Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: karnataka Year: 1998 Page 1 of about 95 results (0.011 seconds)

Sep 21 1998 (HC)

H.T. Somashekar Reddy Vs. Government of Karnataka and Another

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-21-1998

Reported in : 2000(1)KarLJ224

..... the arbitral tribunal remains within the limits of its jurisdiction; (v) to minimise the supervisory role of courts in the arbitral process; (vi) to permit an arbitral tribunal to use mediation, conciliation or other proceedings during the arbitral proceedings to encourage settlement of dispute; (vii) to provide that every final arbitral award is enforced in the same manner as if it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1998 (HC)

Madhava Raja Rao Vs. General Manager (Personnel Wing), Head Office, Ca ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-26-1998

Reported in : (2000)ILLJ1340Kant

..... pros and cons of the matters. the dictionary meaning of the word 'consider' is to review attentively, to survey, examine, inspect, to look attentively, to contemplate mentally, to think over, mediate on, give heed to, take note of, to think deliberately, bethink oneself, to reflect.11: the supreme court in barium chemicals limited and anr. v. a.j. rana and ors ..... sc 561, interpreted the word 'consider' to mean:'it is also mentioned that to consider is to fix the mind upon with a view to careful examination; to ponder; study; mediate upon, think or reflect with care. it is, therefore, manifest that careful thinking or due application of the mind regarding the necessity to obtain and examine the documents in question .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 1998 (HC)

K.V. Amarnath Vs. the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New D ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-18-1998

Reported in : 1999CriLJ1558; 1999(4)KarLJ247

orderr.p. sethi, c.j. 1. without impleading him as party respondent but alleging corruption, favouritism and nepotism against sri h.d. devegowda, former prime minister of india, the petitioner herein has attempted to ignite the process of law by invoking action under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, apparently under the patent name of public interest litigation. prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register a criminal case in the matter of offences allegedly committed by former prime minister and his family members which are stated to be punishable under the provisions of the prevention of corruption act and the penal code. the jurisdiction of the court has been invoked for the alleged failure of the respondents to take any action on the memorandum at annexure-a submitted by the petitioner on 10-12-1996 when shri h.d. devegowda had become the prime minister. the omission on the part of the respondent to take action is alleged to be non-performance of their statutory obligations. powers of the court for issuance of appropriate directions have been prayed in the name and furtherance of cause of justice and equity and for strengthening the rule of law.2. the petitioner claims to be a social worker and a life member of karnataka a bhrashtachara virodhi vedike committed consistently in exposing the authorities for their misdeeds and colossal corrupt practices of responsible political leaders and public servants in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 1998 (HC)

H.G. Mahesh Vs. Smt. Honnamma and Another

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-25-1998

Reported in : 2000ACJ753; ILR1999KAR1548; 1999(6)KarLJ382

1. this is the claimant's appeal being aggrieved of the dismissal of the claim in mvc no. 1369 of 1987 on the file of the claims tribunal, bangalore city. 2. the brief facts of the case are as follows: the injured h.g. mahesh, while he was proceeding on his luna bearing regn. no. ckd 566 at about 7.00 p.m. on 22-6-1987 towards his house and reached near n.t.t.f. bus stop on peenya road that a tempo bearing regn. no. caa 695 came driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed, as a result, he sustained with fracture injuries. due to the injuries suffered in the road accident, he presented a claim petition before the claims tribunal, bangalore city claiming compensation of rs. 1,00,000/-.3. respondent 1, the owner of the tempo filed objections stating that the vehicle has been insured with new india assurance company limited, and the policy is valid as on the date of the accident and denied all other averments which are inconsistent with the objections statement and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.4. respondent 2-m/s. new india assurance company limited filed a detailed objections statement contending that the policy was subsisting as on the date of the accident. the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant and denied all other averments which are inconsistent with the objections statement and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.5. the claims tribunal framed the following issues:1. does petitioner prove that he sustained injuries in a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1998 (HC)

H. Gopala Gowda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-11-1998

Reported in : 1999(1)KarLJ179

orderchidananda ullal, j.1. two agriculturists of channarayapatna village of devanahalli taluk, bangalore rural district, had resorted to the instant writ petition as a public interest litigation. in filing the same, they prayed for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the official memorandum no. lnd/sr/(1)/16/1976-77, dated 25-5-1979, passed by the respondent 5-tahsildar, devanahalli taluk, devanahalli, copy as at annexure-f to writ petition and also for issue of an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to consider the legitimate grievance of the petitioners as enumerated in their representations, copies as at annexure-b and c to writ petition and further to retain the status quo condition of the gomal land in sy. no. 163 or for grant of any other appropriate writ.2. we heard the learned counsel for the petitioners sri sundaram appearing along with sri k.n. subbareddy, the learned high court government pleader smt. v. vidya appearing for the respondent 1-state and the authorities-respondents 2 to 5 and sri c.g. gopal swamy appearing for the respondents 6 to 10, 13 to 22 and 24 and 29. we have also perused the case records.3. we feel it proper to give a brief narration of the public grievance of the petitioners aired in the instant writ petition in the form of public interest litigation.4. that, there existed reserved gomal lands to an extent of 66 acres and 13 guntas in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1998 (HC)

H. Gopala Gowda and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-11-1998

Reported in : ILR1998KAR4144

orderchidananda ullal, j. 1. two agriculturists of channarayapatna village of devanahalli taluk, bangalore rural district, had resorted to the instant writ petition as a public interest litigation. in filing the same, they prayed for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certioraris or any other appropriate writ to quash the official memorandum no. lnd/sr/(1)/ 16/1976-77 dated 25.5.79, passed by the respondent no. 5 tahsildar, devanahalli taluk, devanahalli, copy as at annexure 'f' td writ petition and also for issue of an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 to 5 to consider the legitimate grievance of the petitioners as enumerated in their representations, copies as at annexures 'b' and 'c' to writ petition and further to retain the status quo condition of the gomal land in sy. no. 163 or for grant of any other appropriate writ. 2. we heard the learned counsel for the petitioners sri sundaram appearing along with sri k.n. subbareddy, the learned high court government pleader smt. v. vidya appearing for the respondent no. 1 - state and the authorities - respondents no. 2 to 5 and sri c.g. gopalaswamy appearing for the respondents no. 6 to 10, 13 to 22 and 24 to 29. we have also perused the case records.3. we feel it proper to give a brief narration of the public grievance of the petitioners aired in the instant writ petition in the form of pil.4. that, there existed reserved gomal lands to an extent of 66 acres and 13 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1998 (HC)

Ninge Gowda and Another Vs. S. Madhureswar

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-17-1998

Reported in : 1999(1)ALT(Cri)335; ILR1999KAR197; 1998(6)KarLJ593

order1. on 21-2-1997 the respondent filed a complaint against 5 police officers before the iv additional chief metropolitan magistrate, bangalore city, in p.c.r. no. 24 of 1997 alleging that they have assaulted and tortured him in a most inhumanly and barbaric manner causing injuries by detaining him in the police station, etc. and they have committed offences punishable under sections 347, 346, 348, 352, 323, 324, 201 read with section 34, indian penal code. the learned magistrate having taken cognizance recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses and thereafter directed issue of summons to the petitioner. the said order is questioned by accused 1 and 2 who are the assistant commissioner of police and police inspector respectively, under section 482, criminal procedure code.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.3. the learned counsel submitted that the allegations made in the complaint, the sworn statement and documents produced by the complainant taken on their face value do not constitute any offence against the petitioners. at this stage, it may be mentioned that from the reading of the complaint and also the other materials it is clear that the accused 3 to 5 have assaulted the respondent mercilessly with rope and fists, etc. after undressing him. but as far as these petitioners are concerned, it is alleged that when the accused 3 to 5 were torturing him, they went inside the torture chamber and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 1998 (HC)

Smt. Lalithawwa and Others Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri Sub- ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-04-1998

Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ680

order1. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.2. this writ petition is directed against the order passed in the matter of mutation. this petition has been filed against the order dated 13-7-1998 passed by the assistant commissioner in rts: appeal : 123: 1997-98 whereby the assistant commissioner has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the deputy tahsildar after having opined that the respondent 2 has been the adopted son of ningawa and that ningawa had executed a will in favour of 2nd respondent and therefore he is only entitled to succeed. on this basis, he set aside the order of the deputy tahsildar who had ordered mutation in favour of the petitioners as well.3. the case in question involves a questions of fact as the learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the adoption as well as the execution of will relied upon by the assistant commissioner. these questions of fact can well be decided on merits after trial of the issues by the civil court. the writ jurisdiction is not meant for that purpose. section 135 of the karnataka land revenue act very clearly provides as per proviso thereof that in case where a person is aggrieved by any entry made in any record or register maintained, he may institute a suit against the person denying interest or interested to deny his title and the entry in record or the register shall be amended in accordance with the declarative decree passed in the suit. the order passed in appeal or revision may be final, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 1998 (HC)

Arunkumar and Others Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwar Revenue D ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-04-1998

Reported in : 1999(2)KarLJ28

acts/rules/orders:karnataka land revenue act, 1964 - sections 128 and 129cases referred:hanumantha gowda v. gidde gowda, ilr 1998 kar. sh. n. 62 (rsa no. 863 of 1990, dd: 27-10-1997)judgement1. this appeal is filed assailing the judgment of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition.2. the case of the appellants is that they filed an application for mutation of their names on the basis of a registered will executed by the testator. according to the facts of the case, the testator registered the will and thereafter cancelled the same. relying on those wills, the appellants filed a petition for mutation. the contesting respondent filed objections stating that there is another will executed by the testator. that request was carried to the high court in a writ petition. the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the parties have to approach the civil court to sort out their rights to the land as there are rival claims.3. learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that when there is a registered document, there is a duty on the tahsildar to make an entry. if any other person has got a right, he has to go and establish it in a civil court. learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment in hanumantha gowda v gidde gowda. we see no dispute about the proposition laid down in the said judgment. in this case, there are rival claims. one is registered and another is an ordinary will. the ordinary will is not produced. we cannot .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 1998 (HC)

H.T. Giriyappa Vs. the Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority, Bang ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-24-1998

Reported in : 1999(1)KarLJ496

order1. site no. 508, situated at 10th main, 18th cross, vijayanagar, bangalore, was allotted by the respondents to the petitioner on 29-1-1973. the petitioner has constructed a house and has been residing therein.2. adjacent to the site allotted to the petitioner there is a small piece of marginal land measuring 10+18 ____________ x 50 23. when the things stood thus, respondents claim to have sent an endorsement dated 22-2-1995 to the petitioner, which is annexed to annexure-c1, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of rs. 1,22,888-00 within 45 days of the receipt of the same. according to the respondents, this amount represents the average auction rate prevalent then for the excess marginal land of 32.46 sq. mtrs. and interest for the delayed payment of rs. 5,000-00 paid by the petitioner earlier. the petitioner claims that he has not received the said endorsement. hence, the respondents issued annexure-c1 dated 27-8-1996 to the petitioner along with the endorsement dated 22-2-1995 calling upon the petitioner to produce the challans for having remitted the sum of rs. 1,22,888-20. since the petitioner has not paid the said amount, the impugned order at annexure-d dated 28-10-1997 has been passed by the respondents cancelling the marginal land allotted to the petitioner. the petitioner has sought to quash the same in this writ petition on various grounds.4. in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents itis stated that the marginal land measuring 77.80 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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