Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 2014 Page 100 of about 8,031 results (0.022 seconds)

Feb 28 2014 (HC)

Present:- Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind Advocate Vs. Jaimal Singh and Anothe ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-28-2014

rs.no.4671 of 2013 (o&m) 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh rs.no.4671 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision:28.02.2014 gian kaur ....appellant versus jaimal singh and another ....respondents coram:- hon'ble mr.justice rakesh kumar garg1 whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?. 2. to be referred to reporters or not?. 3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present:- ms.rupinder kaur thind, advocate for the appellant. rakesh kumar garg, j (oral) appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed executed by defendant/respondent no.2 in favour of defendant/respondent no.1 for the land measuring 2 kanals 1 marla on 26.2.1992 situated at village manga sarai, tehsil and district amritsar, was null and void and was not having any binding effect on the plaintiff, further restraining the defendants from selling/alienating the land in question to anybody else. according to the averments made, karnail singh, husband of the appellant had purchased the land measuring 4 kanals 3 marlas vide registered sale deed dated 23.1.1979. said karnail singh executed a registered will dated 31.10.1996 with regard to said land in her favour. karnail singh died on 10.12.1998 and thus, kadian savita 2014.03.04 10:09 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh rs.no.4671 of 2013 (o&m) 2 she became the absolute owner of the said land and was also in possession of the same after his death. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2014 (HC)

“after Hearing the Rival Contentions of Both the Learned Counsel for ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-25-2014

civil revision nos.2589 & 2598 of 2012 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh1 civil revision no.2589 of 2012 jagir singh ......petitioner versus bhajan singh & ors. .....respondents 2. civil revision no.2598 of 2012 jagir singh ......petitioner versus rattan singh .....respondent date of decision:- 25.2.2014 coram: hon'ble mr. justice mehinder singh sullar. present: mr.sushil saini, advocate for the petitioner. mr.harit sharma, advocate for respondent no.1 in both the cases. mr.r.l.sharma, advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 in cr no.2589 of 2012. mehinder singh sullar, j.(oral) as identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, i propose to decide the indicated two revision petitions, arising out of the similar impugned orders, by virtue of this common decision, in order to avoid the repetition.2. the conspectus of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petitions and arvind kumar sharma 2014.03.04 10:41 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh civil revision nos.2589 & 2598 of 2012 2 emanating from the record, is that initially, respondents-plaintiffs bhajan singh and rattan singh sons of sanjha singh (for brevity the plaintiffs .) have instituted two civil suits against petitioner-contesting defendant jagir singh son of sanjha singh and others defendants (for short the contesting defendant .), for a decree of declaration to the effect that they are owners and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 2014 (HC)

Hargobind Singh Vs. Ajaib Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-10-2014

-1- rs.no.4430 of 2013 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh rs.no.4430 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision: 10.02.2014 hargobind singh ....appellant versus ajaib singh ....respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice paramjeet singh1 whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. 2) to be referred to the reporters or not ?. 3) whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?. present: - mr.r.k.singla, advocate, for the appellant. ***** paramjeet singh, j. this regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2012 passed by learned additional civil judge (senior division).bathinda, whereby the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2013 passed by learned district judge, bathinda, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant has been dismissed. the detailed facts of the case are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced in detail. however, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining singh ravinder 2014.03.05 09:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh -2- rs.no.4430 of 2013 the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land, fully detailed and described in the headnote of the plaint and further from dispossessing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2014 (HC)

Ram Phal Vs. Preet Singh and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-04-2014

rs.no.661 of 2014 (o & m) 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh rs.no.661 of 2014 (o & m) date of decision: february 04, 2014. ram phal ..appellant(s) versus preet singh and others ..respondent(s) coram: hon'ble mr.justice paramjeet singh1 whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.2) to be referred to the reporters or not ?.3) whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?. present: mr.gaurav mohunta, advocate for the appellant. paramjeet singh, j. this second appeal arises from a suit filed by appellant/plaintiff-ram phal against defendants-noor mohammad and others which has been partly decreed by the court of firs.instance vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2012 whereby suit for specific performance has been partly allowed and sale deed bearing vasika kumar parveen 2014.03.04 18:12 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document rs.no.661 of 2014 (o & m) 2 no.1504/1 dated 08.02.2005 in favour of defendant no.4 qua 4 marlas i.e.1/2 share of land comprised in khewat no.1134/1095, khatoni no.1477 khasr.no.433 (0-8m) adjoining the land of plaintiff, has been set aside and defendants have been restrained from interfering into his peaceful possession over 12 marlas of land i.e.aforementioned 4 marlas of land and 8 marlas of land comprised in khasr.no.432(0-8m) as per jamabandi for the year 2002-03 and defendants no.1 to 3 were directed to get the sale deed executed with respect to 1/2 share, i.e.4 marlas in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2014 (HC)

Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari @ Abdul Sa Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh R ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-20-2014

..... a8 for prosecution under the prevention of corruption act, 1988 from the concerned authorities. he obtained sample signatures and handwritings of a4, a5, a7 and a8 in the presence of mediators and sent the standard and suspected signatures to the government examiner of questioned documents (geqd) for comparison and report. he received the handwriting expert opinion. one of the investigating officers .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 2014 (HC)

Haridas Prasad (D) Lrs Suryadeen Vs. Teerath Prasad Judgement Given ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-17-2014

second appeal no.277 / 2011. 17/02/2014. shri b.k.singh, advocate for the appellants. heard on admission. this second appeal under section 100 of cpc has been filed by the appellant / plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2010 passed in regular civil appeal no.36-a/08 by learned firs.additional district judge, rewa (mp) confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2005 passed in civil suit no.39-a/2005 by learned second civil judge class- i, rewa (mp).rejecting the suit filed by the appellant / plaintiff. the appellant/ plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration with regard to agricultural land in which the defendants no.1 and 2 have given written statement of admission of suit. the defendants no.3 and 6 have not filed any written statement in spite of their appearance before the trial court and defendant no.7 did not appear before the trial court in spite of service of summons, he was ex-parte. defendants no.4 and 5 have denied the pleadings of the plaintiff and defendants have claimed possession and ownership on the suit property on the basis of lease holder. both the courts below have given concurrent finding that plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 are not the owners of the land bearing survey nos.297, 72, 77 & 78 and further hold that the plaintiff has not exchanged 0.95 acre of land from the defendants no.1 2 and 2 and further hold that the defendants no.1 and 2 have no right to give 0.95 acre of land in exchange. the plaintiff has filed only certified .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2014 (HC)

Saini Pushpinder Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-04-2014

in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cm nos.14624 and 14630-c of 2011in/and rs.no.2203 of 2011(o&m) date of decision: 04.03.2014 devi bhushan gupta ......appellant(s) versus idbi bank ltd.& ors......respondent(s) coram:- hon'ble mr.justice rakesh kumar garg * * * present: mr.mukesh mittal, advocate for the appellant. mr.manish jain, advocate for respondent no.1. mr.n.d.achint, advocate for respondents no.7 & 8. mr.alok jain, advocate for applicants-jaswant singh and balvinder singh. rakesh kumar garg, j. (oral) appellant-dev bushan gupta had filed a suit i.e.case no.308 of 3.8.1990 for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against respondents no.2 to 8 seeking the following relief: claim for a decree for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants that the plaintiff is absolute owner in possession of the suit land fully described in para no.1 (a) and (b) of the plaint and the alleged general power of attorney, five sale deeds dated 28.7.1990 purported to have saini pushpinder 2014.03.10 09:41 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh been effected by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants nos.2 to 4 are all totally illegal, void and non-est documents not effecting the ownership and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land restraining defendants no.2 to 4 from interfering in the ownership and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2014 (HC)

P.Balakrishnan Nambeesan Vs. A.P.Meenakshyamma

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-25-2014

in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice s.s.satheesachandran tuesday, the25h day of february20146th phalguna, 1935 rfa.no. 496 of 2010 and cross objection892010 ------------------------ against the judgment in os111992 of sub court,sulthan bathery ======================= appellants(defendants in the suit): -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. p.balakrishnan nambeesan s/o.parameswaran nambeesan porunnannoor amsom karingari desom, mananthavady taluk.2. padinharathu karthiyani amma w/o.balakrishnan nambeesan porunnanoor amsom karingari desom, mananthavady taluk.3. kizhakkemadathil sivan nambeesan s/o.narayanan nambeesan, porunnanoor amsom karingari desom, mananthavady taluk.4. kizhakkemadathil dakshayani amma w/o.kizhakkemadathil sivan nambeesan porunnannoor amsom, karingari desom mananthavady taluk.5. padinharathu jayaprakash s/o.p.balakrishnan nambeesan, porunnannoor amsom karingari desom, mananthavady taluk.6. padinharathu pradeep s/o.p.balakrishnan nambeesan, porunnannoor amsom karingari desom, mananthavady taluk.7. chithralekha, d/o.kizhakkemadathil sivan nambeesan porunnannoor amsom, karingari desom mananthavady taluk. by advs.sri.r.d.shenoy (sr.) sri.s.vinod bhat respondents/(supplemental plaintiffs2to7in the suit): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. a.p.meenakshyamma, w/o. e.k. gopalan nair savithalayam, tharuvana post porunnanoor amsom, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2014 (HC)

Amarjeet Kaur Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-11-2014

*in the high court of delhi at new delhi % date of decision:11. h march, 2014 + rfa1842013 & cms no.6157/2013(for stay) & 6158/2013 (for condonation of 99 days delay in filing the appeal) amarjeet kaur through: ..... appellant mr. ravi gupta, sr. adv. with mr. mohit gupta, ms. megha gaur and mr. ajay gulati, advocates. versus delhi development authority & ors ..... respondents through: ms. shobhana takiar, adv. for r-1. mr. pallav saxena and mr. abhishek kumar, advs for r-2. mr. sumit bansal and ms. richa oberoi, advs. for scb. coram :hon ble mr. justice rajiv sahai endlaw1 the appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 25 th august, 2012 of the court of the additional district judge (adj)-04,south district, saket court complex, new delhi of dismissal in limine, as barred by time, suit no.354/2012 filed by the appellant/plaintiff, consequent to the rejection of plaint under order 7 rule 11(d) of the civil procedure code, 1908 (cpc). the appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of 99 days delay in filing thereof.2. notice only of the application for condonation of delay was issued to the respondents/defendants. reply to the application has however been filed by the respondent/defendant no.2 ms. neelima begeria. though in response to the notice, the respondent/defendant no.3 mr. b.s. gill had appeared in person on 23rd august, 2013 and accepted notice also on behalf of respondent/defendant no.4 mr. mohanjeet singh and respondent/defendant no.5 ms. gurjeet .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 2014 (HC)

Civil Revision No.1740 of 2014 Vs. Satwinder Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-07-2014

civil revision no.1740 of 2014 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh civil revision no.1740 of 2014 date of decision:- 7.3.2014 joginder singh ......petitioner versus satwinder singh & ors. .....respondents coram: hon'ble mr. justice mehinder singh sullar. present: mr.kulbhushan raheja, advocate for the petitioner. mehinder singh sullar, j.(oral) the compendium of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, respondent nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs satwinder singh son of joginder singh and others (for brevity the plaintiffs .), have instituted the civil suit against remaining respondents no.5 to 14-defendants no.1 to 10 kuldeep kaur w/o gurdyal singh and others, including petitioner-defendant no.11 joginder singh son of chand singh (for short the defendants .), for a decree of declaration to the effect that, notwithstanding anything contained contrary to the plaintiffs in the revenue record or record of title, they are co-owners to the extent of 1/4th and shares mentioned therein in the parcels of the land in dispute. they have also challenged the judgment & decree dated 16.10.1981 and resultant mutation no.2667, in pursuance thereof sanctioned in favour of kuldeep kaur defendant no.1 and the sale deeds dated 18.5.1987 & 20.5.1987 executed by her in favour of defendant nos.3 to 6 as illegal, null, void and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiffs.2. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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