Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 8 of about 118 results (0.073 seconds)

Dec 12 2005 (SC)

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Imtiaz Hussain

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-12-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC649; 2006(1)AWC414(SC); [2006(108)FLR950]; JT2005(10)SC496; (2006)ILLJ714SC; (2006)1SCC380

arijit pasayat, j.1. challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned single judge of the allahabad high court in a review application.2. factual background in a nutshell was as follows:the respondent who was appointed as a conductor of the appellant-corporation during inspection on 5.6.1989 he was found not to have issued tickets to the passengers. he was placed under suspension on 20.6.1989. the reply submitted by him was found to be unsatisfactorily and it was decided to conduct disciplinary enquiry. after conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report wherein charges were held to have been proved against the respondent. a show cause notice was issued to the respondent proposing to award the punishment of removal from service and after considering the reply submitted to the show cause notice and other relevant record, the appointing authority passed an order removing him from service. an industrial dispute was raised by him questioning the legality of the order dated 31.12.1990. the labour court held that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner. however, being of the view that the respondent was not in the list of permanent conductors, it was held that he was not entitled to get any back wages. therefore, only an order of reinstatement was passed. an application purported to be under section 6(6) of the uttar pradesh industrial disputes act, 1947 (in short the 'u.p. act') was filed stating that the conclusion of the labour court that he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 2005 (SC)

Jaipur Municipal Corporation Vs. C.L. Mishra

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-27-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)AWC89(SC); 2006(2)BomCR91; 101(2006)CLT76(SC); [2006(3)JCR231(SC)]; JT2005(9)SC195; 2006(I)OLR(SC)362; RLW2006(1)SC40; (2005)8SCC423; 2006(1)LC23(SC)

g.p. mathur, j.1. leave granted.2. this appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the order dated 28.5.2004 of high court of rajasthan by which the review petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 3. it is necessary to mention some basic facts for the decision of the appeal. the respondent, c.l. mishra, sent a letter to the rajasthan high court that a temple had been constructed on a land adjoining bagla mukhi sadhana kendra in sector 3, malviya nagar, jaipur, a place which was earmarked for a park and the construction had been made without prior approval of the competent authorities. the letter was treated as a public interest litigation and was registered as d.b. civil writ petition no.6051 of 1997 at the jaipur bench of the high court. notices were issued to the jaipur municipal corporation, rajasthan housing board, collector jaipur, and two private persons namely shyam lal gulani and hargum dass motwani, who were alleged to have raised the unauthorized construction. these persons filed a joint reply asserting that the writ petitioner himself was an unauthorized occupant and he had forcibly taken possession of the temple where he was residing. they also submitted that a public temple exists on the disputed land for a long time and was shown to be land of temple in the maps and plans of rajasthan housing board and that of jaipur municipal corporation. they denied that the temple had been constructed by encroaching upon land, which was earmarked for a park. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2005 (SC)

Charanjit Lal Mehra and ors. Vs. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2765; 2005(2)AWC1014(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN25; 2005(2)CTC235; 118(2005)DLT396(SC); [2005(3)JCR28(SC)]; JT2005(3)SC213; (2005)11SCC279

a.k. mathur, j.1. this special leave petition is tiled against an order dated august 25,2004 passed by the learned single judge of the high court of delhi at new delhi whereby learned single judge has set aside the order dated february 13,2004 passed by the trial court whereby the trial court declined to pass an order or eviction moved by the plaintiff under order xii rule 6 of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'c.p.c.') and observed that the application made at this stage is not maintainable and the suit shall be decided recording necessary evidence of the parties in order to do complete justice and dismissed the application of the plaintiff tiled under order xii rule 6, c.p.c. hence the present revision was tiled before the high court. the said revision application came to be disposed of by the learned single judge or the high court on august 25, 2004.2. in order to dispose of the present petition, brief facts may be detailed herein. respondent no. 1 tiled a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages/mesne profit against the defendant-petitioners alleging therein that the premises in question was let out to the defendant- petitioners jointly on a monthly rent of rs. 2500/- vide agreement dated september 4, 1977. the tenancy commenced with effect from october 1, 1977. the rent was increased from time to time at the rate of 10 per cent per month. for the period from september 1, 1996 to august 31, 2001 the defendant- petitioners paid rent at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2005 (SC)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-16-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1832; 2005(1)ARBLR409(SC); 2005(2)AWC1416(SC); (2005)4CompLJ16(SC); [2005(3)JCR53(SC)]; JT2005(3)SC426; (2005)4SCC239; 2005(1)LC547(SC)

p.p. naolekar, j.1. leave granted.2. the southern railway entered into a contract with respondent no. 1 for gauge conversion from madras beach to trichchirappalli villupuram section - construction of a bridge being agreement no. 136/cn/95 dated 29.9.95. on behalf of the southern railway, the contract was signed by the then chief project manager, presently, the chief engineer. disputes arose touching the claims arising out of the execution of works under the contract and in exercise of the power conferred by the arbitration clause contained in the contract, the general manager, southern railway appointed an arbitrator as also a presiding arbitrator, while respondent no. 1 nominated its arbitrator. the arbitral tribunal so constituted gave its award on 10/11.03.2001 and signed the same. a copy of the award was delivered in the office of the general manager, southern railway on 12.3.2001. the receipt seems to have been acknowledged by someone in the office, probably the inwards clerk. the chief engineer received the copy of the award from the tribunal on 19.3.2001. 3. on 10.7.2001, the chief engineer presented an application for setting aside the arbitral award under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the act' for short). an application seeking condonation of delay under sub-section (3) of section 34 was also filed. the delay sought to be condoned was of 27 days only based on an assumption that the copy of the award was received on 19.3.2001. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 2005 (SC)

Allahabad Jal Sansthan Vs. Daya Shankar Rai and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-03-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2372; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)705; 2005(2)ESC288; [2005(105)FLR943]; JT2005(5)SC112; (2005)IILLJ847SC; (2005)5SCC124; 2005(3)SLJ144(SC); (2005)2UPLBEC1405

s.b. sinha, j.1. whether the respondent was entitled to be granted full back wages in the facts and circumstances of this case is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 2.7.2003 passed by the high court of allahabad in civil misc. writ petition no.6597 of 2001.2. the basic fact of the matter is not much in dispute. the respondent herein was appointed purely on a temporary basis on or about 14.10.1985. the appointment letter issued to the respondent no. 1 stipulates that the said appointment could be terminated at any time without any prior notice. the services of the respondent no. 1 and others were terminated by the state in terms of an office order dated 24.1.1987. an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent no. 1 herein. before the labour court the respondent no. 1 adduced evidence, but the appellant did not. an ex parte award came to be passed by the labour court on or about 11.4.2000 reinstating the respondent no.1 with full back wages holding that the order of termination was invalid in law as although he had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year; the provisions of section 6-n of the u.p. industrial disputes act, 1947 were not complied with. the writ petition filed by the appellant herein questioning the legality of the said award came to be dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment. 3. in this appeal leave was granted confining to back wages only. 4. mr. rajesh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 2005 (SC)

Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-i Vs. Bisleri International Pri ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-27-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3977; 2005(101)ECC433; 2005(186)ELT257(SC); JT2005(6)SC439; (2005)6SCC58

s.h. kapadia, j.1. a short question which arises for determination in these appeals filed by the department under section 35-l (b) of the central excise act, 1944 (for short 'the said act') is whether the assessee had undervalued the aerated water by excluding two items, namely, the amounts received under credit notes as price support incentive and rent on containers (roc) from the assessable value?2. for the sake of convenience, we mention hereinbelow the facts in civil appeal no. 772 of 2001, in the case of commissioner of central excise, meerut-i v. bisleri international private limited(formerly known as m/s coolade beverages ltd.).3. m/s. coolade beverages ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') were manufacturers of aerated waters. the manufacturing activity of the assessee basically consisted of bottling. the assessee obtained the concentrate (raw-material) for aerated water from a subsidiary of coca cola corporation. the name of that subsidiary was m/s britco food company ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'm/s britco'). the assessee sold the bottled aerated water to the wholesale dealers.4. the department found that the assessee used to collect from some wholesale dealers roc @ rs. 7.50 per crate. the department further found that the assessee used to receive price support incentives in the form of credit notes from m/s britco. accordingly, the department issued show-cause notice contending that the cost of roc and the value of price support incentive were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2005 (SC)

Hari Rao Vs. N. Govindachari and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-15-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3389; 2005(5)ALD134(SC); 2005(4)CTC694; JT2005(8)SC305; 2005(4)KLT244(SC); (2005)4MLJ115(SC); (2005)7SCC643

p.k. balasubramanyan, j.1. leave granted.2. a room in a building in thousand lights, mount road madras, is the subject matter of this proceeding. the respondent-landlord leased that room, a 'building' as defined in the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960 to the appellant. according to the landlord, the letting was for the purpose of a shoe trade or trade in leather goods by the tenant. there was a prior proceeding in which there was a compromise and the building was re-let to the tenant after it was remodeled or re-constructed. while carrying on his business, the tenant had used a part of the premises for carrying on a trade in readymade garments and that amounted to a user of the building by the tenant for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, within the meaning of section 10 of the act. the tenant had also fixed name-boards outside and drilled two holes in the walls for fixing racks for the purpose of his trade and had taken an independent three phase electric connection and for that purpose he had made holes on the floor and on the wall; that these acts of the tenant amount to commission or causing the commission of such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially, the value or utility of the building within the meaning of section 10 of the act. thus, the landlord claimed eviction of the tenant, the appellant, on these two grounds.3. the appellant resisted the claim. he contended that the original letting was not for the purpose of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2005 (SC)

Ram Bhual Vs. Ambika Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-29-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC4233; 2005(4)AWC3786(SC); JT2005(12)SC49; 2005(7)SCALE669; (2005)12SCC121

p.k. balasubramanyan, j.1. in the elections to the uttar pradesh legislative assembly held on 21.02.2002, the appellant herein was declared elected from 166, kauriram assembly constituency (general). the election of the appellant was challenged by the respondent, the defeated candidate, by election petition no. 5 of 2002 filed in the high court of allahabad under section 80 read with section 81 of the representation of the people act, 1951. the challenge to the election was rested on section 100 (1) (c) of the act. the plea was that the returning officer, while scrutinizing the nominations, had wrongly rejected the nomination of an independent candidate sita ram examined as p.w. 2. the appellant resisted the election petition by questioning the right of the election petitioner to file the election petition based on the rejection of the nomination of another candidate, who had not come forward to challenge that rejection. the high court, based on the decision of this court in somnath rath v. bikram k. arukh and ors. : air1999sc3417, took the view that the wrongful rejection of the nomination of any candidate can be taken as a ground for challenging an election in an election petition by the defeated candidate and hence the election petition was maintainable. it then proceeded to consider whether the nomination paper of sita ram, p.w. 2 was improperly rejected. having come to the conclusion, on the pleadings and the evidence in the case, that the nomination of sita ram was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 2005 (SC)

Harbans Vs. Om Prakash and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-10-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC686; 2006(1)AWC312(SC); 2006(1)CTC678; JT2005(5)SC625; (2006)2MLJ54(SC); (2006)142PLR852; RLW2005(4)SC2923; (2006)1SCC129

arijit pasayat, j.1. judgment of a learned single judge of the punjab and haryana high court dismissing the second appeal filed by the appellant under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short the 'code') is the subject matter of challenge.2. background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows:a suit was instituted by the appellant against the defendants seeking decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff had become the owner in possession to the extent of 4 share and defendants 2 and 3 have become owner and possession of the balance suit property, on the ground of foreclosure since limitation for redemption of the land had expired. consequential relief of permanent injunction, for restraining defendant no. 1 from alienating the suit land and in any manner from interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 was sought for.3. specific stand of the plaintiff was that forefathers of the plaintiff alongwith forefathers of prem and lakhpat sons of banswari took the land in suit as mortgagees from the ancestors of bhira about more than 100 years ago, and since then they have continued to be in possession of the suit land as mortgagees. therefore, the plaintiff and defendants no. 2 and 3 are in cultivating possession of the suit land since smt. patori daughter of nanha has not been seen and heard by the plaintiff since he attained majority and her name has been wrongly shown by halqa patwari in place of banwari son of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 2005 (SC)

Subhash Shamrao Pachunde Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-08-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC699; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)284; (2005)107BOMLR1532; 2006CriLJ546; JT2005(10)SC407; (2006)1SCC384; 2006(1)LC108(SC)

s.b. sinha j.1. the sole appellant herein was prosecuted for commission of offences with five others under sections 147, 148, 302 read with section 149, 323, 324 and 149 of the indian penal code.shamrao, father of the appellant was accused no. 1. the accused nos. 3 and 4 ganpati and tanaji were his brothers whereas accused no. 5 vijay dattatray salunke was his nephew. the accused no. 6 vijay gangaram patel was a close family friend. .2. by reason of its judgment dated 08.11.1989 the learned trial judge while convicting the appellant under section 302 of the ipc and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of rs. 10,000/- or in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and the accused nos. 1 and 4 under section 324 of the ipc; acquitted the others of all charges. the high court in the appeals preferred by the appellant therein affirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial court but modified the sentence in respect of accused nos. 1 and 4 to the period already undergone.this appeal was admitted on a limited question, i.e., as regard nature of offence.3. before adverting to the contentions raised in the appeal we may notice the fact of the matter in brief. the parties were members of a joint family. shamrao, accused no. 1 and prahlad were two brothers. whereas accused nos. 2 to 5 belong to the branch of shamrao; the deceased and the complainant were sons of prahlad. a partition took place between the said brothers in 1984; .....

Tag this Judgment!

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