Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 6 of about 118 results (0.101 seconds)

May 12 2005 (SC)

Seeman @ Veeranam Vs. State, by Inspector of Police

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-12-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2503; 2005CriLJ2618; JT2005(5)SC555; (2005)11SCC142

p.p. naolekar, j.1. three accused persons viz., seeman, neelagiri and leelavathi, were tried for committing murder of one murugan, under section 302 ipc. accused - appellant no.1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the sessions court. the other two accused persons were acquitted. the said conviction and sentence, having been confirmed by the high court, the appellant challenged the same before this court by filing this appeal. the prosecution case, in short is that the deceased murugan was the resident of village chithakkur. three years prior to the occurrence, deceased murugan and a girl named kani fell in love and eloped from the village. they were brought back by the villagers. after some time, kani was married to some other person and deceased murugan also got married to some other girl of a nearby village. on account of this incident, the accused persons had grudge to grind against the deceased, having brought bad name to the family and were awaiting an opportunity to take revenge. the deceased was advised by the well-wishers to leave the village and settle down at some other place. he settled at village kariappati. on the day of the incidence, i.e., 26.1.92 deceased came to chithakkur in search of his grandmother. at the village, he was informed that his grandmother has left the village and has gone to a place thirukkani to collect her pension. the information was given to him by pw2 - raja @ perumal. thereafter, the deceased along with raja @ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 2005 (SC)

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Asha Ram

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-17-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC381; 2005CriLJ139; 2005(9)SCALE371; (2005)13SCC766

h.k. sema, j.1. there can never be more graver and heinous crime than the father being charged of raping his own daughter. he not only delicts the law but it is a betrayal of trust. the father is the fortress and refuge of his daughter in whom the daughter trusts. charged of raping his own daughter under his refuge and fortress is worst than the gamekeeper becoming a poacher and treasury guard becoming a robber.2. the facts of this case as unfolded by the prosecution shocked the judicial conscience. briefly stated the facts are as follows:- the respondent-accused asha ram married to one smt.kalawati - pw3. out of the wedlock they have three daughters and two sons. accused and pw-3 were having strained relations and living separately. pw-3 was living in some servant quarters in brock-hurst with one of the daughters and two sons. accused was living in the accommodation allotted to him in the servant quarters attached to raj bhawan with the other two daughters namely kumari uma and kumari seema (prosecutrix). in the intervening night of 23/24.8.1988 the accused returned home at about 12.30 am and went to the room where his daughters uma and seema were sleeping. he asked kumari seema to serve him the dinner. on being asked, the prosecutrix went to the kitchen and brought the food to the room of the accused. the accused is alleged to have bolted the door of his room from inside and after switching off the light asked kumari seema to sleep in the same room. he then forcibly made .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 2005 (SC)

Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-10-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC269; 2006(1)ALD1(SC); 2006(1)ALT34(SC); 2006(1)AWC9(SC); 2005(3)BLJR2314; 2006(2)BomCR636; 101(2006)CLT502(SC); [2006(1)JCR24(SC)]; JT2005(9)SC454; (2006)1MLJ192(S

r.v. raveendran, j.1. leave granted. this appeal by the landlord (plaintiff in eviction suit no. 2 of 1989 on the file of munsiff, first, samastipur, bihar) is against the judgment dated 28.7.2003 passed by patna high court in ma no. 300/2002.2. the appellant-plaintiff filed the said eviction suit against one anugraha narayan singh and the district congress committee (i), samastipur, (referred to as 'a.n. singh' and 'dcc' respectively) on the following three grounds : (i) that the suit premises (house) was let out to a.n. singh for his personal residential occupation and the said a.n. singh had unauthorisedly sub-let a portion of the suit premises to dcc; (ii) that a.n. singh had committed default in paying the rent and electricity charges; and (iii) that the suit premises was required for his personal use.3. the defendants resisted the suit. they denied the allegation that the suit premises was let out personally to a.n. singh for his residence. they contended that the premises was let out to a.n. singh in his capacity as president of dcc for being used as the office of dcc, on a monthly rent of rs. 200/- (inclusive of electricity charges), and there was no default in paying the rent. they also denied the claim of the landlord that the suit premises was required for his own use.4. the trial court decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 6.6.1998 directing eviction and payment of arrears of rent and electricity charges. it held that a.n. singh took the premises on rent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2005 (SC)

BolIn Chetia Vs. Jogadish Bhuyan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1872; JT2005(3)SC267; (2005)6SCC81; 2005(1)LC499(SC)

orderr.c. lahoti, c.j.1. in an appeal under section 116a of the representation of the people act, 1951 merely on its being filed, should the respondent be necessarily and in routine put on notice, forgoing the application of judicial mind to the merits of appeal, at that stage? does this court not have power to summarily throw out an appeal howsoever worthless it may be? these are the questions which have arisen for decision; thanks to the submission made with vehemence by the learned counsel for appellant.2. the appellant was a candidate at the legislative assembly elections in the state of assam. he lost in the election, as also in the high court where an election petition filed by him putting in issue the election of the returned candidate has been directed to be dismissed on trial. he has filed the present appeal under section 116a of the representation of the people act, 1951 (hereinafter 'the act', for short).3. when the appeal was placed before the court, we felt inclined to hear the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission, that is, whether the appeal deserved to be admitted for bi-prate hearing. the learned counsel for the appellant resisted the move of the court and submitted that this appeal is a statutory first appeal and, therefore, it should be admitted for hearing bi-prate as of right and a notice to respondents must issue as a matter of course. in fact, the learned counsel for the appellant went on to the extent of submitting that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 2005 (SC)

State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-14-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1868; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)505; 2005(2)AWC1009(SC); 2005(1)BLJR823; (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN155; 100(2005)CLT357(SC); 2005(2)CTC828; JT2005(3)SC220; 2005(2)KLT126(SC); (2005

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. appellant-state calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single judge of the punjab and haryana high court dismissing the second appeal filed by it under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short the 'code') holding that no question of law was involved.3. the background facts are as under:the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') was appointed as a patwari on 5.2.1958. at the time of appointment he disclosed his date of birth to be 1.10.1934. complaints were received and preliminary enquiry was conducted and it was held that his actual date of birth is 25.11.1931. a suit was filed by the respondent for declaration to the effect that his date of birth as recorded in service book i.e. 1.10.1934 is the correct date of birth and plaintiff is entitled to all benefits and privileges which would have accrued to him had he continued on that basis till the date of superannuation i.e. 30.9.1992 and for setting aside the punishment awarded for allegedly manipulating records and disclosing wrong date of birth.4. following issues were framed by the trial court:'1. whether the high court was justified in observing that no substantial question of law arises in the second appeal, whereas the substantial question of law was/is whether interpretation of the expression 'government' in rule 2.5 note 1 of punjab civil service rules is not competent/appointing authority, who is the deputy commissioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2005 (SC)

Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chand Mal Baradia and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-29-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2161; 2005(3)ALD93(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)640; 2005(1)ARBLR623(SC); 2005(2)AWC1420(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN123; [2005]124CompCas811(SC); (2005)4CompLJ549(SC); JT2005

g.p. mathur, j.1. this appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.5.2002 of calcutta high court by which the application moved by the first respondent under order 39 rule 1 and 2 and section 151 cpc was allowed and hindustan chambers of commerce, mumbai (second respondent) was restrained from proceeding in arbitration case nos. a/186 and a/187 subject to deposit of rs. 2 lakhs by the first respondent with the registrar general within two days of receipt of the certified copy of the order.2. the first respondent chand mal baradia filed title suit no. 993 of 1999 in the city civil court at calcutta for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with the arbitration proceedings, which had been initiated by the appellant shree subhlaxmi fabrics pvt. ltd. the case of the plaintiff (first respondent) in brief is that he was carrying on business under the name and style of m/s. chand mal prakash chand and co. at calcutta; that shree subhalaxmi fabrics pvt. ltd., mumbai (defendant no. 1), which is a company registered under the companies act and sells cloth through its agent m/s. naresh enterprises, which has its office at calcutta, under the terms and conditions as dictated by defendant no. 1; that the plaintiff was getting supplies against the orders placed by him at calcutta through the agent of defendant no. 1; that all such supplies were made by the agent to the plaintiff at calcutta at his premises no. 160, jamunalal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2005 (SC)

Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-30-2005

Reported in : II(2005)BC443(SC); [2005]124CompCas797(SC); (2005)4CompLJ513(SC); JT2005(3)SC570; (2005)4SCC456; [2005]60SCL387(SC)

y.k. sabharwal, j.1. the question that arises for consideration in these matters is whether karnataka state industrial investment and development corporation (for short, 'ksiidc') acted in a bona fide manner in sale of the properties of the borrower exercising its right under section 29 of state financial corporation act, 1951 (for short, 'the act').2. the appeals have been preferred by ksiidc as well as m/s vinpack investments pvt ltd., the purchaser (for short 'vinpack') against the judgment and order of the division bench of the karnataka high court directing ksiidc to undertake the entire sale process once again and give opportunity to respondent no. 1 to bring better offer for the properties.3. respondent no. 1, m/s cavalet industries ltd. (for short, 'the borrower') borrowed a sum of rs. 116.30 lakhs from ksiidc as per the sanction letter dated 22nd april, 1991. the borrower committed defaults in payment of the installments and, therefore, ksiidc on 30th march, 1995 passed an order under section 29 of the act for taking over the unit of the borrower for recovery of its dues. however, ksiidc did not implement that order. there was considerable correspondence between ksiidc and the borrower, in regard to the offers of some third parties, who were proposing either to purchase the unit or enter into some working arrangement with the borrower to run the unit. the efforts of the borrower to enter in to arrangement with third parties to work the unit did not yield any result. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2005 (SC)

K. Kalimuthu Vs. State by D.S.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-30-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2257; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)683; 2005(2)BLJR1185; 2005CriLJ2190; 2005(3)CTC313; [2005(2)JCR254(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC48; (2005)4SCC512; 2005(1)LC710(SC)

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. all these appeals involve identical question of law and are, therefore, taken up together. in each of these cases, on the allegation that the appellant was guilty of various offences under the indian penal code, 1860 (in short the 'ipc') and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act, 1947 (in short the 'act'), information was lodged, investigation was undertaken and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. the appellant in each case filed petition before the principal special judge for cbi cases, chennai, contending that in the absence of requisite sanction under section 197 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short the 'code') it was beyond jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of the alleged offences. the stand taken in the petitions was that the alleged acts were directly and reasonably connected with official duty and since there was a direct nexus and relationship between the discharge of his alleged act and the official duties and because of the absence of requisite sanction as contemplated under section 197 of the code, cognizance could not have been taken. the plea found favour with the concerned court in the matter of k. kalimuthu. the state questioned correctness of the judgment by filing revision taking the stand that section 197 of the code has no application to the facts of the case. the plea was accepted by the high court, which is the subject matter of challenge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2005 (SC)

Amit Kumar Shaw and anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-13-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2209; 2005(4)ALD98(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)458; 2005(2)AWC1348(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1273; 2005(5)BomCR690; (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN83; 2005(4)CTC47; JT2005(5)SC20; 2005(2)KLT80; (2005)11SCC403

ar. lakshmanan, j. 1. leave granted.2. these two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2004 passed by the high court at calcutta in c.a.n. no. 2642 of 2004 in s.a.no. 631 of 1993 and in c.a.n. no. 2643 of 2004 in s.a.no. 632 of 1993 whereby the high court dismissed the applications filed by the appellants for substitution of their names, namely, amit kumar shaw and anand kumar shaw as contesting respondents in place and stead of birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey, both since deceased and represented by their legal heirs in their place. according to the appellants, the respondents above named had sold the suit property to the appellants, who are the only persons interested in the said suit property.3. the service of notice is complete in both the matters but no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.4. the short facts are as follows:the property in question originally belonged to khetra mohan das and subsequently by way of lease and transfer; the said property ultimately came in the hands of birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey. there were troubles in between the original owner and the said birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey and as a result of that, the suit was filed. one fakir mohammad claimed his right, title and interest in respect of the property in question by way of adverse possession. ultimately, both the appeals being title appeal no. 400 of 1989 and title appeal no. 7 of 1990 were allowed by a common judgment and .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 2005 (SC)

Kedar Nath Dubey (D) by Lrs. and ors. Vs. Sheo NaraIn Dubey (D) by Lrs ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-12-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1800(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN39; JT2005(5)SC467; (2005)10SCC621

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. challenge in this appeal is to the decision by a learned single judge of the allahabad high court holding that the auction sale on 18.8.1989 and confirmation thereof was illegal. kedar nath dubey, the predecessor of the appellant was the successful bidder. objection filed by sheo narain dubey, the predecessor of non-official respondents was rejected by order dated 18.8.1989.3. a brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.4. the writ petitioner, sheo narain dubey, the predecessor of non-official respondents had taken a loan for purchasing pumping set from u.p. state sahkari agricultural avam gram vikas bank limited, salenpur, deoria. as the said loan was not repaid within the stipulated time, proceedings were initiated for recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue under the uttar pradesh zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1950 (in short 'the act'). land belonging to the writ petitioner was auctioned on 18.8.1989. bid of kedar nath dubey, the predecessor of the present appellant was accepted. sheo narain dubey filed objection under rule 285(1) of the uttar pradesh zamindari abolition and land reforms rules, 1953 (in short 'the rules'). the stand taken was that there was material irregularity in the service of notice as well as in conducting the sale and thereby rule 285(a) of the rules had been violated. the said objection was rejected and the sale was confirmed. the writ petition was filed in 1991. mutation proceedings .....

Tag this Judgment!


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