Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: karnataka Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 95 results (0.010 seconds)

Jun 27 2005 (HC)

The Managment of S.K.F. Bearings India Ltd. Vs. Mr. S.M. Ravi Kumar an ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-27-2005

Reported in : [2006(109)FLR580]; ILR2006KAR445

..... officers - (1) the appropriate government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint such number of persons as it thinks fit, to be conciliation officers, charged with the duty of mediating in and promoting the settlement of industrial disputes.(2) a conciliation officer may be appointed for a specified area or for specified industries in a specified area or for one ..... and keeping in mind the object of the power conferred on him. from the scheme of the act, it is clear that conciliation officers are appointed with a view to mediate and bring about settlement and create a congenial atmosphere for the purpose of industries peace. therefore, once the conciliation officer is satisfied that there is an existing industrial dispute or ..... as convening of a meeting between the management and the workmen. from the scheme of the act it is clear that the conciliation officers are appointed with a view to mediate and bring about settlement and create a congenial atmosphere for the purpose of industrial peace. therefore, it would not be permissible for him not to initiate conciliation proceedings, if in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 2005 (HC)

Dilip Kumar Alias Srinivas and anr. Vs. Damodar Narayanrao Rammangudka ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-22-2005

v.g. sabhabhit, j.1. this appeal by defendants 1 to 7 is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the court of the dist. judge, gulbarga in r.a. no. 17/01 dated 30-6-2003 dismissing the appeal and cross-objections preferred by the defendant no. 2 and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the court of the addl. civil judge (sr. dn.), gulbarga, in o.s. no. 203/ 1995 dated 10-8-2001 wherein the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/12th share in the suit schedule house bearing 1-3-185 situated at chincholi and in suit lands measuring 21 acres 11 guntas both situated at doulatpur village in chincholi taluk and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit land in sy. no. 125 measuring 4 acres 27 guntas and for the relief of future mesne profits of the suit properties and further ordering that defendants 2 to 5 are also entitled to partition and separate possession of their 1/12th share each in the house property and the suit lands in sy. nos. 18 and 19 of doulatpur village.2. the essential facts of the case leading up to the filing of this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial court are as follows:the plaintiff filed o.s. 203/95 on the file of the addl. civil judge (sr. dn.), gulbarga, seeking for partition and separate possession of his 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2005 (HC)

Sri Chandrasen Bapusaheb Jadhav and anr. Vs. Sri Gangappa Yallappa Hol ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-09-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR1940

huluvadi g. ramesh, j.1. this appeal is by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned principal civil judge (senior division) belgaum, in r.a. no. 40/1991 in allowing the appeal and setting the judgment and decree of the trial court in o.s. no. 877 1986.2. plaintiffs filed a suit before the i additional civil judge (junior division) belgaum in o.s. no. 87/1986 for possession of the suit property. according to the plaintiffs, suit property in sy.no. 90/1b situated at balekundri khurd village measures 4 acres 2 guntas and is assessed at rs. 9.72ps. the land is a watan land granted for officiating as patil of the village officer under the karnataka village offices abolition act, 1961 and bombay hereditary offices act, 1894. plaintiffs state that sy.no. 90/1 was divided into 90/1a and 90/1b. originally the land was held by balavantrao parashuram jadhav, bapusaheb parashuram jadhav and yeshwantrao parashuram jadhav. since the land was resumed by the government of mysore, it was re-granted to balavantro jadhav in the year 1966 by the assistant commissioner belgaum, and m.e.no. 2074 was rectified in pursuance of the regrant order. subsequent to this regrant order, partition took place and the suit land was allotted to the share of bapusaheb parashuram jadhav who died in the year 1976 and thus plaintiffs became the owners of the suit land prior to the introduction of the karnataka village offices abolition act, 1961. the suit land was alienated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2005 (HC)

Dattappa (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Dasharath (Deceased) by L.Rs and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-03-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)KarLJ585

ordern.k. patil, j.1. petitioner, now represented by his legal representatives, being aggrieved by the order dated 14th september, 1989 on the file of the land reforms appellate authority, bijapur in l.r.'- no. 68 of 1989, setting aside the order passed by land tribunal, bijapur, dated 31st january, 1989 in no. klr.sr. 220, has presented the instant revision petition.2. the deceased tulajaram also, represented by his legal representatives as respondents 1 to 6 herein, claiming to be tenant, had filed form 7 under rule 20(1) of the karnataka land reforms rules, 1974 read with section 48-a(1) of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 for registration of occupancy rights on 30th june, 1976. the said application filed by deceased tulajaram had come up for consideration before the land tribunal, bijapur on 15th march, 1979. the land tribunal, has ordered for registration of occupancy rights in favour of deceased tulajaram in respect of an extent of 4 acres 3 guntas in sy. no. 471/2c (03 guntas of pot kharab), holding that, the land in question is a tenanted land and the same vested in government as on the relevant date and therefore, he is entitled for registration of occupancy rights in his favour. aggrieved by the order passed by the land tribunal, bijapur, dated 15th march, 1979, the petitioner herein filed a writ petition no. 6143 of 1981 before this court. the said writ petition had come up for consideration before this court on 5th october, 1982 and the writ petition filed by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 2005 (HC)

Roshanbi and ors. Vs. Usmansab Shaikaji Attar Since Deceased by His Lr ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-16-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR560; 2006(4)KarLJ336

huluvadi g. ramesh, j.1. this second appeal is by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the ii addl. civil judge, (sr. dvn.,) belgaum, in r.a. no. 75/1988 allowing the appeal filed by the defendant and dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.2. the plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 7/8th share in the suit property. the suit property is a residential house bearing cts. no. 883/a and 883/b situate at aralikatti deshpande galli, belgaum. the original propositus - shaikji had two wives namely halimabi and roshanbi. the defendant is the son of halima bi, the first wife of shaikji. the plaintiffs - 2 to 8 are the children of second wife who is plaintiff no. 1 - roshanbi. the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant is that the defendant is the step - son of plaintiff no. 1. plaintiffs - 2 to 8 are the step brothers. the suit property was said to be purchased by shaikji on 28.9.1926 and he died in the year 1969. it appears that the mother of the defendant halimabi died prior to shaikji and after that, shaikji married plaintiff no. 1. another brother of defendant namely, umarsab also died prior to shaikji. it is stated that there was a division effected, by way of family arrangement, in respect of suit property bearing cts no. 883/a and 883/b in the year 1979 and there is no partition in the suit house and since there was some misunderstanding between the parties, they started living separately from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 15 2005 (HC)

Uppar Malleshappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-15-2005

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. writ petition is by a purchaser of agricultural land measuring an extent of 0.54 acres of land in sy. no. 62/b and also an extent of 0.85 acres of land in sy. no. 63/b of chikkajayeganur village, hospet taluk, bellary district, in terms of a sale deed dated 3-11-1976 claiming to have been executed by one shiddalingappa.2. though the petitioner was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of this land the 4th respondent one smt. dasara lingamma, w/o. shivappa claiming to be a granddaughter of the original grantee had filed an application before the assistant commissioner in the year 2001 under the provisions of the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 (for short, the 'act') praying for invalidation of the present sale transaction and the earlier transactions on the premise that the original grant being one in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste community; that it had been imposed with a condition that the land should not be sold in favour of non-scheduled caste community persons for ever etc., and such a land having been sold by the legal heirs of the original grantee and presently the respondent in the application viz., the present writ petitioner being in possession and enjoyment of the land who had claimed such ownership and possession under the sale deed dated 3-11-1976 said to have been executed by the said shiddalingappa the transactions are required to be invalidated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 2005 (HC)

Dr. Madhav Shankar Pandit and ors. Vs. Dr. Ganapati Narayan Sabhahit a ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-14-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR657

v. gopalagowda, j.1. this review petition is filed by respondents 5 to 7 in m.f.a. no. 5472/2001 requesting this court to review the judgment dt. 8/8/2005 passed by this court in m.f.a. no. 5472/2001 and further requested to set aside the same and dismiss the appeal with costs urging various legal contentions.2. in this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to, as has been assigned in the misc. first appeal.3. the first ground urged in this petition is that no appeal lies under section 72(4) of the bombay public trust act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the bpt act) against the order dt. 24/9/2001 passed in misc. no. 26/1998 on the file of the district judge, uttar kannada district, karwar, rejecting the claim of second appellant to appoint him as the trustee of the trust of sree vinayaka devaru temple, idagunji. therefore the order passed by this court allowing the appeal is without jurisdiction, hence the judgment sought to be reviewed suffers from error apparent on the face of the record is the ground on which this petition is filed to review the order passed in the appeal.4. sri kamath, learned counsel placed strong reliance upon section 72(1) of the bpt act which is extracted hereunder:72(1). any person aggrieved by the decision of the charity commissioner under section 40, 41, 70 or 70a or on the questions whether a trust exists and whether such a trust is a public trust or whether any property is the property of such trust may, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 2005 (HC)

M. Narayanappa Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-09-2005

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. these two writ petitions, though are by two different persons, both of whom are claiming as legal heirs of persons in whose favour agricultural lands had been granted - an extent of 2 acres each - way back in the year 1947 and as persons belonging to depressed class [adi karnataka] and directed against different orders passed by the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner - statutory functionaries under the provisions of the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 (for short, 'the act'), first as original authority and second as the appellate authority - after having heard the matter at length, i am disposing of the petitions by this common order, as the legal issues that are canvassed on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents are common, though on facts, some more issues are sought to be raised insofar as the respondents 3 to 5 in w.p. no. 8141 of 2003 are concerned.2. both petitions owe their origin to the proceedings under the act and the assistant commissioner having initiated the proceedings suo motu in terms of section 5 of the act for invalidating the transfers that had been effected either by the grantee or their legal heirs, as also the subsequent series of transactions that had taken place, till the proceedings were initiated and by issue of notice to persons who were presently in occupation of the subject lands.3. insofar as w.p. no. 8141 of 2003 is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 2005 (HC)

S. Shivanna Vs. the Special Tahsildar and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-24-2005

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. non-interference is the rule insofar as the orders passed by the revenue authorities under the provisions of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964 (for short, 'the act'), for the purpose of mutating names of persons who have acquired rights by showing their names in the revenue records.2. it is for this reason this court dismisses a good number of such writ petitions, directing the parties to make good their claims, rights, title and interest etc., before the civil court and whereupon to seek the revenue authorities for changes in the revenue records also in terms of the determination by the civil court vis-a-vis warring parties. but interference, though an exception and on rare occasions, will be in a case where it is warranted.3. the writ jurisdiction of this court whether for issue of certiorari or writ of mandamus or even for issue of writ of prohibition, will be exercised when this court notices that the administrative authorities have exercised the power given to them under the statutory provisions in an arbitrary, whimsical and unreasonable manner which shocks the conscious of the court. i find the present writ petition brings to the notice of this court one such situation and therefore compels interfere in the matter.4. the brief facts leading to this petition are:that the petitioner is complaining of orders passed by the tahsildar in terms of his order dated 4-8-2001 purporting to act under the provisions of section 128 of the act and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2005 (HC)

Sripad Ekanath Gaonkar Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Kumta Division

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-21-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR1895

orderk. ramanna, j.1. this writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.7.1996 passed by the respondent assistant commissioner in case lrm.ap.cr.95/95-96.2. the brief facts leading to this case are that the land bearing survey no. 98/a measuring 1 acre 17 guntas 8 annas of hanehalli village, kumta taluk was granted by land tribunal to one devu honnappa gowda and the occupancy rights was issued to him on 25.5.1981 as per annexure-a. the petitioner herein was looking after devu honnappa gowda therefore he made a registered will bequeathing some portion, i.e., 82 ft x 66 ft., of the said survey number in favour of the petitioner under a registered will dated 9.4.1985. thereafter, pursuant to the said will the petitioner's name was incorporated in the record of rights. but respondent asst. commissioner issued notice to the petitioner as well as devu honnappa gowda under section 61 of the karnataka land reforms act stating that the devu honnappa gowda has violated section 61 of the act by transferring a portion of the land in favour of the petitioner. to this the petitioner has given reply. thereafter by order dated 25.7.1996 the respondent herein has passed order for vesting of the land granted to devu honnappa gowda. therefore the petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition.3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned high court govt. pleader for the respondent.4. it is contended by the learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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