Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1926 Page 1 of about 225 results (0.015 seconds)

Mar 17 1926 (PC)

S. Ramachandra Iyer Vs. T.S. Narayanasami Aiyar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-17-1926

Reported in : AIR1927Mad426

..... is binding on the parties and is not irrelevant. therefore the district munsif ought to have framed an issue as regards the mediation and recorded a finding thereon. seeing he has not taken such a course, strictly speaking, i ought to call for a finding. but, though there is no issue, the parties ..... mediators also agreeing beforehand that they should abide by the decision of the mediators, i think if such a mediation is completed, i. e., ended in a decision that so much be paid by one party to the other, that decision ..... ); whether the entries in the plaintiff's account are true and (2) what amount is the plaintiff entitled to recover? at p. 5 he also says that the question of mediation is irrelevant for the purpose of the suit. if there are disputes between two parties and if they agree to refer the matter to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 1926 (FN)

Myers Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Oct-25-1926

..... that, while president wilson had, on june 4, 1920, vetoed an earlier budget act, which, like this, denied to the president any participation in the removal, he had approved the mediation and conciliation act of july 15, 1918, and the railroad labor board act of february 28, 1920, which prohibited removals except for the causes therein specified. the assertion that the ..... act of june 10, 1890, c. 407, 12, 26 stat. 131, 136, board of general appraisers; act of july 15, 1913, c. 6, 11, 38 stat. 103, 108, commissioner of mediation and conciliation (misconduct in office only); act of june 2, 1924, c. 234, 900b, 43 stat. 253, 336, board of tax appeals. (b) neglect of duty or malfeasance in office .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 1926 (PC)

Chitturi Venkataratnam and ors. Vs. Siram Subba Rao

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-26-1926

Reported in : AIR1926Mad1040; (1926)51MLJ410

..... admissible in evidence. it purports to be a kararnamah or release of partnership share and it recites that in consideration of a sum of rs. 2,100 settled by the mediators, the executant relinquishes his share, title and interest in the partnership business. admittedly the partnership was possessed of immoveable property and the learned judge in second appeal has held that ..... to release his right in the partnership.2. inasmuch as he received a consideration of rs. 2,100 for this release that amount is clearly the amount settled by the mediators as being the share in the assets of the partnership to which he was at that time entitled. the real question at issue is whether this is a document surrendering .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 1926 (PC)

Ramabhadra thevar and ors. Vs. Arunachalam Pillai and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-15-1926

Reported in : AIR1926Mad601; 95Ind.Cas.108; (1926)50MLJ468

..... amount of principal together with the interestas soon as you execute and get registered before the 14th september, 1910, a security bond in respect of immoveable properties estimated by the mediators at rs. 6,000if security is not given before the said stipulated date, i shall up to the date on which the security is given, add interest on principal and ..... . a the mortgagor undertook to repay 'as soon as you execute and get registered before 14th september, 1910, a security bond in respect of immove-able properties estimated by the mediators at rs. 6,000 in order that no disputes might arise in the matter of the said sale propertics since there arc included therein the properties given as security under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1926 (PC)

Narayana Sah Vs. Sankara Sah and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-12-1926

Reported in : AIR1927Mad53; (1926)51MLJ621

..... the parties. the evidence of the 1st defendant is supported by the evidence of krishna sah who is a respectable witness and who admittedly was one of the persons who mediated between the 1st and 10th defendants. he states that the 1st defendant was ready to give a share to the 10th defendant, that there was nothing said about any quarrels ..... and that there was no complaint of breaking open the lock as giving rise to misunderstandings between the parties. the 10th defendant says that dr. venkatasami and one raghul sah mediated but they are not called. on the evidence 1 do not think i can hold that the 10th defendant is entitled to mesne profits for any period prior to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 1926 (PC)

T. Krishnajee Bhat Vs. Sadasiva Tawker and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-18-1926

Reported in : AIR1927Mad249

..... the same out of the assets of defendants 1 to 8 in his hands.2. the case of the plaintiff is that, in august 1919, the 1st defendant acted as mediator in a claim by the plaintiff's father against the late nawab of banganapalle and collected about rs. 65,000 from the nawab; that out of that sum a sum .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 1926 (PC)

The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-28-1926

Reported in : 96Ind.Cas.1011

..... arid the plaintiffs allege that the village, though it was nominally granted by the government, was really. acquired as a result of a family settlement, the government merely acting as mediators in the matter. the plaintiffs, urge that in any event the clause in question, imposing a restraint on alienation is void.4. the subordinate judge, agreeing with the plaintiffs gave .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1926 (PC)

M.L.M. Ramanathan Chetti and anr. Vs. Muthu Valliappa Chetti Alias Kas ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-07-1926

Reported in : AIR1927Mad322; (1927)52MLJ59

..... in getting him released. elayaperumal had dealings with s.r.m. and was also similarly interested. the 2nd plaintiff was a friend of the 1st plaintiff and also acted as mediator between all the parties. it was agreed that in full discharge of the 3|4 share of the a.r.p. brothers (that took part in o.s. no. 64 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 1926 (PC)

Nirman Singh Vs. Lal Rudra Partab NaraIn Singh

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-01-1926

Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR1409

atkinson, j.1. this is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated september 18, 1922, of the court of the judicial commissioner of oudh which reversed a, judgment and decree dated july 6, 1920, of the subordinate judge of bahraich. the main question for determination on this appeal is whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation. the subordinate judge held that it is not barred, and the appellate court took the opposite view, holding that it was barred. the pedigree of the parties showing their descent from lalta singh, who died in the year 1882, the relation between them, and the position they have respectively taken up in the litigation out of which this appeal has arisen, are indicated with sufficient fullness and accuracy in the pedigree as set out in the appellants' case.2. it runs as fallows :- lalba singh (died 1892) | |----------------------------|---------------------| | | |lal bahadur singh sher bahadur singh, |(died june 2, 1916) (defendant no. 5) nirman singh, | | (plaintiff no. 1) | | | | |------| | |---------------|---------| | |lal rudra parbab dukh haran durga bakhsh | | narain singh. singh singh. | |(defendant (defendant (defendant | | no. 1.) no. 2.) no. 3.) | | | |-----------------| | | dalip singh jagatjit singh | | (defendant) (minor) | | no, 6.) (defendant no. 7) |baohoha |(minor) |(defendant no. 4.) | |-------------|---------------| muneshar bishambhar baldeo bakhahsingh. bakhsh singh. bakhsh singh. (plaintiff (plaintiff (plaintiff no. 2.) no. 3 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 1926 (PC)

Ma Mi Vs. Kallander Ammal

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-01-1926

Reported in : (1927)29BOMLR772

john wallis, j.1. the question whether kallander ammal, the plaintiff in this suit, was divorced in the year 1918 by her husband shaik moideen, now deceased, and so lost her rights of inheritance in his estate, is dealt with in the appeal which came before this board in the principal suit brought by her against the present first and second defendants, who claim to have succeeded to the estate of the deceased as his widow and son. in the present suit the plaintiff seeks to recover from them certain lands in burma of the estimated value of rs. 6,000, conveyed to her by her late husband by a registered deed of gift dated july 20, 1914, which provided that out of the income remaining after the payment of the government revenue she was to expend rs. 450 every year for the charitable purposes mentioned in the schedule and to enjoy the balance; and that after her death her heirs were to continue the annual payment of rs. 450 and to divide the balance according to the mahomedan law. the defendants pleaded that the gift was invalid according to mahomedan law as the donor had never put the donee in possession, but had remained in possession until his death, and also that the gift had been revoked by the donor by a registered deed dated august 20, 1919. the district judge held that the gift was not complete without possession, even if it should be regarded as a wakf, and that on the evidence possession had not been proved and dismissed the suit. the plaintiff appealed to the high court, .....

Tag this Judgment!

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