiving a response. in july 2009, lozano filed an application for a court order in the united .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2014 (SC)

Tarsen Lal and ors. Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-28-2014

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.4919 of2014(arising out of slp (c) no.3353 of 2009) tarsem lal & ors. appellants versus ram sarup & ors. respondents judgment sudhansu jyoti mukhopadhaya, j.leave granted.2. this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2nd may, 2008 passed by the high court of himachal pradesh, shimla in r.s.a. no.126 of 1996. by the impugned judgment and decree high court reversed the concurrent finding of the courts below and held that section 36 (wrongly mentioned as rule 36 in the impugned judgment) of the himachal pradesh tenancy and land reforms act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) is applicable to tenancy land and not to the ownership land owned by a person, and therefore, not applicable to the appellants herein. the judgment and decree dated 21st november, 1995 passed by the learned additional district judge (1) dharamshala camp at una in civil appeal no.39/92, rbt no.206/94 were set aside and the suit was dismissed.3. the factual matrix of the case is that predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, faqir chand, the original plaintiff filed a suit against daulat ram, sukh dev, ram sarup and smt. vidya devi for permanent injunction restraining them from removing the pump set or interfering, in any manner, with the right of the plaintiff to irrigate his land measuring 25 kanals 16 marlas from well and pump set situated in land measuring 8 marlas bearing khasra no.114r/29 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 2014 (FN)

Adb Vs. Adc

Court : Singapore Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-17-2014

..... $1,000. the defendant's resort to this court might have been a little too hasty but the state of their relationship was such that she would not even consider mediation. counsel for the defendant, miss chia, submitted that the defendant claimed $2,500 in maintenance only because it was based on the first affidavit. now that the plaintiff is willing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 2014 (FN)

Bdu Vs. Bdt

Court : Singapore Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-17-2014

..... precondition of return. [emphasis added in italics and bold italics] 91. thirdly, as noted in the uk supreme court decision of in re e (at [53]), the potential reference to mediation ought always be borne in mind, although that same court quite correctly observed (ibid) that "[m]ediation will not work if one party is allowed to dominate or bully the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 2014 (SC)

Phanidhar Kalita Vs. Saraswati Devi and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-14-2014

non-reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal nos.2924 - 2925 of2014phanidhar kalita .. appellant(s) -vs- saraswati devi & anr. .. respondent(s) judgment c. nagappan, j.1. these appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.3.2007 in r.s.a. no.116 of 2000 and the order dated 1.4.2008 in review petition no.1 of 2008 passed by the learned single judge of the guwahati high court, whereby the high court has partly allowed the regular second appeal and dismissed the review petition, both filed by the appellant herein.2. the appellant/plaintiff herein filed the title suit no.11 of 1987 against the respondent/defendant no.1 herein in the court of civil judge (junior division) no.2, mangaldoi for declaration of title in respect of 1 katha 16 lechas of land described in schedule-1 to the plaint covered by dag no.52/575 of p.p. no.960 situated in village mangaldoi gaon and also for recovery of khas possession of the suit land described in schedule-2, which is a part of the land in schedule-1 by demolishing the structure put by respondent no.1 herein/defendant no.1 and also for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein/defendants from raising new constructions on the suit land. the case of the appellant/plaintiff is that he purchased 1 bigha of land, mentioned in schedule-1, from one mukta ram saikia by exh.4 registered sale deed dated 12.7.1977 and took possession of the same and got mutation of his name in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2014 (SC)

Shamsher Singh and ors. Vs. Rajinder Kumar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-16-2014

non-reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal nos.4597-4598 of2014(arising out of slp (c) nos. 31491-31492 of 2012) shamsher singh & ors appellants versus rajinder kumar & ors .respondents judgment v.gopala gowda, j.leave granted.2. these appeals have been preferred by the appellants (the original defendants) against the common judgment and final order dated 17th september, 2012 passed by the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh in rsa nos. 2871 & 1543 of 2012. by the said impugned judgment, two separate rsas filed by the appellants against the common judgment of first appellate court were dismissed by the high court.3. the factual matrix of the case is as follows: the respondents (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance against the appellants herein alleging that an agreement to sell dated 3rd june, 2002 was entered between them with respect to the suit land. it was alleged that out of [pic].3,00,000/- (total agreed consideration), [pic].2,00,000/- had already been paid by the plaintiffs on 3rd june, 2002 and as per agreement, the balance amount were to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed, i.e. on 20th december, 2002. it was further alleged that later, the defendant-appellants became dishonest and wanted to sell the land to some other persons. therefore, they had to file the suit.4. the defendants filed their written statement contending in that they had never entered into any agreement to sell .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2014 (SC)

M/S. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of T.N. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-06-2014

in the supreme court of india civil original/appellate jurisdiction writ petition (c) no.232 of2005m/s. kone elevator india pvt. ltd. petitioner versus state of tamil nadu and ors. respondents with writ petition (civil) nos. 298/2005, 487/2005, 528/2005, 67/2006, 511/2006, 75/2007, 519/2008, 531/2008, 548/2008, 569/2008, 186/2009, 23/2010, 62/2010, 232/2010, 279/2010, 377/2010, 112/2011, 137/2011, 181/2011, 207/2011, 278/2011, 243/2011, 372/2011, 398/2011, 381/2011, 468/2011, 547/2011, 107/2012, 125/2012, 196/2012, 263/2012, 404/2012, 567/2012, 145/2013, 241/2013, 454/2013, 404/2013, 723/2013, 440/2012, 441/2012, 156/2013, 533/2013, 403/2012, 824/2013, 428/2009, 1046/2013, 1047/2013, 1048/2013, 1049/2013, 1050/2013, 1051/2013 1052/2013, 1098/2013, with civil appeal nos. 5116-5121 of 2014 (arising out of slp (c) nos. 14148-14153/2005) with civil appeal nos. 5135-5141 of 2014 (arising out of slp (c) nos. 14961-14967/2005) with civil appeal nos. 5142-5147 of 2014 [arising out of slp (c) nos. 17842-17847/2005 with civil appeal no.5152 of 2014 [arising out of slp (c) no.5377/2006 with civil appeal no.5153 of 2014 [arising out of slp (c) no.7037/2006 with civil appeal no.5154 of 2014 [arising out of slp (c) no.30272/2008 with civil appeal no.5156 of 2014 [arising out of slp (c) no.30279/2008 with civil appeal no.5157 of 2014 [arising out of slp (c) no.5289/2009 with civil appeal nos. 5159-5160 of 2014 [arising out of slp (c) nos. 6520-6521/2009 with civil appeal nos.5162-5164 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2014 (FN)

Robert Hryniak Vs. Fred MauldIn and Others

Court : Canada Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-23-2014

..... , the trial process denies ordinary people the opportunity to have adjudication. and while going to trial has long been seen as a last resort, other dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and settlement are more likely to produce fair and just results when adjudication remains a realistic alternative. [25] prompt judicial resolution of legal disputes allows individuals to get on with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2014 (FN)

Goh Eileen Nee Chia and Another Vs. Goh Mei Ling Yvonne and Another

Court : Singapore Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-10-2014

quentin loh j: 1. this is a dreadful family dispute which should not have reached the courts for resolution. unfortunately two separate mediation sessions, the second of which was very kindly undertaken by retired high court judge mr kan ting chiu gratis and at very short notice, failed. what lay at the heart .....

Tag this Judgment!


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