Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MOTI RAM (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. versus ASHOK KUMAR & ANR.

Decided
7 December 2010
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Hearing Adjourned

Citations

Official
[2010] 14 S.C.R. 809 · 2010 INSC 859
Also cited as
  • (2011) 1 SCC 466 (6 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

On 31 August, 2010, we had referred the matter for mediation to the Mediation Centre at Chandigarh to attempt to resolve the dispute between the parties.

p. 810

Today, when the matter was called out, our Court Secretary placed before us the Report dated 29th September, 2010 received from the Mediator, which is as foliows:

p. 810, margin B

"Mr. Ashok Kumar states that he would be ready and willing to vacate the shop on receipt of 1 /3rd of the value of the shop which according to him is worth approximately 50 Lacs and he be paid an amount of 15 Lacs (approx.). The appellant-landlord is not ready and willing to offer the said amount and has extended the concession by giving up on the pending rent only which according to him is pending for last 28 years. Tenant has also expressed his willingness to purchase the property for an amount of Rs. 30 Lacs but the landlord has refused to dispose of the same on the ground of personal necessity.

p. 810, margin B

In this connection, we would like to state mediation proceedings are totally confidential proceeding. This is unlike proceedings in Court which are conducted openly in the public gaze. If the mediation succeeds, by both the parties to the Court without mentioning what transpired during the mediation proceedings. If the mediation is unsuccessful, then the mediator should only write one sentence in his report and send it to the Court stating that the 'Mediation has been unsuccessful'. BeyondJhat, the mediator should not write anything which was

p. 810, margin E

discussed, proposed or done during the mediation proceedings. This is because in mediation, very often, offers, counter offers and proposals are made by the parties but until and unless the parties reach to an agreement signed by them, it will not amount to any concluded contract. If the happenings

p. 810, margin F

in the mediation proceedings are disclosed, it will destroy the confidentiality of the mediation process.

p. 810, margin G

We are compelled to observe this because the mediators should know what kind of reports they should send to the Courts. The report sent in this core should not have mentioned the proposals made by the parties, but should only have stated that the mediation was unsuccessful.

p. 811, margin A

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and the Mediation Centres in all the High Courts and Di~trict Courts in the country, including the Chandigarh Mediation Centre

p. 811, margin B

So far as this case is concerned, at the request of the counsel for tile appellants, list this matter in January 2011. R.P. Matter adjourned.

p. 811, margin B