Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 11 of about 118 results (0.077 seconds)

Jan 12 2005 (SC)

Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-12-2005

Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)594; 2005CriLJ929; JT2005(11)SC209; (2005)2SCC409; 2005(1)LC446(SC)

h.k. sema, j.1. all these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 19th march, 2001 passed by the designated court no.3 at ahmedabad in terrorist case no.2 of 1997, terrorist case no. 33 of 1994 and terrorist case no. 16 of 1995. the two-judge bench before whom these appeals were posted for hearing referred the matters to a three-judge bench by an order dated 24.9.2002. the said order reads as under:-'the issue involved concerns the admissibility of a confession in terms of section 15 of the terrorist and disruptive activities (prevention) act, 1987 ( in short 'tada act'). consequently, therefore, the other provisions as contained in sections 12 and 18 have to be read in order to assess the legislative intent therein.this court in state v. nalini : 1999crilj3124 stated the law to be as below:-'80. section 12 of tada enables the designated court to jointly try, at the same trial, any offence under tada together with any other offence 'with which the accused may be charged' as per the code of criminal procedure. sub-section (2) thereof empowers the designated court to convict the accused, in such a trial, of any offence 'under any other law' if it is found by such designated court in such trial that the accused is found guilty of such offence. if the accused is acquitted of the offences under tada in such a trial, but convicted of the offence under any other law, it does not mean that there was only a trial for such other offence under any other law.81.section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 2005 (SC)

State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Awasthi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-16-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)AWC875(SC); [2006(109)FLR625]; JT2006(1)SC19; (2006)ILLJ721SC; (2006)1SCC667

s.b. sinha, j.1. the jurisdiction of the high court to issue a direction for framing a scheme for regularisation of the employees of the u.p. state agricultural produce market board (for short 'the board') is in question in this batch of appeals which arise out of judgments and orders passed by the high court of judicature at allahabad in the writ petitions filed by the private respondents either dismissing or allowing the same.act2. the legislature of the state of uttar pradesh enacted the uttar pradesh krishi utpadan mandi adhiniyam, 1964 (for short 'the act'). the board has been established under section 26-a of the act. section 26-b provides for the constitution of the board. in exercise of its power conferred upon it by section 25-a and 26-x of the act, regulations have also been framed by the board laying down the terms and conditions of the service of the employees of the market committees known as the uttar pradesh agricultural produce market committees (centralised) services regulations, 1984 (for short 'services regulations'). similar regulations have also been framed by the board in respect of its own employees being the uttar pradesh agricultural produce markets board (officers and staff establishment) regulations, 1984 (for short 'establishment regulations').background fact3. in the state of uttar pradesh, there are 244 market committees. 3395 posts were sanctioned but indisputably 5600 appointments have been made. we are herein concerned with the orders of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2005 (SC)

State of Kerala and ors. Vs. Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-06-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2594; JT2005(5)SC427; (2005)11SCC1; [2005]141STC358(SC)

b.p. singh, j.1. leave granted in special leave petition (c) no. 1032 of 2003.2. in these two batches of appeals, a common question arises, inter alia for consideration by this court, namely - whether the incidence of excise duty, having regard to the provision of the kerala abkari act and the relevant rules, falls upon the manufacturer/distiller such as the respondents herein and therefore includable in their turnover for the purpose of levy of turnover tax, or whether the incidence of excise duty falls on the kerala state beverages (manufacturing and marketing) corporation limited, a government company which alone is liable to pay the excise duty on indian made foreign liquor, and consequently the said component is not includable in the turnover of the respondents distillers?3. these appeals came up for hearing before a 3 judge bench of this court. after hearing the parties for sometime, by order dated october 17, 2001, it was observed-that, the point involved was an important one and it would be appropriate if the cases are heard by a larger bench. the referring bench observed thus :-'the question which arises for consideration in these cases is, whether the excise duty levied under the provisions of the kerala abkari act on indian made foreign liquor which is manufactured forms part of the turn over of the manufacturer for the purpose of levy of turn over tax under the relevant provisions of the kerala sales tax act?the liquor which is manufactured by the respondents has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 2005 (SC)

Shin-etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-12-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3766; 2005(3)ARBLR1(SC); 2005(4)AWC3851(SC); [2005]127CompCas97(SC); 2005(4)CTC297; JT2005(7)SC426; (2005)4MLJ84(SC); (2005)7SCC234; 2005(2)LC1277(SC)

b.n. srikrishna, j.1. leave granted.2. i have had the benefit of carefully considering the erudite judgment delivered by my esteemed and learned brother sabharwal. regretfully, i find myself in the unenviable position of having to disagree with the views expressed therein.the judgment of brother sabharwal fully sets out the facts in the civil appeal arising out of special leave petition (civil) no. 3160/05 as well as the issue which arises for determination. the core issue in this case is: whether the finding of the court made under section 45 of the indian arbitration and conciliation act 1996 ('the act') that the arbitration agreement, falling within the definition of section 44 of the act, is or is not 'null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed' should be a final expression of the view of the court or should it be a prima facie view formed without a full-fledged trial?ambiguity in the wording of section 453. the contrast in language between section 8 and 45 of the act has been rightly noticed by my learned brother. section 8, which leaves no discretion in the court in the matter of referring parties to arbitration, does not apply to the present case, as we are concerned with part ii of the act. on the other hand, section 45 which is directly applicable to the present case, empowers the court to refuse a reference to arbitration if it 'finds' that the arbitration agreement is 'null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed'.4. this court in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2005 (SC)

State Bank's Staff Union (Madras Circle) Vs. Union of India (UOi) and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-15-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3446; 2005(5)CTC629; [2005(107)FLR737]; JT2005(8)SC315; (2005)IIILLJ854SC; (2005)7SCC584

arijit pasayat, j.1. challenge in this appeal is to judgment of a division bench of madras high court holding that customary bonus was not payable by the state bank of india (in short the 'bank') after banking laws (amendment) act, 1984 (central act no. 64 of 1984) (in short the 'amendment act') was enacted. appellant has questioned constitutional validity of the said amendment before the madras high court by filing a writ petition which was dismissed.2. factual position which is almost undisputed is as follows:-by the amendment act, state bank of india act, 1955 (in short the 'state bank act') and state bank of india (subsidiary banks) act, 1959 (in short the 'subsidiary act') and banking companies (acquisition and transfer of undertakings) acts, 1970 and the banking companies (acquisition and transfer of undertakings) act, 1980 (in short 'the undertakings acts') were amended. by that amending act, a new section 43-a comprising of three sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) and marginal heading 'bonus' was introduced in the state. bank act. the said section reads as under:-'(1) no officer, adviser or other employee (other than an employee within the meaning of clause (13) of section 2 of the payment of bonus act, 1965 (21 of 1965) of the state bank shall be entitled to be paid any bonus.(2) no employee of the state bank, being an employee within the meaning of clause (13) of section 2 of the payment of bonus act, 1965 (21 of 1965), shall be entitled to be paid any bonus except in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 19 2005 (SC)

R.C. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-19-2005

Reported in : 2005(102)ECC449; 2005(188)ELT129(SC); JT2005(12)SC281; (2005)7SCC725

ruma pal, j. the dispute in these matters arises out of an exemption which had been granted by the central government to new industries by notification no. 32/99-ce dated 8th july 1999 issued under section 5a of the central excise act, 1944 (referred to hereafter as 'the act'). the parties in the various proceedings which are being disposed of by this judgment, represent industries manufacturing cigarettes on the one hand (whom we will refer to as "the petitioners") and the union of india and the excise authorities on the other (who are described as "the respondents"). almost all the petitioners are job workers for large tobacco companies. they set up their units under agreements with the large tobacco companies and admittedly produced the cigarettes with the brand names of those companies. the few exceptions to this are noted subsequently. in december, 1997 the government of india had announced a separate industrial policy for the north eastern region of the country which proposed to stimulate 'synergetic' development of industries in the region by giving a package of incentives which included exemption from excise duties, transport subsidies, capital investment subsidies, interest subsidies and other benefits. pursuant to this policy, a number of notifications were issued by the concerned ministries in the government, the relevant ones for our purpose being the excise notifications nos. 32/99 and 33/99 dated 8th july 1999 by which diverse benefits were given. briefly stated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2005 (SC)

Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-05-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC59; JT2005(12)SC442; 2006MPLJ1(SC); 2005(8)SCALE338; (2005)12SCC778

p.p. naolekar, j.1. leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 2. in all the above appeals, a common question of law arises for determination and therefore they are heard together and are decided by the common judgment. 3. all these appeals have been preferred by the tenants against whom a decree for eviction from their tenanted premises were passed by the controller and confirmed by the punjab and haryana high court. in three appeals, namely, s.l.p. (c) no. 17622/2003 - mohinder singh v. git singh, slp (c) 19540/2003 - laxmi kant v. surjit singh channa and slp (c) 4566/2004 shangara singh v. malkiat singh leave to contest were granted by the controllers and after trial, decrees for ejectment were passed against the tenants. in other appeals, leave to contest the landlords' applications' for ejectment were rejected at the initial stage by the controllers. 4. certain provisions of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the act of 1949') which have been inserted by punjab act no. 9 of 2001 dated 31.5.2001 have been elaborately discussed by the high court in the matter of baldev singh bajwa v. monish saini and therefore we will refer to the facts of that case for consideration and interpretation of the sections inserted in the act of 1949 by act no. 9 of 2001 and shall elaborate and discuss the factual aspects necessary, in regard to the other appeals in the latter part of the judgment. 5. the facts, in brief, in the matter of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 2005 (SC)

Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Arun Dakshy

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-23-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3483; 2005(4)AWC3661(SC); 2005(3)BLJR1838; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN77; IV(2005)CPJ12(SC); [2005(4)JCR54(SC)]; JT2005(12)SC19; (2005)7SCC103

h.k. sema, j1. this appeal preferred by the bihar state housing board is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.10.2001 passed by the national consumer disputes redressal commission (hereinafter the commission) passed in revision petition no. 2099 of 1999 affirming the orders passed by the state consumer dispute redressal commission and district consumer forum awarding interest @ 18%.2. despite receipt of the notice, none entered appearance on behalf of the sole respondent.3. briefly stated the facts are as follows:-on 27.7.1989, the respondent deposited an amount of rs. 15,000/- for allotment of mig house in barari housing colony in bhagalpur, bihar, under the bihar state housing board (management and disposal of housing estate) regulation 1983 (hereinafter the regulation). under the regulation, the allotment of plots/house/flat is to be made by draw of lottery. the respondent was unsuccessful in the draw of lottery and so he could not be allotted a house under the mig category. on 28.7.1993, the respondent issued legal notice to the appellant for refund of an amount of rs. 15,000/-. the aforesaid notice was replied by a letter dated 6.10.1993 by the appellant, directing the respondent to submit original pay-in-slip for the purpose of refund. on 15.11.1994, the respondent submitted the original pay-in-slip. thereafter, the appellant refunded rs. 15,000/- to the respondent vide cheque no. 223231 dated 6.12.1995. on 26.3.1996, the respondent filed a complaint before .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2005 (SC)

State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Loknath Ray and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-15-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)ESC240; [2005(105)FLR348]; JT2005(Suppl3)SC464; (2005)10SCC678; 2005(2)SLJ306(SC); (2005)2UPLBEC1542

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. the factual background can be adumbrated concisely as follows:the respondent no. 1 filed a writ application before the orissa high court claiming that he was appointed as 'fourth peon' by the management of the concerned institution i.e. samanta singhar high school in district of jaipur, orissa (respondent no. 2) which is an 'aided educational institution' as defined under the orissa education act, 1969 (in short the 'act') and orissa education (recruitment and conditions of service of teachers and members of the staff of aided educational institutions) rules, 1974 (in short 'recruitment rules'). it is not in dispute that if an institution is an aided educational institution, same is governed by the act and rules framed thereunder. the recruitment rules are framed under the act. as the functionaries of the state did not approve the appointment of respondent no. 1 holding the same to be beyond the prescribed yardstick, writ application was filed for direction to the concerned authorities to accord approval to the appointment.3. the high court by the impugned judgment came to hold that the functionaries of the state were not justified in refusing to accord approval. stand of the state government was that circular dated 8.7.1981 contained yardstick for fixation of standard staff for the non-government secondary schools in supersession of earlier circulars. under the 'category of staff' the number of peons which can be appointed was clearly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 2005 (SC)

State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Ram Bachan Tripathi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-02-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3212; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)858; [2005(106)FLR1214]; JT2005(10)SC341; (2005)IIILLJ731SC; 2006(1)SLJ71(SC)

arijit pasayat, j.1. the state of uttar pradesh is in appeal against the judgment rendered by a division bench of the allahabad high court holding that the order of termination dated 14.10.1992 terminating services of the respondent w.e.f. 10.5.1988 was illegal, as held by state public service tribunal, lucknow, u.p. (in short 'the tribunal'). tribunal's view was that the order of termination was bad in law, the respondent was to be reinstated in service without all consequential benefits of pay, allowance etc., as per the prevailing rules. liberty, however, was given to the state and its functionaries to initiate departmental proceedings for the alleged misconduct of respondent-employee.2. background facts which need to be noted in brief are as under:the respondent-employee who was selected by the uttar pradesh public service commission (in short 'the commission') for appointment to the post of medical officer was posted in the district of basti. on 29.2.1988 the chief medical officer, basti directed the respondent-employee to join the primary health center at deno kuiya, district basti. he submitted the joining report on 29.2.1988. subsequently, he was transferred to district gorakhpur and the respondent-employee submitted his joining report on 15.7.1988. according to the appellant-state the respondent-employee was asked to take over charge on 15.7.1988(fn) and he was to join at mirzapur gorakhpur, the respondent-employee did not take over the charge at the said place and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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