Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 118 results (0.111 seconds)

Aug 02 2005 (SC)

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

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-02-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3353; 2005(5)ALD1(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)876; 2005(3)ARBLR81(SC); 2005(3)AWC2996(SC); 2005(3)BLJR1934; 2005(6)BomCR839; (2006)2GLR1312; JT2005(6)SC486; 2005(6)KarLJ5

..... suit or in any other suit or proceedings.(vii) such other categories of persons as may be notified by the high court.rule 6 : venue for conducting mediation :the mediator shall conduct the mediation at one or other of the following places:(i) venue of the lok adalat or permanent lok adalat.(ii) any place identified by the district judge within the ..... commit to participate in the proceedings in good faith with the intention to settle the dispute, if possible.rule 20 : confidentiality, disclosure and inadmissibility of information:(1) when a mediator receives confidential information concerning the dispute from any party, he shall disclose the substance of that information to the other party, if permitted in writing by the first party.(2 ..... directed to examine it and if agreed, it shall request the planning commission and finance commission to make specific financial allocation for the judiciary for including the expenses involved for mediation/conciliation under section 89 of the code. in case, central government has any reservations, the same shall be placed before the court within four months. in such event, the ..... , the court may reformulate 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 as if the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 2005 (SC)

Shanti Prasad Devi and anr. Vs. Shankar Mahto and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2905; 2005(4)ALD116(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)848; 2005(3)AWC2537(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1608; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN119; 2005(3)CTC550; JT2005(6)SC6; 2005(II)OLR(SC)431; (2005)5

..... before the expiry of original period of lease and second, fixation of terms and conditions for the renewed period of lease by mutual consent and in absence thereof through the mediation of local mukhia or panchas of the village. the aforesaid renewal clauses (7) & (9) in the agreement of lease clearly fell within the expression 'agreement to the contrary' used in ..... . the renewal as provided in the original contract was required to be obtained by following a specified procedure i.e. on mutually agreed terms or in the alternative through the mediation of mukhias and panchas. in the instant case, there is a renewal clause in the contract prescribing a particular period and mode of renewal which was 'an agreement to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2005 (SC)

G. Srinivas Goud Vs. State of A.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-03-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3647; 2005CriLJ4367; JT2005(12)SC215; 2005(8)SCALE34; (2005)8SCC183; 2005(2)LC1509(SC)

..... and proceeded to the place in question along with two constables. on his way he took two persons along, one of them being a police constable to act as a mediators/independent persons. the memo of search proceeding is exhibit p.1. after reaching the spot he prepared a panchnama. exhibit p.2 which is signed by the accused persons, two ..... our view, there is no substance in the argument. p.w. 5 is a reserve policeman and there is no bar in law for a policeman to act as a mediator/paunch witness. it should be kept in view that this was a raid which was conducted by excise officials and not by the police.6. the main thrust of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 2005 (SC)

Bal Patil and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-08-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3172; 2005(5)ALD123(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)973; 2005(3)AWC2796(SC); 2005(6)BomCR769; [2005(4)JCR60(SC)]; JT2005(7)SC185; (2006)2MLJ186(SC); (2005)6SCC690; 2005(2)LC1

..... . there were also apprehensions expressed by many prominent muslim leaders that there might be interference with and discouragement to their cultural, religious and educational rights. abdul kalam azad acted as mediator in negotiations between the national leaders of the times namely late nehru and patel on one side and late jinnah and liaqat ali on the other. nehru and patel insisted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2005 (SC)

Gopal Zarda Udyog Etc. Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Del ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-30-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC4243; 2005(102)ECC513; 2005(188)ELT251(SC); JT2005(12)SC119; 2005(8)SCALE26; (2005)8SCC157

..... in the manufacture of chewing tobacco (final product) falling under sub-heading 2404.40 of tariff act, 1985. in the manufacture of the final product, they were using an inter-mediate product known as 'additive mixture'. an intelligence was collected by the officers of the preventive wing of the commissionerate to the effect that the appellants were manufacturing the said 'additive .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 2005 (SC)

State Through Inspector of Police, A.P. Vs. K. Narasimhachary

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-07-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC628; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)32; 2006CriLJ518; JT2005(12)SC553; (2005)8SCC364

..... at cuddapah. according to pw- 1, he approached pw-8 at 6.35 a.m., whereas according to pw-8, he came to him at 8.00 a.m. the mediators were summoned and the trap was laid after making all arrangements therefore at about 12.30 p.m. after the transaction was completed, the respondent was found having not only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 2005 (SC)

Triloki Nath and ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-28-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC321; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)1; JT2005(9)SC370; (2005)13SCC323

..... 'may be that the lathi used by khuddey hit triloki'. merely a suggestion was given to pw-3 on behalf of the appellants that triloki nath and sahdev tried to mediate between the two groups and after they started beating triloki nath and sahdev with lathi and in the melee triloki nath and sahdev in turn assaulted others, but the same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 2005 (SC)

Calcutta Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. Shrey Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-09-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1879; (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN120; 100(2005)CLT235(SC); JT2005(3)SC143; (2005)4SCC245

s.h. kapadia, j.1. the short question which arises for determination in these civil appeals by grant of special leave by calcutta municipal corporation is - whether the imposition for the process of change in the name of the owner in the assessment books of the corporation is in the nature of 'a fee' or 'tax'.2. for the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts of civil appeal no.5631 of 2000.3. premises bearing no.9a, jatindra mohan avenue, calcutta - 700 006 belonged to tapas ghosh, meenakshi sinha and gayatri chandra. by several deeds of conveyance, they sold the said premises to m/s shrey mercantile (p) ltd., m/s drishti mercantile (p) ltd. and m/s kic resources ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the developers'). the building in the premises was very old and was in a dilapidated condition. the developers decided to construct a new building after demolishing the existing old structure. the developers submitted the building plan for sanction which the corporation refused to accept without the names of the developers being brought on record by way of mutation. on 21.3.1997, the developers applied for mutation by deletion of the names of the previous owners and substitution of their names for which the corporation demanded mutation fees of rs.3 lacs under calcutta corporation (taxation) regulations, 1989. this demand was challenged by filing of writ petition in the calcutta high court.4. the calcutta municipal corporation (amendment) act, 1988 was passed by the state .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 2005 (SC)

N.V. Srinivasa Murthy and ors. Vs. Mariyamma (Dead) by Proposed Lrs. a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2897; 2005(5)ALD113(SC); 2005(3)AWC2541(SC); 2005(3)CTC545; JT2005(6)SC1; 2005(5)KarLJ17; 2005(II)OLR(SC)425; (2005)5SCC548; 2005(2)LC898(SC)

d.m. dharmadhikari, j. 1. in these appeals preferred by the plaintiffs the only question involved is whether the trial court and the high court were right in holding that the plaint under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure was liable to rejection. the high court by the impugned order passed in misc. second appeal reversed the order of the first appellate court and upheld that of the trial court.2. learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in this appeal contends that if the plaint allegations containing all facts are read in proper perspective, 'cause of action' has clearly been pleaded and the high court grossly erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action.3. with the assistance and on the comments and counter comments of the parties, we have carefully gone through the contents of the plaint. we find that the plaint has been very cleverly drafted with a view to get over the bar of limitation and payment of ad valorem court fee. according to us, the plaint was rightly held to be liable to rejection if not on the alleged ground of non-disclosure of any cause of action but on the ground covered by clause (d) of rule 11 of order vii of code of civil procedure namely that 'the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be clearly barred by law'.4. as per the plaint allegations of the plaintiffs, their late father had incurred some debts and had therefore borrowed a sum of rs. 2000/- from the predecessor in title .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 2005 (SC)

Ramlal and anr. Vs. Phagua and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-19-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC623; 2005(6)ALT70(SC); 2005(5)CTC282; [2006(1)JCR82(SC)]; JT2005(9)SC47; RLW2006(2)SC1506; 2005(8)SCALE427; (2006)1SCC168

ar. lakshmanan, j.1. the above appeal was filed by the unsuccessful defendants against the final judgment and order dated 06.08.1998 passed by the high court of madhya pradesh at jabalpur in second appeal no. 500 of 1989 whereby the high court allowed the second appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff. 2. the short facts of the case are as follows:- the respondent/plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of mst. hasrat bi after obtaining a loan of rs. 400/- and also executed an agreement stating therein that in case she returns rs. 400/- to mst. hasrat bi within 3 years, property shall be reconveyed to him. the respondent failed to repay the loan within the stipulated period of 3 years. therefore, mst. hasrat bi got her name recorded in the revenue and sold the property to the appellant ramlal shyamlal and one pyarelal by a registered sale deed for a sum of rs. 4,000/-. according to the appellants, they came in possession of the property and are cultivating since then. respondent no.1 - plague filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 01.12.1965 executed by her in favour of mst. hasrat bi was only a nominal sale and she continues to be the owner of the suit land. she also prayed for possession of the suit land. the trial court held that the registered sale deed dated 01.12.1965 has not been executed nominally and accordingly the trial court dismissed the suit. the plaintiff/respondent herein filed first appeal before the district judge who also dismissed the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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