Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: karnataka Year: 2010 Page 1 of about 93 results (0.007 seconds)

Nov 04 2010 (HC)

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer and Sri Nir ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-04-2010

..... , a peremptory order was passed on 2.9.09, emitting the appellant to comply with the office objections within one week by depositing cost of rs. 1,000/- in bangalore mediation centre. the office objections having not been complied with within the time allowed, the order took effect and as a result, the appeal stood dismissed for non-prosecution.3. seeking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2010 (HC)

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer and Assista ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-03-2010

..... , a peremptory order was passed on 2.9.09, permitting the appellant to comply with the office objections within one week by depositing cost of rs. 1,000/- in bangalore mediation centre. the office objections having not been complied with within the time allowed, the order took effect and as a result, the appeal stood dismissed for non-prosecution.3. seeking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2010 (HC)

The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) South Western Rathray Vs. the ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-03-2010

..... , a peremptory order was passed on 2.9.09, permitting the appellant to comply with the office objections within one week by depositing cost of rs. 1,000/- in bangalore mediation centre. the office objections having not been complied with within the time allowed, the order took effect and as a result, the appeal stood dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. seeking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2010 (HC)

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer and Sri. H. ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-03-2010

..... , a peremptory order was passed on 2.9, 09. permitting the appellant to comply with the office objections within one week by depositing cost of rs. 1,000/- in bangalore mediation centre. the office objections having not been complied with within the time allowed, the order took effect and as a result, the appeal stood dismissed for non-prosecution.3. seeking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2010 (HC)

Sudha Enterprises, a Partnership Firm,vs. Cave Caterers Private Limite ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-01-2010

..... . petitioner/defendant has filed written statement and counter claim on 14.11.2006. plaintiff has filed a rejoinder on 27.1.2007. suit was referred to mediation by the bangalore mediation center on 16.11.2007. mediation having not materialised, the suit was referred back to the court on 6.2.2008. issues in the suit have not been framed and no progress .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 2010 (HC)

Sri N. Ramachandrappa Vs. Smt. M. Geetha

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-13-2010

Reported in : 2010(2)KCCR1069

..... of the phrase lawful' can be pressed into service. the said phrase lawful' cannot be stretched to an absurdity to render the proceedings before the mediation center otiose. it is no doubt true that the court is also required to assure itself of the maturity and the comprehension of the spouses: ..... minimal or even remote, the courts are required to grant a decree for dissolution of marriage. it is no doubt true that rule 25 of the mediation rules would contemplate that the settlement arrived at between the parties is lawful. usage of the phrase 'lawful' in medication rules is only to ascertain ..... with the terms of settlement accepted by the parties. further, in this view, there is no question of the court which refers the matter to mediation/conciliation being debarred from hearing the matter where settlement is not arrived at. the judge who makes the reference only considers the limited question as to ..... tried to play fraud with law, but however, the situation on hand is not identical.5. as observed earlier, the proceedings were referred to the mediation center by the family court. the parties have even found that there is no possibility of them continuing to stay as husband and wife. hence they ..... their claim. the said order is impugned in this writ petition.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was referred to the mediation center by the family court itself so that the matter could be thrashed out without going through the agony of a full-fledged trial. he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 2010 (HC)

Dr. Sudhakar Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-10-2010

..... of the church of south india and respondents 2 to 9 are the members of the said constituent churches.3. accused no. 1 is presently serving as bishop and deputy mediator of karnataka central diocese and church of south india, and by virtue of he being the bishop is also the chairman of all the boards that fall under the karnataka .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2010 (HC)

D.N.Annaiah S/O Late S Narayana Rao and ors Vs. D.N.Shankar Kumar S/O ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-03-2010

..... have to examine the evidence of dw-4 venkatarayappa. according to him, in regard to nine sale deeds total sale consideration payable was rs .4,34,000/-, he was the mediator to the transaction and out of rs 4,34,000/- was paid to the plaintiff at the instance of the defendants. but in the cross-examination he stated that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 2010 (HC)

Dr.Shama Rao D, S/O Late Doraiswammy S, Vs. Dr (Mrs) Anupama

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-29-2010

..... them for the reason it defied reasonable logic as to how the sale receipt could contain some amount which is actually not paid by him. he felt there was some mediator on behalf of the petitioner's father and the concerned company to misuse the name of the respondent, which in the process hurt the respondent, he felt cheated and insulted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 2010 (HC)

Sri ThimmappagowdA. S/O Late Velapurigowda, and ors. Vs. the Deputy Co ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-22-2010

1. petitioners are calling in question the order dated 17.02.2009 passed by the deputy commissioner, hassan district. hassan, vide arinexure-e. 2. by the said order, the deputy commissioner exercising his inherent powers under section 25 of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act', for short), has withdrawn his earlier order dated 23.12.2002 and has confirmed (he order dated 26.03.2003 passed by the assistant commissioner. he has further directed cancellation of mutation entry no. 12/2007-08. the tahsildar has beendirected to enter the name of respondent no.5 here hi in the record of rights.3. the dispute started when the mutation entry bearing no.29/87-88 was approved by the tahsildar. hassan, entering the name of puttegowda s/o velapurigowda - respondent no.4 herein as khatheda: in respect of land bearing sy. no.399/3 measuring 16 gunlas situated at hassan village. hassan taluk. this mutation vv;;s eutectic upon the death of the father of puttegowda allegedly on the basis of the consent given by the brothers of puttegowda viz.. the petitioners herein. the brothers of puttegowda - the petitioners herein challenged this mutation entry by filing r.a.no. 19/97-98 before the assistant commissioner. hassan sub-division. hassan. they contended that upon the death of their father, they have got equal right over the property in question and therefore, their names oughtto have been jointly entered along with puttegowda upon the death of their father. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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