Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: karnataka Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 118 results (0.060 seconds)

Nov 27 2003 (HC)

Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. Mehrunisa Begum

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-27-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Kant261

..... the same roof. the defendant husband claims that the plaintiff wife on her own abandoned the matrimonial home and stayed with her parents and in spite of repeated attempts for mediation and for settlement made by the khazi failed, therefore, the defendant on 22-5-2002 sent a written notice of talaq returnable divorce which was received by the plaintiff, but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2003 (HC)

A. Achutha and ors. Vs. Sri Rama Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-29-2003

Reported in : ILR2003KAR3826; (2004)IILLJ755Kant

..... modified or altered by the management and the only thing he could tell us is that annexure c is not accepted by the trade union and after necessary negotiation and mediation, they agreed to include only those employees whose names are included in annexure-a appended to annexure r-1 settlement. 14. there is no controversy between the parties that if .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 2003 (HC)

Management of M.S. Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital Vs. Dr. M. Som ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-11-2003

Reported in : ILR2004KAR37; 2004(1)KarLJ532

r.v. raveendran, j. 1. the respondent was earlier working as a professor and head of the department of forensic medicine in m.s. ramaiah medical college - the appellant herein. the appellant issued the following order dated 12-10-2002 to the respondent.--'on a review of the organisation structure of the department of forensic medicine of m.s. ramaiah medical college, it has been decided that the service of dr. somashekar, professor and head of the department of forensic medicine of m.s. ramaiah medical college, are no longer required by the institution.in terms of the letter of appointment dated 28th november, 1984, a crossed cheque bearing no. 777794, dated 12th october, 2002 for rs. 84,922.50 drawn on vijaya bank, yeshwanthpur branch, bangalore-560022 being the salary for three months in lieu of 3 month's notice, is enclosed.the management expresses its gratitude for the services rendered to the institution'.2. feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached the educational appellate tribunal, bangalore, by filing an appeal (ma [eat] no. 31 of 2002) under section 94 of the karnataka education act, 1983 ('act' for short). in the memorandum of appeal, the respondent contended inter alia that the order of termination was illegal and was a cloak to hide the mala fides of the principal of the college and the college management against him. he alleged that the said order was issued as he did not agree to issue certain post-mortem reports and information on medico-legal cases in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 2003 (HC)

Rangappa and ors. Vs. B.L. Mahalingappa and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-06-2003

Reported in : II(2004)ACC110; 2005ACJ89; 2004(1)KarLJ527

s.r.nayak, j.:1. the dependants of the deceased being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 3rd january, 2001 passed in m.v.c. no. 1299 of 1998 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal, chitradurga (for short, 'the mact), have preferred this appeal under section 173(1) of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (for short, 'the act'), seeking more compensation. the facts of the case as stated by the claimants in their claim statement in brief are as follows:the fact that the deceased puttamma died in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of an autorickshaw bearing registration no. ka-16/6189 by its driver is not in controversy. according to the claimants the deceased was 35 years aged on the date of accident; she was earning monthly income of rs. 3,000 as vegetable vendor. on that basis, the claimants claimed total compensation of rs. 5,00,000/- under various heads.2. the mact having opined that the claimants have not produced any satisfactory proof with regard to the income of the deceased took the monthly income of the deceased notionally at the rate of rs. 1,200/- and on that basis and after deducting 1/3rd of the same towards personal expenses computed loss of dependency in a sum of rs. 1,44,000/- by applying multiple 15. in addition, the mact has awarded a sum of rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectancy of life, rs. 5,000/- for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. thus, the mact has awarded total .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 2003 (HC)

Sharanappa Deceased by His Lrs. and ors. Vs. Sumitrabai and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-23-2003

Reported in : ILR2004KAR3605

k. sreedhar rao, j.1. the first respondent and the subject matter in these appeals are different but the appellant is the same. the facts and the questions of law involved are similar. common evidence is let-in in both the cases. apart from the two appeals now under consideration, the appellant had filed rsa 206/97 and rsa 207/97. all these appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed in o.s. no. 21/87 and o.s. no. 59/86 on the file of munsiff kustagi.2. for convenient discussion, the respondents hereinafter called plaintiffs and the appellant as defendant.3. the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction, in alternative seek relief of possession of the suit property from the appellant/defendant. the plaintiffs claim to be the absolute owners of the suit property and allege that the defendant is illegally interfering with their possession and enjoyment. hence, the suit.4. the defendant sets up a counter claim in both the suits seek relief of specific performance on the strength of agreement of sale ex.d.1 executed by the plaintiff in each of the suit. the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs allowed the counter claim, directed execution of sale deed by receiving balance of consideration. the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgments and decrees preferred ra 29/90 and ra 30/90 on the file of civil judge, senior division, koppal. the appeals were allowed. the judgment and decree for specific performance granted in favour of the first .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 2003 (HC)

Smt. Sharanamma Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Office ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-17-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)KarLJ543

1 the owner of the acquired land not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the civil court has filed this appeal calling in question the legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 24th march, 2001 passed in lac no. 551 of 1994 on the file of the court of the additional civil judge (senior division) at gulbarga (for short, 'the civil court'). by the impugned award the civil court has awarded compensation at the rate of rs. 61,000/- per acre for 3 acres 10 guntas of converted land and at the rate of rs. 43,000/- per acre with regard to 1 acre 20 guntas of agricultural land.2. the facts of the ease in brief are as follows:the state acting through the respondent-land acquisition officer (for short, 'the lao'), and in exercise of eminent domain power acquired 1 acre 20 guntas of land comprised in survey no. 12/1/1b and 3 acres 10 guntas of converted land in survey no. 127272b both situate in chandapur village in chincholi taluk, gulbarga district (for short, 'the schedule land') for a public purpose, to wit, for construction of mini vidhana soudha and hospital buildings by issuing section 4(1) notification dated 22-1-1990 under the provisions of the land acquisition act, 1894 (for short, 'the act'). the lao after conducting award enquiry passed an award on 30-9-1992 determining the market value at the rate of rs. 15,000/- per acre with regard to non-agricultural land and at the rate of rs. 8,000/- per acre with regard to agricultural land, by placing reliance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2003 (HC)

ishwarappa Vs. Arunkumar

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-24-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Kant417; 2006(2)CTLJ91(Kar)

k. sreedhar rao, j.1. the appeal filed against the judgment and decree in r.a. no. 66/99 on the file of the addl. civil judge (sr. dn.), hubli, arising out of the judgment and decree passed in o.s. no. 483/96 on the file of the iii addl. civil judge (jr. dn.), hubli.2. the appellant is the defendant. the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant at ex.d.13 has been revoked and that the defendant does not have the authority of agency to represent the plaintiff under the power of attorney. further, seek an injunction against the defendant not to deal with the suit property.3. plaintiff was employed in indian army. he was allotted a site. the plaintiff executed power of attorney ex.d.13 in favour of defendant to attend to the construction of the building on the suit site and thereafter its management. it is said that defendant misusing the power of attorney indulged in excessive and reckless borrowings fastening unreasonable liabilities on the plaintiff. therefore seek a relief declaration with a consequential relief of injunction against the defendant not to deal with the suit property any more. the defendant contends that he has borrowed loans in his individual capacity and also borrowed loans on the strength of power of attorney from several persons and financial institutions encumbering the suit property. the defendant contends that, apart from the private loan of rs. 5 lakhs incurred, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 2003 (HC)

K. Narayana Rao Vs. the Secretary, Department of Transport and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-11-2003

Reported in : I(2004)ACC119; ILR2003KAR4261

ordergururajan, j. 1. petitioner in this petition is seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash annexure-f dated 25-9-2002 issued by rule - 3 -- the commissioner for transport in karnataka. petitioner is the owner of new janatha motor driving school, bangalore. he has rich experience in motor driving school business. he says that licence is required to run a driving school. he has referred to various provisions in this regard. according to him, an instructor is required to be in the establishment, as his presence is always needed for completing the training course. petitioner approached for licence to the jurisdictional licencing authority with regard to appointment of qualified instructor either part time or full time. the licencing authority of bangalore central and the licencing authority of jayanagar, gave endorsements dated 19-10-2002 and 4-11-2002 stating that no such appointments could be made in terms of the rule. aggrieved by the said endorsements, petitioner approached the third respondents. the third respondent has stated that there is no bar of engaging part time instructor. the endorsements issued by the licencing authorities are filed at annexure-d and e and the endorsement issued by third respondent is filed at annexure-f. 2. heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.3. motor vehicles act provides for a licence in the matter of driving school. licence is required to be obtained in terms of the rule 24 (3) (iii) of the cmv rules .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2003 (HC)

H.L. Narayanachar Vs. Revappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-01-2003

Reported in : ILR2003KAR4248; 2004(1)KarLJ559

ordergopala gowda, j. 1. the petitioner is the owner of land bearing sy.no. 484 measuring 9-00 acres situated in amalapur village in hospet taluk. by an order dated 18.8.1981 occupancy rights was granted in favour of the petitioner for 9-00 acres of land. by the impugned order at annexure-b dated 29.6.2002, the order dated 18.8.1981 is modified and occupancy right is granted to the petitioner only for 4-00 acres and the remaining 5-00 acres is granted to respondents 1 to 3 jointly. being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is seeking to quash the impugned order. 2. respondents 1 and 2 also filed application-seeking registration of occupancy rights of the same land to an extent of 5-00 acres. their claim was rejected by the land tribunal by an order-dated 11.9.1986. the same was challenged in r.a.no. 192/87, which was later numbered as w.p.no. 30270/98. the said writ petition was allowed on 7.7.1999 quashing the order dated 11.9.1986 of the land tribunal and the matter was remitted to the land tribunal for fresh disposal of the applications of the petitioner herein and respondents 1 and 2. accordingly, the impugned order is passed by the land tribunal. the petitioner was also a party to the aforesaid writ petition. hence, the order passed therein, which has become final, is binding on the petitioner, 3. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 18.8.1981 granting occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner for 9-00 acres of land was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 2003 (HC)

Neelakanth and anr. Vs. Siddalingayya and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-28-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Kant258

k. sreedhar rao, j.1. the appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in r.a. no. 91 /91 on the file of district judge, bijapur arising out of the judgment and decree passed in o.s. no. 109/90 on the file of principal civil judge, bijapur. the appellants are defendants 3 and 4 in the suit. the first respondent is the plaintiff. the respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 1 and 2. the plaintiff is the son of second defendant. the first defendant is the coparcener of the second defendant. the defendants 3 and 4 are purchasers of the suit lands from the first defendant under registered sale deed ex. p. 17 and p. 18. the plaintiff contends that the property under ex. d. 1 was sold by second defendant in favour of first defendant without his knowledge. the plaintiff had reposed full trust in second defendant. the second defendant took the plaintiff to tahsildar's office took his signature under the pretext as a witness to the document without informing the contents. the first defendant was totally dependent on the second defendant and had no capacity to pay huge consideration of a sum of rs. 36,000/- and odd towards the purchase of the suit land under ex. d.1. therefore, the sale deed executed by first defendant under ex. d.9 is only nominal and not acted upon. the plaintiff further claims that the grandfather of defendants 3 and 4 with full knowledge of voidable circumstances purchased the property in the name of minor/defendant no. 3 represented by his father as the guardian and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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