Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 12 of about 118 results (0.074 seconds)

Aug 01 2005 (SC)

Phool Pata and anr. Vs. Vishwanath Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-01-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3079; 2005(6)ALD97(SC); 2005(4)AWC3199(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN1; 100(2005)CLT331(SC); 2005(4)CTC573; (2005)197CTR(SC)598; JT2005(6)SC483; (2005)4MLJ123(SC); (2005

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by learned single judge of the allahabad high court, lucknow bench in a second appeal under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short 'cpc'). the plaintiffs- respondents herein had filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 30.7.1977 as well as for cancellation of sale deed dated 14.5.1980. according to the plaintiffs a sum of rs.2,500/- had been paid as advance money and the consideration for sale was fixed at rs. 10,000/-. thus the balance amount of rs. 7,500/- was to be paid at the time of execution of sale-deed. the suit was contested by the present appellant-defendant no. 3. the present appellant along with defendant no.1 (respondent no. 4) contended that the permission to sell the land had been obtained from the settlement officer (consolidation) during the year 1980. when the plaintiffs were requested to purchase the land, they did not agree to get the sale deed executed. thereafter defendant no.1-jogendra singh executed the sale deed in favour of the present appellant and respondent no.5.3. the trial court decreed the suit and directed for specific compliance of the agreement to sale, in dispute, dated 30.7.1977 and cancellation of sale deed dated 14.5.1980 along with other reliefs. the matter was carried in appeal before the learned additional district judge, gonda who allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court and directed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2005 (SC)

Shatrusailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajk ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-01-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3995; (2005)197CTR(SC)596; 2005(192)ELT22(SC); [2005]277ITR449(SC); JT2005(8)SC113; (2005)7SCC292

kapadia, j.1. these appeals by special leave have been filed against an additional direction given by the gujarat high court vide judgment dated 25.9.2002 holding the appellant liable to pay interest under the kar vivad samadhan scheme, 1998 (for short 'the scheme') on the tax arrears to be determined by the designated authority (for short 'da').2. the appellant filed a writ petition in the gujarat high court against the rejection of the declarations made by the assessee under the said scheme.3. by the impugned judgment, the high court held that the declarations filed by the appellant herein were competent as the assessee's revision applications were pending on the date of filing of the declarations. the department was, therefore, directed to entertain the declarations, to determine the amount payable and to grant a certificate under section 90(1).4. the decision of the gujarat high court dated 25.9.2002 was challenged by the department before this court vide civil appeal no. 4411 of 2003. by judgment pronounced today by this court, we have upheld the decision of the gujarat high court in holding that the declarations filed by the assessee under section 88 of the scheme were competent and that the high court was right in directing the da to determine the amount payable under section 90(1) of the scheme.5. in these appeals, the only grievance of the appellant is that the additional direction given by the impugned judgment making the appellant liable to pay interest on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2005 (SC)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-29-2005

Reported in : 2005ACJ1131; AIR2005SC2157; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)486; 2005(3)AWC2221(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1148; (2005)3GLR2343; [2005(3)JCR65(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC264; 2005(3)KLT227(SC); (2005)3MLJ118; (2005)10SCC720

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. new india assurance co. ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a division bench of the kerala high court holding that the appellant was liable to pay compensation to the respondent no. 1 for the injuries sustained by him in an automobile accident. the accident took place on 14.12.1997 at about 3.10 a.m. it was claimed by the claimant that he sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (motor cycle bearing registration no. kl-7q/9101) driven by the respondent no. 2. the claimant's stand was that he was travelling as a pillion rider. total compensation of rs. 9,00,000 was claimed. after considering the evidence on record, the motor accidents claims tribunal, perumbavoor (in short the 'mact') awarded rs. 4,68,825 with 9% interest from the date of application till payment. the figure was arrived at in the following manner:-1. rs. 2,88,000/- for loss of earning;2. rs. 2,600/- towards transport to hospital;3. rs. 4,000/- for extra nourishment expenses;4. rs. 250/- for damage to clothing;5. rs. 1,18,975/- for medical expenses;6. rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering;7. rs. 40,000/- towards compensation for continuingor permanent disability.--------------------total rs. 4,68,825/---------------------3. in appeal filed by the insurer-appellant the amount granted for permanent disability was deleted.4. in support of the appeal, learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2005 (SC)

N.S. Viswanatha Shetty Vs. K.R. Shivaswamy and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-31-2005

Reported in : JT2005(4)SC5; 2005(4)KarLJ145; (2005)11SCC130

order1. delay condoned.2. leave granted.3. the appellant herein is the owner of three shops situate in kollegal town, which is a town municipal council constituted as such under the karnataka municipalities act, 1964. the appellant filed eviction petitions under the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (since repealed) for eviction of the respondents-tenants on the ground of bona fide need for personal occupation. eviction was ordered by the learned munsif. the district judge, mysore confirmed the eviction order on a revision filed by the aggrieved tenants under section 50(2) of the said act. thereupon, the respondents filed further revisions before the high court of karnataka under section 115 of the code of civil procedure. during the pendency of revisions in the high court, the karnataka rent act, 1999 came into force on and from 31st december, 2001. before the revision petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the tenants filed a memo stating that the premises in question was situate in a town municipal council area and, therefore, it was excluded from the purview of the karnataka rent act, 1999 and by virtue of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 70 of the said act, the entire proceedings at whatever stage they were, stood abated. accepting the submission made by the learned counsel for the tenants, the learned single judge held that the eviction proceedings stood abated. the learned judge then observed that it would not come in the way of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2005 (SC)

The State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Purvi Communication Pvt. Ltd. an ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-16-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1849; (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN162; 2005(2)CTC300; JT2005(3)SC339; (2005)3SCC711; [2005]140STC154(SC)

ar. lakshmanan, j.1. the state of west bengal - department of finance, calcutta and two others are the appellants in this appeal. leave was granted by this court on 30.03.2001 and pending disposal of the appeal, stay of operation of the judgment and order under challenge was passed.2. the above appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 04.08.2000 passed by the high court at calcutta in w.p.t.t. no. 338 of 2000 whereby the high court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 and declared clause (ii) of sub-section (4a) of section 4a of the west bengal entertainment-cum-amusement tax act, 1982 (as amended by the west bengal finance act, 1998) is ultra vires to the constitution.3. respondent no.1 carries on business as a multi system operator (hereinafter referred to as 'mso') and is engaged in receiving and providing tv signals to individual cable operators of various localities. the respondents are receiving communication signals known as tv signals broadcast by various satellite channels and are distributing the same to the sub-cable operators. the process involved in the business consists of establishment of state of the art control rooms and spreading the cable network. the said network signals are being given to various sub-cable operators with whom the respondents have franchise agreement. according to the respondents, there is a significant and qualitative difference between the functions performed by them and the activities of sub- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2005 (SC)

State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Sukhwinder Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-14-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2960; JT2005(6)SC170; (2005)141PLR402; (2005)5SCC569; 2005(3)SLJ186(SC)

g.p. mathur, j. 1. this appeal, by special leave, has been preferred by the state of punjab and others challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2001 of the high court of punjab and haryana by which the second appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and the decree passed by the courts below decreeing the respondent's suit was affirmed.2. the respondent sukhwinder singh joined on 4.8.1989 as a police constable and was allotted number 644 in district amritsar in the state of punjab. he was sent for training at police recruit training college jahan khelan. he absented from duty w.e.f. 22.2.1990 without making any application for grant of leave or seeking permission for his absence. the senior superintendent of police, amritsar, passed the following order on 16.3.1990:-'constable sukhwinder singh no. 644/asr of this district is discharged from service w.e.f. 16.3.1990 under punjab police rules 12.21 as he is not likely to become an efficient police officer.'the respondent sukhwinder singh filed a civil suit in the court of sub-judge, amritsar, seeking a declaration that the order dated 16.3.1990, passed by the senior superintendent of police, amritsar, discharging him from service, was illegal and inoperative in law as it was passed by way of punishment, without holding any enquiry and without giving him any opportunity of hearing. the appellants herein contested the suit on various grounds and the main plea taken therein was that the respondent had to put in less .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2005 (SC)

Madan Lal and anr. Vs. Bal Krishan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-14-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC645; 2006(1)ALT51(SC); 2006(1)AWC662(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN174; 2006(1)CTC675; [2006(2)JCR1(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC494; (2006)2MLJ287(SC); (2005)13SCC555

arijit pasayat, j.1. challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned single judge of the himachal pradesh high court in a second appeal preferred under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short the 'code). by the impugned judgment the learned single judge set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and injunction as prayed for. though several points were urged in support of the appeal it was basically contended that findings of fact recorded by the two courts were set aside even without formulating question of law much less a substantial question of law.2. learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that though specifically the questions of law were not formulated, the high court has rightly taken note of the legal position as applicable to the factual background and has allowed the appeal.3. in view of section 100 of the code the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state substantial question or questions of law involved in the appeal as required under sub-section (3) of section 100. where the high court is satisfied that in any case any substantial question of law is involved it shall formulate that question under sub-section (4) and the second appeal has to be heard on the question so formulated as stated in sub-section (5) of section 100.4. section 100 of the code deals with 'second appeal'. the provision reads as follows:'section 100- (1) .....

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 //