Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Rajesh S. Patil, J
Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani – Appellant
Versus
Sugandha Hiremath – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suit background and initial mediation suggestions in family dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties argue consent requirement for mediation referral (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. mediation voluntary under cpc, mediation act in civil suits (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. prior family mediation attempts failed despite efforts (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. precedents affirm mediation cannot be imposed without consent (Para 13) |
| 6. referral viable only if settlement possibility exists (Para 14) |
| 7. no mediation referral absent settlement prospects (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
J U D G M E N T
“The question before me is to decide, whether the parties who are closely related should be referred to mediation, when one of them is not willing to go for mediation.”
1. The present Suit is filed for specific performance of a family arrangement of 1994. Plaintiff No. 1 is the sister of Defendant Nos. 1 and 5. In the Suit, an Interim Application has been preferred by Defendant No. 1 under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”). Plaintiffs have filed their reply to the said Interim Application. Defendant No. 1 further filed his Affidavit in re-joinder. Hence, the pleadings in the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
