Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: karnataka Year: 1987 Page 1 of about 38 results (0.007 seconds)

Jan 29 1987 (HC)

Workmen of Cement Industry Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-29-1987

Reported in : ILR1987KAR2078

..... becomes a kind of private judge, that is one who judges rather than mediates but does not hold the governmental office of judge. the very fact that he does not hold such an office but is chosen by the parties, rather than imposed on ..... , it tends to merge into judicial judgment. this is particularly true in instances such as 'rights arbitration,' when the arbitrator is expected to reach a legally correct rather than a mediate solution even though the 'law' is that created by a mutually agreed contract between the parties. when arbitration is binding and dichotomous solution are expected, then the 'arbitrator' in fait ..... situations in which, although overarching legal norms may exist, the most salient concerns are the interests of the two parties, neither of which is assigned greater legitimacy than the other. mediate solutions acceptable to both parties are the goal, and, as a practical matter, few arbitrators would find much employment if they did not develop a record of providing such solutions ..... . the same union and company may submit other kinds of disputes not covered by such precise contract terms to the same arbitrator and expect mediate solutions.when arbitration is in no sense binding, it merges with mediation. when arbitration is binding, both in the sense that the two parties must go to arbitration on the demand of either and must then abide .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 1987 (HC)

Lingamma Vs. Basavaraju

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-18-1987

Reported in : ILR1988KAR433

..... . veeraraju died in 1927 leaving behind his widow, ramamurthy father of plaintiff and veeraraju. sold certain properties from veeraraju's share in 1928. veeraraju's widow raised a dispute and mediators brought about a settlement by a deed of settlement dated 18-8-1937. in the said settlement ramamurthy settled certain properties on the widow with life interest and stipulated that ..... 's, : [1987]1scr359 case clearly make out that the right to the suit properties were acquired by veeraraju's widow under the settlement deed dated 18-8-1937 as the mediators decided that she should be given certain properties for life only in view of the fact that the properties that were allotted to veeraraju's share in the partition between .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 1987 (HC)

irappa @ Veerappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-15-1987

Reported in : ILR1987KAR3793; 1987(3)KarLJ536

..... before possession under the arms act can be said to constitute, an offence. it does not matter, in my opinion, whether such possession is actual or constructive or physical or mediate or immediate or direct or indirect or exclusive or joint or concurrent. corpus without the animus is ineffective. no mere physical relation of a person to the thing can have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 1987 (HC)

Mangalore Catholic Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. M. Sundara Shetty

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-10-1987

Reported in : [1990]67CompCas377(Kar)

d.p. hiremath, j.1. the respondent, sundara shetty, had filed o.s. no. 104 of 1968 before the court of the civil judge, mangalore, against one ronald lobo and b.l. ignato for the amounts due to him on a hire purchase agreement and obtained an attachment before judgment of the immovable properties of b.l. ignato. the suit came to be decreed on december 16, 1968, and on the execution petition filed by the plaintiff in execution case no. 44 of 1970 before the same court, the attached property wa sold in court auction and the plaintiff-respondent himself purchased the same in court sale and the sale was confirmed on april 17, 1971. he was even delivered possession of the property. the defendant present appellant-bank had encumbrance over the property by way of mortgage in its favour dated march 28, 1967, and the sale in favour of the plaintiff was subject to this mortgage. the plaintiff was not aware of any other encumbrance over this property. 2. after he took possession of the property sold to him, the plaintiff in order to discharge the encumbrances of the defendant addressed to it a letter in the month of august, 1971, to inform him the total amounts due under the mortgage over the mortgage of the schedule property and the bank intimated to him that the mortgager, b.l.ignato, was also a surety to his wife for a sum of rs. 2,957.77 and, therefore, the said mortgegor was due to pay that surety loan also to the bank. when the plaintiff intimated to the banks denying his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 1987 (HC)

T.M. Harpanahalli Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-20-1987

Reported in : ILR1987KAR3833

ordernavadgi, this revision petition, the order dated 20-5-1985 made by the additional chief judicial magistrate, dharwad, in 1723/83 on his file, is challenged.2. i have heard the learned counsel for petitioners nos.1 and 2; sri k. srinivasa gowda, the learned high court government pleader for respondent no. 1; and the learned counsel for respondents nos.2 and 3. i have perused the record.3. the question for determination is; whether the order impugned in this revision petition is illegal, incorrect or improper so as to justify interference with it in this revision petition?4. the facts relevant for our present purpose are very few and they are as follows:sham krishna rao harapanahalli, respondent no. 3 herein, lodged a complaint against t.m. harapanahalli (petitioner no. 1), smt. rama bai, his wife (petitioner no 2) and gulam modin, respondent no. 2 herein, alleging offences punishable under sections 466 and 107 read with section 34 of the indian penal code.the additional chief judicial magistrate, dharwad before whom the complaint was lodged, referred the same to the circle inspector of police, dharwad, for investigation and report under section 156(3) of the code of criminal procedure (the code for short).the circle inspector of police, on completion of investigation, laid charge-sheet against petitioners nos.l and 2 and respondent no. 2 for the offences under sections 466 and 107 read with section 34 of the i.p.c.the allegations against petitioners nos. 1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 1987 (HC)

imambi Vs. Khaja HussaIn and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-02-1987

Reported in : AIR1988Kant51; ILR1987KAR3397; 1988(1)KarLJ294

nesargi, j. 1. imambi, who was plaintiff in o.s. no. 47 of 1967 on the file of the civil judge, raichur, has preferred this appeal. respondent 3 defendant 3 yelgatti hanumappa is the contesting respondent. he died during the pendency of this appeal and his have been brought on record.2. khaja hussain respondent 1 defendant 1 is the husband of the plaintiff. khajabi respondent 2, defendant 2 is the mother of defendant 1.3. the suit properties are the lands survey nos. 165 and 166 of anwari village, lingsugur taluk, raichur district, commonly called as rai sakruppanna hola.4. the plaintiff prayed for declaration that she is the owner of the suit lands; that the sale deed dated 28-4-1966 (ex.d.2) executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant no. 3 selling these suit lands to defendant 3 is illegal, null, void and inoperative and not binding on her, and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession of the suit lands. 5. the undisputed facts are that the suit lands originally belonged to one biamma w/o alamsab. their son was bavasab - husband of defendant 2. bavasab predeceased -biarnma. biamma gifted the suit lands to defendant 1, the son of bavasab and defendant 2. the marriage of defendant 1 was performed on 19-4-1958. one of the terms of agreement at that time was that the suit lands were to be given to the plaintiff as prompt dower. on 28-4-1966 defendants 1 and 2 executed sale deed ex.d.2 selling the suit lands to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 1987 (HC)

B. K. Nanjundaiah and ors. Vs. the B.D.A., Bangalore and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-27-1987

Reported in : AIR1988Kant227; ILR1987KAR2977

order1. petitioners to be the owners of s. no. 16 of malagalu village, yeswanthapur hobli, bangalore north taluk, the said land measures 5 acres 20 guntas. petitioner-1 is the uncle of petitioners 2 and 3. it is state4 that the original owner of this land was b. kamaiah, the father of the first petitioner who died on 20-12-1978, thereafter a suit, for partition was filed in 0. s. no. 222 of 1980, on the file of the civil judge, bangalore. a compromise decree was passed on 12-6-1980. under the said decree, 2 acres 30 guntas fell to the share of the first petitioner and the remaining 2 acres 30 guntas fell to the share of petitioners 2 and 3. this land along with several other lands was sought to be acquired by b. d. a. for the formation of nagarabhavi ii stage layout. preliminary notification date 15-7-1982 was published in the karnataka gazette date 26-8-1982. for s. no., 16, the following entry is found: -'dyavaiah bin devagaiah, a. ramaiabsetty, siddappa, bin puttarangappa, . b. k.amaiah bin bammappa!'.a similar entry is found in the final declaration date 5-8-1986. these notifications are challenged on the ground that they are issued in the name of a dead person and secondly on the ground that at the time of the final declaration, the names of petitioners were found is the revenue records. in support of the latter contentions annexures 'b' and 'c' are filed. it is also contended that apart from the notices under s. 17(5), a personal notice is required to be served in terms .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 1987 (HC)

Mahboob Pasha Vs. Syed ZaheeruddIn and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-26-1987

Reported in : AIR1988Kant83; ILR1987KAR2830; 1987(2)KarLJ57

bopanna, j.1. this is a defendants appeal against the judgment and decree of the vi additional city civil judge, bangalore city, in 0. s. no. 10373 of 1980 dt. 19-3-1986 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement of sale of immovable property dt. 10-8-1974 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and for other incidental reliefs.2. on service of notice regarding admission, the respondents entered appearance through a counsel. thereafter the appeal came up for admission on 15-61987. as it appeared to us that the issue relating to limitation had not been prima facie decided correctly, it was made known to the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the appeal would be heard on the point of limitation as to whether the suit was filed in time. accordingly, at request, the appeal was adjourned to 22-6-1987. again on 22-6-1987, it was adjourned to today. the appeal was taken up for hearing in the forenoon to hear the learned counsel on the point of limitation. the learned counsel for the respondents, is absent though the appeal was passed over even in the afternoon. in the circumstances, we have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and proceeded to pronounce our judgment.3. the point for consideration is whether the trial court is justified in law in holding that the suit is not barred by time?4. necessary facts which are not much in controversy and as found by the trial court are as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1987 (HC)

Vilas Alias Gundu Ananthacharya Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-09-1987

Reported in : ILR1987KAR1427

orderkulkarni, j.1. this is a revision by the appellants (appellants in no. r.a.l.r. 1078/86) against the order dated 27-1-1987 passed by the land reforms appellate authority, belgaum, in no. r.a.l.r. 1078/1986 dismissing the same.2. the parties have been referred to with reference to their position in the appellate authority.3. appellant-1 is the elder brother's son of appellant-2. appellant-3 is the younger brother of appellant-2. 20/1 measuring 5 acres assessed at rs. 6-13-0 and 154/1b measuring 6 acres 4 guntas assessed at rs. 12-8-0 situate in devarasheegihalli village of bailhongal taluk, belong to the appellants. respondents-3 and 4 who are the brothers, claim that these lands had been leased to their father more than 20 to 50 years back and that their father was in possession and cultivation of these lands till his death and that ever since the death of their father, they are in possession and cultivation of these lands upto date. so claiming, they filed applications in form no. 7 under section 45 of the karnataka land reforms act for conferment of occupancy rights. the tribunal conferred occupancy rights on respondents-3 and 4 in respect of both the lands. the appellants being aggrieved by the said order, had approached this court with writ petition no. 10223 of 1983. this court quashed the order passed by the tribunal and remitted the matter to the tribunal for fresh consideration. the order passed by the single judge in writ petition no. 10223 of 1983 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1987 (HC)

iravva Vs. Shivappa Shiddalingappa Angadi

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-03-1987

Reported in : AIR1987Kant241; ILR1987KAR1955

1. this is an appeal by the petitioner (petitioner in misc. application no. 12 of 1985 on the file of the principal civil judge, dharwar) against the order dated 25-7-1986 passed by the civil judge, dharwar, in misc. application no. 12 of 1985 dismissing the same as not maintainable.2. the parties have been referred to with reference to their position in the trial court.3. the applicant iravva is the wife of the deceased gurupadappa siddalingappa angadi. they were married in the year 1948. the applicant was living with her husband but she did not bear any children. since she did not bear any children, her husband wanted to marry another woman. the applicant did not give her consent to the second marriage. notwithstanding it, her husband illegally married another woman and brought her to his house and the so-called second wife also deserted him and went away. thereafter he brought another woman. the applicant's husband thought that the applicant might take some action against him. so by practising fraud on the applicant and the court, he had obtained an exparte decree for divorce against the applicant in l.c. no. 32/1967. the applicant was not aware of the said suit at all. the summons was not served on the applicant in the said suit. by practising fraud and by practising misrepresentation, the applicant's husband managed to see that the applicant was some-how or the other reported to be served with summons. the ground made out in the divorce suit was that the applicant was .....

Tag this Judgment!

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