Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1992 Page 9 of about 885 results (0.016 seconds)

Sep 03 1992 (HC)

Dhonaji Vyankatrao Ghatage Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-03-1992

Reported in : 1994(2)BomCR213

m.f. saldanha, j.1. the appellant before me, at the relevant time, was working as a talathi in the office of waghare saja, taluka radhanagari and it is alleged that in relation to certain mutation entries, which had to be done for the complainant who is p.w. 3 ananda arade, he had made a demand of rs. 150/-. according to arade, the matter had been pending for quite some time and he was anxious that it should be concluded. the accused had visited the village on 15-8-1983 at the time of the flag hoisting function and arade met him along with p.w. 4 pundalik and requested him to complete his work. the accused is alleged to have demanded rs. 500/- which, after some bargaining, was reduced to rs. 150/- and the complainant agreed to come with the money after two days. on 16-8-1983, he went to kolhapur and lodged a complaint with the anti-corruption authorities, who arranged a trap.2. it is relevant to record that the investigating officer very clearly instructed arde that he should engage the accused in a conversation in the presence of the pancha gurav, and that, he should, within the hearing of the pancha, ensure that the accused demands the amount and it is only after this is done that he should hand over the money and give the signal by lifting his cap with his left hand. pursuant to this arrangement, arde and gurav met the accused in his office at about 4.30 p.m. on 17-8-1983. there was only one other person in the office on the adjoining table. instead of talking about the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 1992 (HC)

Padmashree S.N. Swamy Vs. Smt. Gowramma

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : May-28-1992

Reported in : AIR1993Kant208; 1992(3)KarLJ244

acts/rules/orders:transfer of property act, 1882 - section 58;civil procedure code, 1908 - section 100;india evidence act, 1872 - section 92cases referred:smt. indirakaur v. shri sheo lal kapoor, air 1988 sc 1074;chunchun jha v. ebadat ali, air 1954 sc 345;smt. indira kaur v. shri sheo lal kapoor, air 1988 sc 1074;thankra singh v. sheo nath singh, air 1940 allahabad 227;thakur dass v. tek chand, air 1944 lah 175judgement1. this second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 13-7-1981 in r.a. no. 23 of 1979 passed by the learned district judge, mysore, whereby the learned district judge reversed the judgment and decree dated 17-3-1979 made in o.s. no. 186 of 1973 by the learned principal civil judge, mysore.2. facts in brief are :--the appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the trial court.the plaintiff filed a suit for redemption and directing delivery of possession of the suit schedule property on the plaintiff paying a sum of rs. 16,000/- to the defendant within three months and further directed the defendant to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff. on 23-11-1961, the plaintiff and his father executed a mortgage deed by conditional sale for rs. 16,000/- in favour of the defendant with a clause of repurchase upon repayment of the said amount within two years. the plaintiff has further alleged that on the same day the plaintiff executed a lease deed in favour of the defendant agreeing to pay rent at the rate of rs. 110/- per .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 1992 (HC)

Nuka Kamalamba and ors. Vs. M. Ramaiah and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-03-1992

Reported in : 1992(3)ALT673

a. gopal rao, j.1. this appeal is from the judgment and decree in original suit no. 18 of 1984, on the file of the principal subordinate judge, warangal, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for a preliminary decree directing partition of plaint schedule estate and allot 0-24 paise share to the plaintiffs, to appoint a commission to divide the suit estate as per the preliminary decree, to pass a final decree in respect of the shares of the plaintiffs and to put them in separate possession of such shares, for rendition of accounts with effect from may, 1978 by the 1st defendant and for a permanent injunction, restraining the 1st defendant from receiving the rents from the 8th defendant in respect of the suit estate. as plaintiffs 1 and 2 sold away their shares in the partnership subsequent to the institution of the suit, the appeal was preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs 3 to 8.2. the 1st defendant was the owner of an extent of ac. 3-07 guntas of land covered by survey numbers 1683, and 1693 within the municipal limits of warangal town. it appears, the food corporation of india, warangal branch, was in need of a godown and with a view to construct the godowns for the purpose of renting them out to the food corporation of india, a partnership was constituted by eleven persons under ex.a-12, partnership agreement, dated 14-9-1977. defendants 1 to 7, d-10, d-11, first plaintiff and one lingamurty signed the partnership agreement. the object of the partnership business, as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 1992 (HC)

T.N. Khambati and ors. Vs. the Appellate Authority Under Urban Land (C ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-26-1992

Reported in : 1992(2)ALT694

ordersivaraman nair, j.1. there are six petitioners. the first three are brothers and the next three are their sisters. they challenge a common appellate order dated 22.5.1989 passed by the 1st respondent dismissing three appeals filed by petitioners 1 to 3 against the orders dt.26.6.1982 and 22.12.1988 which the 2nd respondent had made under section 9 of the urban land (ceiling and regulation) act, 1976 (for short 'the act'). the orders related to urban land in old no. l42/c corresponding to municipal numbers 1.8.161. to 164 on penderghast road, secunderabad. respondents found petitioners ho 3 to have 706.34 sq.metres each of surplus land above the ceiling limits fixed under section 4 of the urban land (ceiling and regulation) act, 1976. petitioners submit that the above finding contained in the appellate order, which affirmed the order of the 2nd respondent, is illegal and unsustainable.2. petitioners 1 to 3-the brothers, purchased 6794 sq. metres of land consisting of a few residential buildings by sale deed no. 6629/73 dt. 18-10-1973 from the previous owners. they contend that at that time, the land consisted of a residential bungalow, three out houses (residential), one garage, one store room and one toilet. they entered into an agreement on 5-7-1974 for sale of 3989 sq. metres of land on which stood six out of the seven buildings, except the garage, to their sisters-petitioners 4 to 6, for an amount of rs. 1,10,000/-. petitioners 1 to 3 submit that they had received an .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 21 1992 (HC)

Ram Jiyawan Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-21-1992

Reported in : AIR1994All38

orders.c. mathur, j. 1. these petitions arise from proceedings to acquire land under the provisions of the land acquisition act, 1894 (1 of 1894), for short act. common questions of law have been raised and, therefore, the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. the facts stated in the judgment have been taken from writ petition no. 545 of 1991 in which short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the land acquisition officer.2. the facts generally stated in these petitions are as follows:--notification under section 4 was issued and thereafter declaration under section 6 was made. section 17 was applied and possession of the notified land was taken by the collector before publication of the award. at the time of taking possession there were trees and standing crops on the land and they were damaged but no compensation was paid for such damage at the time possession was taken and compensation for such damage was not included even in the final award. notice was issued under section 9(1) and the petitioners preferred claims for compensation. no date was fixed for hearing of the claims and the award was published in the absence of the petitioners. the petitioners were deprived of the opportunity of adducing evidence in support of their claim. without giving them opportunity of hearing the award was made which is accordingly ex parte. the award has been made without obtaining the approval of the state government as required by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1992 (HC)

Brij Behari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-08-1992

Reported in : 1993CriLJ2536

orderj.p. swmwal, j.1. by means of this application under section 482, cr. p.c. the applicant-brij behari seeks to quash the order dated 23-3-1980 (though in the certified copy date mentioned is 28-3-1980), passed by the joint magistrate, basti, and revisional order dated 24-10-1981, passed by the 1st additional sessions judge, basti, in proceedings under section 145, cr. p.c.2. the facts giving rise to the present application are that on the report of s.o. walterganj dated 10-7-1979 proceedings under section 145, cr. p.c. with regard to plot no. 255 area 0-14-7 of village baheria commenced. the learned joint magistrate basti passed the preliminary order on 10-7-1979. both the parties filed written statements and adduced evidence regarding their respective claim with respect to the plot in dispute. the opposite party no. 2 of the present application-jagdambika prasad, was first party and the applicant brij behari, was the 2nd party in the proceedings under section 145, cr. p.c. the first party jagdambika prasad in his written statement claimed to have purchased the plot in dispute from one smt. israji widow of lakchmikant through a registered sale deed and to be in possession thereof since then. it is also averred that the iind party has no connection with the said plot and there was no apprehension of breach of peace from the first party. the second party brij behari in his written statement urged that the sale deed executed in favour of the first party was void and it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 1992 (HC)

Yakub Mahammed and ors. Vs. Revenue Officer-cum-tahasildar and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Sep-24-1992

Reported in : AIR1993Ori174

s.c. mohapatra, j.1. these two applications uner article 226 of the constitution arise out of a ceiling surplus proceeding under the orissa land reforms act.2. petitioners are sons of ibrahim. a suo motu proceeding was initiated against ibrahim for determination of ceiling surplus land. ibrahim pointed out that there was partition among him and his sons. accepting the partition, tahasildar dropped the proceeding. when petitioners came to know that notice has been served on their father ibrahim to surrender the ceiling surplus lands on 31-12-1989, they made enquiry to find out that tahasildar reopened the proceeding and without notice to petitioners, has finalised the proceeding disbelieving the partition of 1954 on the ground that the deed is not registeredand in 1954 petitioners were minors. accordingly, prayer has been made to quash the order dated 17-10-1976 in annexure-3 series and notice dated 31-12-1988 (annexure-4).3. mr. d.p. sahu, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that proceeding could not have been reopened behind the petitioners without notice to them in absence of power of review and factually also tahasildar was not correct to disbelieve the petitioners. mr. sahu has relied upon the subsequent mutation of lands in names of the petitioners accepting the partition. mr. sahu further submitted that in case a proceeding was finalised in the year 1976, there was no acceptable reason why twelve years after, ibrahim was called upon to surrender the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1992 (HC)

Dalbara Singh and Others Vs. Chhaja Singh and Another

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-27-1992

Reported in : AIR1992P& H237; (1993)103PLR125

1. the facts as enfolded in the plaint, briefly, are:--defendant-respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the vendor) owned land measuring 91 kanals 3 marlas situated in revenue estate of sheikhan majra (hereinafter referred to as the suit land); that the same was under mortgage with the plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter the plaintiffs); that the vendor entered into an agreement to sell dated june 14, 1972 with the plaintiffs regarding the land owned by him for rs. 74,000; in that agreement, it was stipulated that the mortgage amountof rs. 32,000 payable to the plaintiffs would be adjusted against the sale price, an amount of rs. 25,500/- was paid to the vendor in cash as earnest money by the plaintiffs at the time of the execution of the agreement to sell and the remaining amount of rs. 16,500 was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed, which was to be done by january 25, 1973; that the plaintiffs filed civil suit no. 737 on december 14, 1972 against the vendor and some of the defendants for an injunction restraining them from transferring the land, the subject matter of the agreement to sell, to anybody else except the plaintiffs; that the suit was decreed on march 1, 1973; that the vendor in contravention of the agreement to sell dated june 14, 1972 and the civil court's decree passed in civil suit no. 737 on march 1, 1973 transferred the suit land to the defendant-respondents by sale deeds executed on december 15, 1972, dec. 15, 1972, march 27, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1992 (HC)

Dharambir and anr. Vs. Bhagat Ram and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-23-1992

Reported in : (1993)103PLR198

a.s. nehra, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the additional district judge, rohtak, on 22-4-1991 by which the appeal of the defendants-appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 4-3-1988 (decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents) was upheld.2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit for possession of the suit land by way of pre-emption on the ground that rati ram and suresh kumar were owners/co sharers to the extent of one-half share in the suit land comprising in khewat no. 293, khatauni no. 529, khasra nos. 48/18/2(1-11), 19/2(1-11). 21(7-11), 22(7-11), 47/25(2-14), 48/23(7-11) and 24/1(3-19), total measuring 32 kanals 8 marias, while the plaintiffs-respondents were owners/co-sharers of the remaining one-half share and that rati ram and suresh kumar sold away their one half share in favour of dharambir and rajbir vendees-defendants appellants for an ostensible consideration of rs. 25 000/- vide sale deed dated 30-3-87. the plaintiffs-respondents, thus claiming themselves to be the co-sharers in the suit land, filed the instant suit for pre-empting the sale, they also contended that the sale, in fact, took place for rs. 20,000/- while an amount of rs. 5,000/- more was got mentioned in the sale-deed fictitiously in order to defeat the right of the pre-emptors. it was also alleged by the plaintiffs-respondents that even the market value of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 1992 (HC)

Tara Singh Vs. Joint Director Panchayat Etc.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-02-1992

Reported in : (1993)103PLR498

g.r. majithia, j.1. the petitioner has assailed the order of the joint director, panchayats, punjab, (exercising the powers of the commissioner). chandigarh dated april 21, 1980, affirming on appeal the order of the district development and panchayat officer (exercising the powers of the collector). amritsar dated november 16, 1978, in this petition under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india.2. the undisputed facts are :--an application under section 7 of the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 (for short, the act) for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed land was filed by gram panchayat, bhittewad. the same was allowed by the assistant collector, i grade, ajnala vide order dated august 31, 1970. appeal against this order was rejected by the collector, amritsar vide order dated december 31, 1970. the petitioner challenged these orders in civil suit no 43 of 1971. the civil court vide judgment and decree dated october 22, 1973 held that the suit land was not shamlat deh and, as such, could not vest in the gram panchayat and that the order of the assistant collector, i grade, dated august 31, 1970 and the appellate order of the collector dated december 31, 1970 were null and void. it was further held that the petitioner was in joint possession of the suit land alongwith other co-sharers. the judgment and decree of the civil court were assailed by the defendants to the suit who were gram sabha, bhittewad and block development officer, chogawan .....

Tag this Judgment!

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