Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1992 Page 4 of about 885 results (0.020 seconds)

Nov 25 1992 (SC)

Jeet Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-25-1992

Reported in : 1992(3)SCALE233; (1993)1SCC325; [1992]Supp3SCR246

..... in pursuance of an order or direction of a court of competent jurisdiction. it is used in contrast to separate living by agreement of parties or at the intervention of mediators without the intervention of a judicial proceeding in a competent court of law.10. that leaves us to the question whether the consent recorded by the nyaya panchayat would be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 1992 (HC)

Thomas Varghese Vs. P. Jerome

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-05-1992

Reported in : [1993]76CompCas380(Ker); 1992CriLJ3080

..... the complainant and to make unlawful enrichment to himself, the accused caused the issuance of a lawyer's notice on september 25, 1989, alleging incorrect acts. by the intervention of mediators, the accused agreed to remit a sufficient amounts in the bank so as to honour the cheque. the complainant agreed to forgo interest on the amount. contrary to this agreement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 25 1992 (HC)

Kerala Private Motor and Mechanical Workers' Federation Vs. State of K ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-25-1992

Reported in : (1993)ILLJ401Ker

..... officer to investigate the dispute without delay with the object of bringing about a settlement. the duty and function of the conciliation officer is, as his very name indicates, to mediate between the parties and to make an effort to settle the dispute. this court, while hearing a petition for mandamus, is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 1992 (HC)

Hargovindbhai Prabhubhai Patel and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : May-04-1992

Reported in : (1993)2GLR1100

..... is here to serve. to serve what? toserve, insofar as law can properly do so, within limits that i have already stressed, the realisation of man's ends, ultimate and mediate...law cannot stand aside from the social changes around it.it is possible that in the last century the prevalent concept of family was of a certain pattern. indeed in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 1992 (HC)

Vishwa Mittar Vs. Jit Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-24-1992

Reported in : (1992)102PLR618

g.r. majithia, j.1. the unsuccessful plaintiff-appellants have assailed the judgment and decree of the first appellate court affirming on appeal those of the trial judge dismissing their suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-respondents to leave a passage as per terms of the compromise recorded in civil suit no. 32 of 1975 decided on january 3, 1975, in this regular second appeal. ,2. the facts :-the plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter the plaintiffs) filed civil suit no. 32 of 1975 for restraining the defendant-respondents (hereinafter the defendants) from blocking the passage shown as 'abcd' leading to their fields from the main road, comprised in khasra no. 2064/1302 and 1065/1302, by erecting a field boundry at point c that the suit ended in a compromise on the statements of the parties ; that in accordance with the compromise, the parties left a path and agreed to preserve the same ; that the suit was dismissed in terms of the compromise duly recorded in court ; that the plaintiffs had been using the path, but six months prior to the filing of the suit, the defendants started cultivating the land underneath the path and this necessitated the filing of the present suit as stated above.3. defendant no. 1 admitted that civil suit no. 32 of 1975 had been filed. the other pleas were denied and it was pleaded that the alleged compromise was never acted upon ; that the other co-sharers through whose land the passage was carved out were not made parties to the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1992 (HC)

Jagat Singh and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Jul-17-1992

Reported in : 1994CriLJ175

orderr.p. sethi, j.1. the petitioner khazan chand, an addl. deputy commissioner, in revision petition no. 1/92 and petitioners jagat singh and others in bail application no. 110/91 are alleged to be the kingpins of a criminal conspiracy by which the state is alleged to have been defrauded to the tune of rs. 1,51,23,000/-. they are involved in what is popularly known as 'birpur land scandal case'. the petitioners in both the cases have prayed for the grant of bail in anticipation of their arrest in terms of section 497a, cr.p.c. none of the petitioners has so far been arrested by the investigating agency.2. the facts of the case as disclosed by the investigating agency are that the land measuring 2253 kanals 12 marlas situate at village birpur, tehsil jammu, was requisitioned for the use and occupation of the indian army by the deputy commissioner, jammu, under the provisions of the requisitioning and acquisitioning of the immovable property act, 1968, in the month of july, 1977. the land included 1600 kanals out of the land comprising survey no. 1035. it is alleged that the said land was initially shamlat deh. 374 kanals 18 marias out of this land was transferred in favour of the state under the big landed estates abolition act, through a mutation, annexure r1. it is further alleged that being banjar qadim i.e., unclulturable, 2192 kanals 16 marlas out of remaining 2274 kanals was transferred in favour of the state and reserved for grazing purposes of the village community .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 1992 (HC)

Harendra Chandra Nath and ors. Vs. Bijoy Krishna Nath and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Jul-10-1992

d.n. baruah, j. 1. this second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-4-86 passed by the district judge, cachar, silchar dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 17-12-83 passed by the assistant district judge, no. 2, silchar, cachar, in title suit no. 77 of 1980. 2. at the time of admission of appeal only one substantial question of law was formulated i.e. 'whether the suit is barred bylimitation?' 3. at the time of hearing also the learned counsel for the appellants has urged only this question of law. the fact of the case, is that --upendra chandra nath (since deceased) instituted a suit (t.s. no. 77/80) in the court of the assistant district judge no. 2, cachar, silchar against bijoy krishna nath, anil kr. nath and two others. the third and fourth defendants were pro forma defendants. during the pendency of the suit upendra ch. nath died leaving behind the appellants as his legal heirs. accordingly their names were substituted. the plaintiff-upendra ch. nath along with his brother satyendra chandra nath jointly owned and possessed land measuring 22 bighas 15 kathas 2 chataks covered by s. r. patta no. 95. satyendra nath died leaving his widow as his sole heir. after 3/4 years of the death of satyendra nath his widow hemoprova devi, remarried. according to hindu widows' re-marriage act, 1856 her share of property reverted back to the plaintiff. late -- upendra ch. nath. he was possessing the land since the death of satyendra .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 1992 (HC)

Dulana Dei Alias Dolena Dei Vs. Balaram Sahu and Two ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jul-28-1992

Reported in : AIR1993Ori59

b.n. dash, j.1. this appeal by the plaintiff is against a reversing judgment.2. admittedly, narayan prasad patnaik and umasankar patnaik (respondents 4 and 5 who were defendants 1 and 2 in the suit) were the owners of the suit land measuring 68 decimals in plot no. 1653 under khata no. 101 of village iswarpal, samil kadelipal and they executed a registered sale deed dated 6-5-1971 (ext. 1) for a consideration of rupees 3,000/- in favour of bela bewa, the mother of the plaintiff-appellant dulan dal. thereafter, they cancelled the said sale deed on 30-4-1973 by ext. 1 on the ground of nonpayment of consideration and re-sold the suit land in favour of respondents 1 to 3 (defendants 3 to 5) by a registered sale deed dated 4-2-1977 (ext. 8). there is also no controversy that bela bewa died in 1976.3. the case of the appellant-plaintiff is that before execution of the registered sale deed in favour of her mother, there was a written contract for sale of the suit land on 12-3-1971 between the vendors and the vendee on payment of rs. 1,700/- by the vendee to the vendors and after execution of such contract for sale the vendors delivered possession of the suit land to the vendee on 5-5-1971. it is her further case that her mother continued to remain in possession till her death whereafter she herself remained in possession and that since after execution of the registered sale deed ext. b in their favour the respondents 1 to 3 (defendants 3 to 5) created disturbance in their possession .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 1992 (HC)

Sahib Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Kumar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-11-1992

Reported in : (1993)103PLR206

ashok bhan, j.1. this is defendants' appeal. ram kumar plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as a plaintiff) filed the present suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 32 kanals 4 marias. one harphool died leaving behind two widows paton and bujan, defendant no. 8. smt. paton and smt. bujan inherited the property of harphool singh in equal shares. on 16.3.1968, sujan defendant no. 8 adopted ram kumar, plaintiff through a registered adoption deed. on 20 3.1968, paton executed a registered will in favour of the plaintiff which has been exhibited as ex. p 11. paton died on 21.5.1958. on 25.11.1969, mutation regarding the inheritence of paton was sanctioned to the extent of half of the share in the name of the plaintiff and the other half in favour of smt. bujan. plaintiff was only 12 years old at the time of death of smt. paton and smt. bujan was acting as his legal as well as natural guardian being the adoptive mother. the will ex. p- 1) was in possession of smt. bujan defendant no. 8. on 2.4.1980 and 31.7.1980, smt. bujan executed two separate sale deeds in favour of defendants nos. 1 to 6 of land measuring 32 kanals 4 marias. plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deeds executed by smt. bujan on 2.4.1980 and 31.7.1980 were void and not binding on the plaintiff. plaintiff also claimed possession of the suit property. another claim put in was that mutation dated 25.11.1969 was wrongly sanctioned. case of the plaintiff was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 1992 (HC)

Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Governm ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-31-1992

Reported in : (1993)103PLR501

g.r. majithia, j.1. the petitioners have impugned the order of financial commissioner, haryana, dated august 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the commissioner, dated may 2, 1979 in this writ petition under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india.2. the facts :the petitioners' father, shri ram kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and gulab singh, report in the roznamcha was entered at serial no. 119 on november 22, 1952. the mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on march 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a civil suit by one of the sons, namely, mai ram the suit was decreed on january 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of civil courts decree was sanctioned on april 21, 1957. the collector, hissar, vide his order dated march 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. the order provided that form f be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the punjab security of land tenures rules, 1956. the petitioners were not issued any notice by the collector, agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. after passing the order, he did not communicate form 'f' to the petitioners the petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the commissioner. the same was rejected on may 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation the order of the commissioner was assailed in revision before the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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