Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 130 results (0.074 seconds)

Oct 25 2002 (SC)

Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-25-2002

Reported in : AIR2003SC189; 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)391; 2002(6)ALT1(SC); 2003(3)AWC2238(SC); 100(2002)DLT691(SC); I(2003)DMC73SC; (2003)1GLR148; JT2002(9)SC175; RLW2007(3)SC2531; (2003)1SCC49;

..... has to be made to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties but if conciliation or mediation or judicial settlement is not possible, despite efforts being made, the case will ultimately go to trial.10. section 89 is a new provision ..... and conciliation act, 1996 will apply and that case will go outside the stream of the court but resorting to conciliation or judicial settlement or mediation with a view to settle the dispute would not ipso facto take the case outside the judicial system. all that this means is that effort ..... act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a lok adalat under the provisions of that act;(d) for mediation, the court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.'8. it is quite obvious that the ..... the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for-- (a) arbitration; (b) conciliation; (c) judicial settlement including settlement through lok adalat; or (d) mediation. (2) where a dispute has been referred-- (a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply ..... that the parties shall follow the procedure as may be prescribed. section 89(2)(d), therefore, contemplates appropriate rules being framed with regard to mediation.9. in certain countries of the world where adr has been successful to the extent that over 90 per cent of the cases are settled .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 2002 (SC)

Mahadeo Sahni and ors. Vs. State of Bihar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-13-2002

Reported in : AIR2002SC3032; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)349; 2002(3)BLJR2000; 2002CriLJ4065; 2002(3)Crimes187(SC); JT2002(6)SC87; 2002(5)SCALE577; (2002)6SCC656; [2002]SUPP1SCR502

..... and acquitted them.4. the trial court after appreciating the evidence, in the case of the appellants, opined that there was no evidence on the record to show any pre-mediation on the part of the appellants. it was also concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish as to who among the 10 accused, had struck the fatal blow resulting .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2002 (SC)

Keshavlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-04-2002

Reported in : AIR2002SC1221; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)336; 2002(1)BLJR791; (SCSuppl)2002(2)CHN190; 2002CriLJ1776; 2002(2)Crimes92(SC); JT2002(2)SC628; RLW2002(3)SC437; 2002(2)SCALE410; (2002)3SCC2

1. holding that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court on the basis of the findings given being totally erroneous and as a result of misreading the evidence, the high court, vide the judgment impugned in this appeal, set aside the same and convicted the appellant for the commission of offence punishable under section 302 ipc. consequently, the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. the high court found that there was no ground to disbelieve the testimony of five eye-witnesses and to ignore a number of independent circumstances which connected the accused with the commission of the crime.2. appearing for the appellant, shri y.p. singh, learned counsel (amicus curaie) submitted that as the view taken by the trial court, while acquitting the accused, was a probable view, the high court should not have interfered with by convicting and sentencing the appellant. it is contended that there being various omissions, improvements and contradictions in the statement of the eye-witnesses, no reliance should have been placed on their depositions. as the weapon of offence is stated to have not been sent for the examination of finger-print expert, it is argued that the accused could not be connected with the omission of the crime. it is further submitted that failure to produce the report of the serologist showed that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 2002 (SC)

Malhu Yadav and ors. Vs. State of Bihar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-01-2002

Reported in : AIR2002SC2137; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)65; 2002(2)BLJR1399; 2002CriLJ2819; 2002(2)Crimes417(SC); 2002(4)SCALE285; (2002)5SCC724; [2002]3SCR676

raju, j.1. the above appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.7.1999 of a division bench of the patna high court in criminal appeal no. 17 of 1987 confirming the judgment dated 18.12.1986 of the learned 2nd additional sessions judge, darbhanga, convicting and sentencing the appellants for various offences in sessions trial no. 30 of 1983. of the seven accused, who were charged and stood trial before the sessions court, the fifth accused, by name ram prasad yadav, died on 2.7.1994 and during the pendency of the appeal in this court, the second accused malhu yadav died on 5.6.2001.2. the case of the prosecution is that on 1.2.1981 at about 7.30 a.m., rajendra yadav, the informant, (pw-10), who is the brother of the deceased sotilal yadav, had gone to see the standing kerao crop on his land and noticed the first accused lal bachan yadav (a-1), son of shibu yadav (a-3), stealthily uprooting the crops, resulting in a scuffle between them when he caught hold of a-1. on hearing the hulas raised at that time both by pw-10 and a-1, the deceased, his father laxmi yadav (since deceased) and ram kishore yadav (pw-5) as also the accused and some others, arrived at the spot. in the process of exchanging abuses and hot words, when a demand was made by other accused to release a-1, the deceased refused to do so without having a panchayati in the village for the incident. the accused were said to have got engaged on this and ram prasad yadav (a-5) was said to have exhorted the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2002 (SC)

T.M.A. Pai Foundation and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-31-2002

Reported in : AIR2003SC355; 2003(51)BLJR158; JT2002(9)SC1; 2003(1)KarLJ1; (2002)8SCC481; (2002)3UPLBEC2817

..... ), while at the same time affirming the right of individuals under article 29(2). there is need to strike a balance between the two competing rights. it is necessary to mediate between article 29(2) and article 30(1), between letter and spirit of these articles, between traditions of the past and the convenience of the present, between society's need .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2002 (SC)

Narayan Prasad Lohia Vs. Nikunj Kumar Lohia and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-20-2002

Reported in : AIR2002SC1139; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)600; 2002(1)ARBLR493(SC); (2002)IICompLJ374(SC); [2006(1)JCR97(SC)]; JT2002(2)SC222; 2002(2)MPHT154; 2002(2)SCALE232; (2002)3SCC572; [2002]38

..... . pramod kumar khaitan and one mr. sardul singh jain resolve their disputes. for the purposes of this order we are not deciding whether these two persons acted as arbitrators or mediators. that is a matter of contention between the parties which we are, at present, not called upon to decide. for the purposes of this order we are presuming that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 2002 (SC)

Mahila Bajrangi (Dead) Through Lrs. and ors. Vs. Badribai W/O Jagannat ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-19-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)ALD85(SC); 2003(2)ALLMR(SC)380; (2003)1MLJ92(SC); (2003)2SCC464; [2002]SUPP5SCR557

d. raju, j.1. the unsuccessful plaintiff, who lost before the trial court but able to get relief before a learned single judge of the high court, has originally field the above appeal, having once again lost her claims before a division bench of the madhya pradesh high court. the plaintiff-bajrangi filed the suit case no. 1-a/77 civil on the file of the district court, morena, for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property which is a house situated at shyopur kala city, more fully described in the plaint. the suit originally was filed against three persons m/s. jagannath who claimed to be adopted son and shankarlal and badruddin, the tenants. after the death of jagannath his legal heirs have been brought on record. on the demise of shankarlal also, his legal heirs have been brought on record. though the suit filed as early as on 12.10.68 was disposed of on 22.12.78, on an appeal before the high court, the matter was by an order dated 21.1.83 remanded to the trial court. during the remit proceeding on the application of the plaintiff, the heirs of shankarlal and badruddin were deleted from the array of parties. the remand order was said to have been with a direction to consider all the materials on record, after hearing the parties afresh, with no right to produce any fresh material. the suit came to be dismissed by a judgment dated 19.3.83. thereupon the plaintiff pursued the matter on appeal in first appeal no. 25 of 1983 before the high court and a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 2002 (SC)

State of Punjab and anr. Vs. Gram Panchayat and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-06-2002

Reported in : AIR2002SC1365; JT2002(2)SC581; 2002(2)SCALE565; (2002)4SCC93; [2002]2SCR283

order1. this appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment of the division bench of the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh dismissing appellant's cwp no. 5436 of 1995 on february 27, 1996, following the judgment of this court in gram panchayat of village, jamalpur v. malwinder singh and ors. [1985 suppl. scr 28].2. to appreciate the controversy involved in this case it would be necessary to notice the facts giving rise to this appeal. the first respondent filed application before the development & panchayat officer-cum-collector, ludhiana (for short, 'the collector') under section 7 of the punjab village common lands (regulations) act, 1961 (for short, 'the act') for possession of the land in dispute on the ground that the land has vested in it and the same was mutated in the name of panchayat by order of the tehsildar dated september 4, 1986. appellant nos. 2 and 3 contested the claim of the first respondent pleading: that the land belonged to the government of punjab and it was allotted in their favour under a package deal in lieu of which the amount was also deposited in the treasury; that the possession of the land was given to them as per the order of the tehsildar in the year 1970 and on that basis they have been in possession of the same; that the mutation in the name of panchayat was done without notice to them, therefore, it is illegal; that by mutation the panchayat did not become the owner of the land in which there was potato farm which was government .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 2002 (SC)

Wadi Vs. Amilal and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-12-2002

Reported in : JT2002(6)SC16; 2004(1)SCALE82; 2002(2)LC1417(SC)

order1. heard mr. b.d. sharma, learnedcounsel for the petitioner, and mr. rohit minocha, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.2. leave is granted.3. this appeal is directed against the judgment of the division bench of the high court of judicature for rajasthan (jodhpur bench) in special appeal no. 1152 of 1998 dated april 10, 2000.4. the short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether the board of revenue was justified in declining to admit a certified copy of mutation no. 49 dated june 11, 1961 filed as additional evidence under order 41 rule 27 of the code of civil procedure?5. one rupa ram was khatedar tenant of 130 bighas of the agricultural land situated in village dakwa, tehsil rajgarh, district churu, rajasthan (for short, 'the suit land'). he had a son and three daughters. the appellant is one of his daughters and the first respondent is his son. she along with another sister filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that they had half share in the suit land and the first respondent had only 1/4th share: and that the sale effected by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent was null and void and did not operate against them. the germane issue in the suit was whether rupa ram died in the year 1951 or in 1960/61. if he had died after the coming into force of the hindu succession act, 1956, his daughters would be entitled to a share in the suitland. but if he had died prior to the coming into force of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 2002 (SC)

Darshan Singh and ors. Vs. Gujjar Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-08-2002

Reported in : AIR2002SC606; 2002(50)BLJR375; (2002)1CALLT27(SC); JT2002(1)SC11; (2002)1MLJ142(SC); (2002)2PLR233; RLW2002(1)SC180; 2002(1)SCALE70; (2002)2SCC62; [2002]1SCR91

this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the high court of punjab and haryana in letters patent appeal no.55/95.briefly stated, the facts are as follows:two brothers, hira singh and jagjit singh were convicted in a murder case. during their confinement in jail, jagjit singh absconded and hira singh was granted pardon. after release hira singh took possession of the entire land including the share of his brother, jagjit singh. hira singh died sometime in the year 1920 and on his death, one smt. har kaur, wife of a collateral took possession of the land. rulia singh, the adopted son of hira singh questioned the mutation as well as possession of har kaur and, therefore, she filed a suit for declaration that rulia singh was not validly adopted by hira singh and also sought permanent injunction restraining rulia singh from interfering with her possession. the suit was dismissed ultimately by the high court and the land including the share of the jagjit singh was mutated in the revenue records in the name of rulia singh in 1930 and thereafter he remained in undisturbed possession of the land till his death in 1962. darshan singh, ala singh and pritam singh defendant nos. 1-3 (appellants in the appeal) grandsons of rulia singh through his daughter got their names mutated in respect of the land including the share of jagjit singh. one gujjar singh a sixth-degree collateral of jagjit singh challenged the mutation unsuccessfully and thereafter filed the present .....

Tag this Judgment!


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