Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 2005 Page 11 of about 2,223 results (0.045 seconds)

Dec 20 2005 (HC)

Thippiripati Ijaiah Alias Ajay Vs. State of A.P.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-20-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALD(Cri)339; 2006CriLJ1117

..... came to the police station and informed that her elder sister set fire to herself. then he got admitted kattamma into hospital.16. pw-7 is one of the inquest mediators. his evidence indicates that he was not present at the time of inquest. the remaining evidence available on record is two dying declarations. one is recorded by pw-13 and ..... -14, c.i. of police at the relevant point of time, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panch witnesses. pw-7 is inquest mediator, ex. p. 14 is inquest report. as per the inquest report, the deceased said to have died due to burn injuries, which were caused by pouring kerosene on the deceased .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2005 (HC)

Vijai Shankar Alias Lal Babu Son of Shiv Shankar and Rama Shankar Alia ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-04-2005

Reported in : 2005CriLJ2765

..... talks about the marriage of his younger sister deepak kumari were going on in village tendui district varanasi. his brother-in-law rajendra prasad upadhyay and deceased vishwanath upadhyay were mediator. about one month prior to the occurrence appellant rama shankar came to his house and asked him as to why he is worried about the marriage of his sister. he ..... is not a fit person for marriage. the accused had threatened him and had also challenged that they will not permit the complainant or any other person who acted as mediator in the marriage. the appellants had not stated about any enmity with the complainant and there is no suggestion for false implication also. rama shankar alias chhotey stated that he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 2005 (SC)

Shanti Prasad Devi and anr. Vs. Shankar Mahto and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2905; 2005(4)ALD116(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)848; 2005(3)AWC2537(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1608; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN119; 2005(3)CTC550; JT2005(6)SC6; 2005(II)OLR(SC)431; (2005)5

..... before the expiry of original period of lease and second, fixation of terms and conditions for the renewed period of lease by mutual consent and in absence thereof through the mediation of local mukhia or panchas of the village. the aforesaid renewal clauses (7) & (9) in the agreement of lease clearly fell within the expression 'agreement to the contrary' used in ..... . the renewal as provided in the original contract was required to be obtained by following a specified procedure i.e. on mutually agreed terms or in the alternative through the mediation of mukhias and panchas. in the instant case, there is a renewal clause in the contract prescribing a particular period and mode of renewal which was 'an agreement to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2005 (HC)

Laxmi NaraIn @ Latoor Vs. the State of Raj. and Ladu

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-28-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1678; 2005(3)WLC780

..... ran away from there, then they started beating us. ladies were also beaten and they drove the tractors towards us to kill us. then to mediate, prabhata, ramchandra gurjar, narain, harsai etc. came there and mediated with great difficulty. if these persons had not been there then our so many persons would have been crushed and killed by tractors. these persons had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2005 (HC)

Moulasab Bandgisab Goundi Vs. Yamanappa Ameenappa Hikodi

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-02-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Kant412; ILR2005KAR5230; 2006(5)KarLJ295

huluvadi g. ramesh, j.1. this second appeal is by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the ii addi. district judge, bijapur in r.a. no. 7/88 wherein the learned district judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the addl. civil judge, bijapur in o.s. no. 169/83.2. the plaintiff had filed a suit to declare that the defendant no. 5 has not acquired any right, title or interest in the alleged sale deed dated 10-5-1982 executed by defendants 1 to 4 and also to issue permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 5 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the plaintiff and to order for delivery of possession if the court finds that the plaintiff is not in possession or lost the possession of the suit land. the plaintiff said to have purchased the suit schedule property from defendants 1 to 4 for a valuable consideration of rs. 10,000/- under a sale deed dated 30-7-1979 which is to the extent of 3 acres 10 guntas situated at tadalagi village, basavana bagewadi taluk. it is stated that immediately after the sale deed the title of the suit property passed to the plaintiff and the possession was also given and he started cultivating the property, and that subsequently, defendants 1 to 4 without the knowledge of the plaintiff have executed the sale deed dated 10-5-1982 in favour of defendant no. 5 in respect of the same property for a sale consideration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2005 (HC)

M. Abdul Lateef Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-28-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)ALD752; 2005(2)ALT762

..... sole witness was available namely complainant-p.w.2-vema reddy and other evidence only with regard to recovery of the tainted money from the petitioner and the evidence of mediators as also the deputy superintendent of police, who conducted the trap. therefore, it has to be considered whether there was any evidence to establish demand for bribe and whether in ..... to the sale officer. we also informed him that if he can clear of the balance of rs. 2,000/- he entitled for short term loan.'even the evidence of mediators and 5, who participated in the preparation of panchanama, they stated as follows:p.w.4: it is true that c.o. has informed me and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2005 (HC)

Kasinath Patel Vs. Radha Bai and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-20-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)ALD859; 2005(4)ALT740

n.v. ramana, j.1. the appellant, assailing the judgment and decree dated 14.11.1994 passed by the subordinate judge, bodhan, nizamabad district, dismissing the suit o.s. no. 35 of 1985, filed by him for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 5-5-1983, filed the present appeal.2. the appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. for the sake of expediency, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.3. the brief case of the plaintiff, as pleaded by him in the plaint and the amended plaint is that - plaintiff claims that defendant no. 1 agreed to sell him an extent of ac. 10-34 guntas in sy. no. 47 and ac. 11-00 in sy. no. 135 of kandharpalli village of madnoor taluk, for a sale consideration of rs. 48,000/-, and accordingly defendant no. 1 executed an agreement of sale dated 5-5-1983 in his favour, and pursuant thereto, he having paid an amount of rs. 12,005/-, claims that defendant no. 1 had also put him in possession of the said lands. thereafter, he claims to have paid an amount of rs. 10,201/- on 19-5-1983 and rs. 4,450/- on 2-8-1984 towards sale consideration, and in acknowledgement of which, defendant no. 1 also passed on receipts. the plaintiff claims that he in all paid an amount of rs. 26,656/- to defendant no. 1, and that though he is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of rs. 21,344/-, in spite of repeated oral requests, defendant no. 1 had not come forward to perform her part of the contract, and deferred the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2005 (HC)

Rajinder Singh and ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-31-2005

Reported in : 122(2005)DLT151; 2005(83)DRJ219

s. ravindra bhat, j.1. these petitions under article 226 of the constitution of india are directed against an order passed by the financial commissioner under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation & prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, as applicable in delhi (hereafter called 'the act'). by that order, the financial commissioner set aside that extension of date for consolidation of scheme (in village pooth khurd, delhi) from 23.2.1998 to 31.8.1998 as irregular, and remanded the case back to the consolidation officer, to proceed further on the basis of a resolution dated 23.2.1998. this was pursuant to a revision petition filed by angrej singh and others, challenging the consolidation proceedings of village pooth khurd, delhi; the said revision petitioners are parties to these proceedings, and are referred to as 'the contesting respondents'.2. a notification under section 14(1) of the act, for consolidation proceedings was issued on 5.9.1988. a consolidation officer was appointed on 13.4.1989. after considerable time, another consolidation officer was appointed on 16.8.1996. likewise, the advisory committee, which was initially constituted on 9.6.1989, was reconstituted on 11.9.1996. the consolidation scheme for the village was announced on 23.2.1998 by the consolidation officer. the contesting respondents alleged certain irregularities, and sought intervention of the financial commissioner in the matter. consolidation proceedings were stayed on 24.4.2000; .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 2005 (HC)

State of Kerala Vs. Hariharan

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-04-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)KLT173

..... the person whom he offended.the only suggestion made by the investigating officer is that there were some matrimonial disputes between the deceased and his wife and a1 was a mediator and that may be the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. that is only a suggestion made by the investigating officer. there is no evidence to show that ..... there was any matrimonial dispute between the wife of the deceased and the deceased and a1 was the mediator. no effort was made by the prosecutor to prove the motive. as held by the apex court in ramgopal v. state of maharashtra : 1972crilj473 if in a criminal case, if .....

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!

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