Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 1994 Page 1 of about 125 results (0.097 seconds)

Feb 15 1994 (SC)

Shailesh Prabhudas Mehta and ors. Vs. Calico Dying and Printing Mills ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-15-1994

Reported in : [1994]80CompCas64(SC); (1994)2CompLJ58(SC); JT1994(1)SC671; 1994(1)SCALE624; (1994)3SCC339; [1994]1SCR968; 1994(1)LC427(SC)

..... the board of directors for refusing transmission. the board of directors have stated in the affidavits and also appended the copies of the earlier correspondence including the proceedings of the mediator and the history of the disputes originally between late shri prabhudas v. mehta and the management of the company and subsequently between the heirs of shri prabhudas v. mehta and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1994 (SC)

Alapati Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-28-1994

Reported in : 1994(2)Crimes254(SC); JT1994(3)SC449; 1994(2)SCALE715; 1994Supp(2)SCC278; 1994(1)LC793(SC)

..... , 4th and 5th metatarsals and 7) preximal phelanx.5. p.w. 21. the sub-inspector searched the house of the accused and effected some recoveries in the presence of the mediators. after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. the plea of the accused has been one of denial.6. the prosecution examined 23 witnesses out of which p .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1994 (SC)

Major Homi Rustomji Daruwala Vs. Pesi Sorabji Doodha and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-05-1994

Reported in : (1995)1GLR569; 1995Supp(2)SCC584b

s. mohan and; m.k. mukherjee, jj.1. this civil appeal arises out of an application filed by the appellants herein under section 13-aa of the bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates control (amendment) act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as the act. the said section enables the specified landlord to recover possession from the tenant owned by him or by any member of his family on the ground that such premises are bona fide required by him for occupation by himself or by any member of his family. the specified landlord means a person who is a member of the armed forces of the union or who as such member has duly retired. it is not in dispute the appellant is a specified landlord. the application was resisted on behalf of the respondents on two grounds: (1) he is not the sole owner, there are other co-owners who own the property; (2) in any event the requirement is not bona fide. the trial court was of the view that there are other co-owners who own the property and, therefore, the appellant herein alone cannot found an action under section 13-aa of the act. it also went into the question of bona fide requirement and did not accept such requirement. accordingly the application was dismissed. aggrieved by the same the matter was taken up before the high court in revision. the high court solely concentrated on the issue whether the property is owned by him exclusively or whether the other co-owners also had ownership. it came to the conclusion that the fact there was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 1994 (SC)

Hans Raj and ors. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-12-1994

Reported in : 1994(5)SCALE216; 1995Supp(1)SCC405; 1995(1)LC150(SC)

paripoornan j.1. these are connected appeals. the appellants in both the appeals are the same persons. but the respondents are different in the two different suits and appeals. civil appeal no. 808/92 is filed against the judgment in second appeal no. 2841/80 dated 20.9.91. the appellants are plaintiffs in suit no. 314/t dated 4.8.77. the suit was dismissed by the trial court and it was affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court in c.a. no. 507/91t dated 8.8.79. second appeal no. 2481/80 filed by the plaintiffs-appellants was also dismissed. that has resulted in filing c.a. no. 808/92 in this court.2. the short facts of the case relevant to understand the controversy are as follows. the maharaja of erstwhile state of patiala gifted 115 bighas 4 biswas of land to one harbans singh. mutation was effected in the name of harbans singh on 29.11.51. the plaintiffs purchased the aforesaid land from harbans singh by two registered sale deeds dated 7.11.52 and 30.11.55. mutation was effected in the plaintiffs favour on 24.4.53 and 7.8.56. as a result of consolidation proceedings, the land measuring 174 bighas and 2 biswas was allotted in lieu of the land measuring 115 bighas and 4 biswas, the revenue authorities took proceedings to modify the mutation effected in the name of harbans singh holding that the maharaja of patiala had given only 'life estate' in the property to harbans singh. later, on 19.1.63 the revenue authorities held that in view of harbans singh's death the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1994 (SC)

Dalip Chand and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-06-1994

Reported in : JT1995(2)SC448; (1995)110PLR284; 1994(4)SCALE587; 1995Supp(1)SCC233; [1994]Supp3SCR192

order1. the whole case appears to have gone on a wrong track. this appeal by special leave arises from the decree dated september 21, 1993 in regular second appeal no. 530/75 dismissing the second appeal of the appellants and confirming the decree of the additional district judge, jullundur in appeal no. 173/72. the additional district judge reversed the decree of the sub-judge first class, jullundur dated august 3, 1972 wherein the sub-judge had declared that the appellants were the owners of the lands in pakistan and in lieu of their lands in pakistan suit lands were allotted to the appellants for rehabilitation and issued a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellants from the suit lands.2. the facts are not in dispute. on march 12, 1928, 60 bighas of land was sold by gajinder singh dhillon to santa singh and bhagat singh for valuable consideration of the land situated in the village sewai tehsil ahmedpur distt., rahimpur khan in bahawalpur state which is a part of pakistan. it is the case of the appellants that mutation was effected on february 17, 1932 in their favour. at the time of the sale dhillon caste was non- agriculturists tribe. by notification dated may 9, 1931 the government notified the dhillon caste as an agricultural tribe. thereafter, it would appear that proceedings ware initiated to review the mutation effected in favour of the appellants as owners and to treat them at mortgagees. before mutation could be effected the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1994 (SC)

Ram Chand Vs. Randhir Singh and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-05-1994

Reported in : AIR1995SC130; JT1994(6)SC404; 1994(4)SCALE395; (1994)6SCC552; [1994]Supp4SCR222

ordermadan mohan punchhi, j.1. this appeal, directed against the judgment and order of a learned single judge of the punjab and haryana court dated february 1, 1983, passed in regular second appeal no. 1611 of 1973, raises two questions of importance, on the true interpretation of clause fourthly in section 15(1) (a) of the punjab pre-emption act, 1913 as applicable to the state of haryana being :(i) whether an agricultural tenant inducted by the usufructuary mortgagee, has a right of pre-emption over the sale made by the mortgagor-vendor? and(ii) whether an agricultural tenant holding under tenancy of the vendor a part of the sold land is entitled to pre-empt the entire sale?2. following are the facts as gathered from one or the other judgment of the three courts below : -some land including 50 kanals 6 marias of land in khasra numbers 294/9(9-12), 1 (6-16), 2 (3-2), 10 (7-8), 12 (8-0) and 13 (8-0) situated in village bhattukalan, tehsil fatehabad, district hissar was owned by one mool chand. as per revenue records adduced in evidence before the learned trial judge, the land stood tenanted even prior to the year 1946 and was so in the year 1950 with one net ram gosain. in 1951, mool chand died and his estate was mutated in favour of his widow and two sons, one of whom was mitter sen and in whose share the above land fell. mitter sen mortgaged six khasra numbers barring 294/9 (9-12), from his inherited land on 16-12-51 in favour of amin chand for rs. 2400 and mutation no. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1994 (SC)

Kingsway Model Town Co. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-05-1994

Reported in : 1994(4)SCALE711a; 1995Supp(2)SCC46

order1. for rehabilitation of the migrants a notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act 1894 for short 'the act' was published in the union gazette on january 4, 1957 proposing to acquire an extent of 108 bighas 13 biswas of the land out of that extent of land the appellant was interested in 10 bighas. the collector in its award dated july 21, 1958 allowed the compensation at the rate of rs. 3.50 per square yard of the acquired land and at rs. 4.15 to the land abutting the main road. on reference, the civil court in its award and decree dated 3rd october, 1961 enhanced the compensation to rs. 5 per square yard land uniformally. on further appeal under section 54, the high court enhanced the market value to rs. 9.20 per square yard by its judgment and decree dated 5th november, 1971. thus this appeal for further enhancement at rs. 15 per square yard.2. the claimants sought to rely on a document post notification sale deed dated 26th april, 1958. all the courts have not rightly relied upon the sale deed and so it serves no useful purpose. ex.a-7 dated 29th july, 1954 on which appellant seeks to rely on unfortunately it relates to the land with building. therefore, it cannot afford any assistance to evaluate the comparative market value of the land. he also sought to rely upon mutation proceedings on the basis of which the high court had enhanced the market value to rs. 9.20. the mutation proceedings are inadmissible in evidence. having considered the judgment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 1994 (SC)

illahi ShamsuddIn Nadaf Vs. Sou. Jaitunbi Makbul Nadaf

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-14-1994

Reported in : 1994(3)ALT48(SC); (1995)97BOMLR937; JT1994(4)SC371; 1994(3)SCALE254; (1994)5SCC476; [1994]Supp1SCR597

kuldip singh, j.1. rajubai was the owner of the house in dispute. jaitunbi, respondent in the appeal herein, is her daughter. shamsuddin, the appellant, is the grandson of rajubai from another daughter mehamunisa who died near about 1933-34. rajubai died on june 7, 1975. jaitunbi instituted a suit for a declaration and possession to the effect that she, 'being a sharer' (class i heir) under the the mahomedan law, was entitled to inherit the house in dispute to the exclusion of the respondent who was a 'distant kindred' (class iii heir). the trial court dismissed the suit. the lower appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit. the high court dismissed the second appeal in limine. this appeal by shamsuddin is against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court as upheld by the high court.2. the lower appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court on the question of inheritance on the following reasoning:the persual of the said classification of heirs makes it ample clear that the original plaintiff/the appellant is the only class i heir of the said smt. rajubai dadu pinjare. it further makes it crystal clear that the original defendant/the respondent is a class iii heir of the said smt. rajubai pinjare. once this position is accepted as correct as per the principle of mahomedan law then i am required to see as to how the allocation of shares takes place. in this respect the commentary at page 253 as mentioned in the above .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 1994 (SC)

Ajit Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-18-1994

Reported in : JT1994(2)SC700; (1994)107PLR416; 1994(2)SCALE316; (1994)4SCC67; 1994(1)LC566(SC)

1. these civil appeals raise the question of award of compensation under land acquisition act of 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'). the respondent, state of punjab issued a notification under section 4 on 4.10.1978 for acquisition of land measuring 284 kanals and 9 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village daulatpur, pathankot. the public purpose of acquisition was for construction of godowns by the central warehousing corporation. the land acquisition collector awarded compensation at the rate of rs. 330/- per marla besides solatium at the rate of 15 per cent and interest at the rate of 6 per cent from 4.11.1978 to the date of actual payment. not being satisfied with the same, the appellants preferred application for references under section 18 of the act. on reference the learned additional district judge enhanced the compensation from rs. 330/- per marla to rs. 700/-. to such of those claimants like the appellants who had received the amount of compensation as per the award. without any protest, this enhancement was denied.2. thereupon, the appellants preferred regular first appeal no. 447 of 1982 to the high court of punjab & haryana. the learned single judge was of the view that two sale deeds exhibit a6 and r6 would provide the necessary data. exhibit a6 dated 14th january, 1977 covers 7 marlas of land situated at a distance of about 50 yards from the suit land. the sale consideration thereunder was rs. 700/-. the other sale deed r6 dated 16th august, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1994 (SC)

State of Punjab and anr. Vs. Hans Raj (Dead) by Lrs. Sohan Singh and o ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-15-1994

Reported in : JT1994(3)SC345; (1994)108PLR200; 1994(2)SCALE372; (1994)5SCC734; [1994]1SCR1008

order1. the notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1894, ('the act' for short) was published in the state gazette of haryana on january 3, 1967, proposing acquisition of land for construction of panchayat office building at tanda. later on, due to consolidation proceedings, without withdrawing earlier notification, another notification dated august 28, 1968 was published under section 4(l) of the act, to acquire 25 kanals 2 marlas of land for the same purpose leaving apart the residue for the civil hospital. the, land acquisition officer awarded compensation for the acquired land @ rs. 28.46 per marla on may 30, 1973. on reference under section 18 of the act the district judge, hoshiarpur enhanced the market value of acquired land to rs. 50- per marla. on further appeal under section 54 of the act, a learned single judge of the high court enhanced the market value of the acquired land to rs.375-per marla. he also awarded rs. 17,0007/-for super-structures shops constructed by the respondents on the acquired land. thereafter, l.p.a. was filed by the state and also cross-objections by the respondents. the division bench confirmed the decree of the learned single judge by its judgment dated 21.9.79. thus these appeals by special leave are filed by the state questioning the enhanced compensation.2. the learned single judge, apart from relying on sale deeds a-4 dated december 16, 1968 and a-5 dated april 18, 1966 of two marlas relating to sands in the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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