Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 8 of about 118 results (0.129 seconds)

Aug 02 2005 (SC)

Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-02-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3073; 2005(192)ELT33(SC); JT2005(6)SC560; (2005)6SCC292; [2005]142STC76(SC)

ruma pal, j.1. the issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax under the andhra pradesh general sales tax act 1957 as notified by g.o.m.s. no. 117 dated 17th march, 1993 (referred to in brief as the '1993 g.o.').2. the 1993 g.o. was issued by the government of andhra pradesh, industries and commerce department to effectuate the liberalized state incentive scheme for setting up new industries as introduced by the government in 1989. the package of incentives already granted by the state government was reviewed whereafter the state government decided to introduce certain modifications in order to accelerate industrial development in the state. the incentives were granted on the basis of districts according to their grouping under areas i, ii and iii. we are concerned with district medak, falling within area ii.3. apart from an investment subsidy, rebate on electricity charges and a deferment/tax holiday on sales tax for specified periods on products manufactured in the new industrial units were granted in clauses 5(c) and 5(b) respectively of the 1993 g.o. medium and large scale industries were given sales tax deferment, whereas tiny and small scale industries were given a sales tax (holiday) exemption. the appellant falls within the latter category. in terms of the 1993 g.o. units like the appellant's were given a 5 years sales tax holiday subject to a ceiling of hundred percent of fixed capital costs or rs. 35 lakhs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 2005 (SC)

Kishun @ Ram Kishun (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Bihari (D) by Lrs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-05-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3799; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)936; 2005(6)ALT2(SC); 2005(3)AWC2783(SC); 2005(6)BomCR913; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN10; [2005(4)JCR87(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC614; 2005(4)MhLj1; 2005MPLJ1

p.k. balasubramanyan, j.leave granted.1. one ram charan had two sons, ram kishun called kishun and ram prasad called behari. on 22.09.1966, ram charan gifted a piece of agricultural land to his son kishun by way of a deed of gift. thereupon, behari filed a suit for cancellation of that gift impleading kishun as defendant no. 1 and his father ram charan, as defendant no. 2. he contended that the property was joint family property and hence could not be gifted by the father ram charan and that in any event the deed of gift was got executed by kishun, by practicing fraud. kishun and ram charan filed written statement denying the claim of behari.2. pursuant to the deed of gift in his favour, kishun had approached the tehsildar for effecting mutation. it is claimed by behari that before the tehsildar, a compromise was entered into and an application for recording the compromise was moved. under the compromise, according to behari, the parties agreed that the property would be taken half and half by the two brothers. since this compromise set up by behari was not accepted by kishun and ram charan, the tehsildar did not pass any final order either in respect of the compromise or in respect of the dispute.3. in the suit, behari filed an application under order xxiii rule 3 of the code of civil procedure (for short 'the code') asserting that there was a compromise of the dispute between the parties and that the same may be accepted and the seal of approval affixed thereon by the court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 2005 (SC)

G. Reghunathan Vs. K.V. Varghese

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-23-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3680; 2005(4)KLT147(SC); (2005)7SCC317

p.k. balasubramanyan, j.1. leave granted.2. the tenant is before us. he is the tenant of a building governed by the kerala buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1965 (hereinafter called 'the act'). he took on rent a room in the building belonging to the respondent-landlord. he executed an unregistered, insufficiently stamped rent deed on 5.9.1988 which was accepted by the landlord. he entered into possession thereunder. the lease was taken for the purpose of conducting a gold and silver jewellery shop. as per the rent deed, the term of the lease was 15 years. the rent payable was rs. 750/- a month. a sum of rs. 85,000/- was given to the landlord as security. that amount was to be returned to the tenant when he vacated the room. the monthly rent of rs. 750/- was to be paid by the 5th of the succeeding month. the tenant was given the right to install electrical fittings and to take water and telephone connections. he had the right to install all necessary instruments or equipments in the room for the purpose of gold and silver business.3. disputes seem to have arisen immediately thereafter. the tenant did not tender the rent that fell due on 5.10.1988. he removed a door and three windows from the walls of the room and closed up those openings. he cut-off the rafters in the front to a length of two feet. he lowered the level of the floor by one foot. he erected two pillars touching the walls and fixed a rolling shutter in front of the shop. these were done without the written .....

Tag this Judgment!

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!

Sep 27 2005 (SC)

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Kanda Gopaludu

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-27-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3616; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)279; JT2006(2)SC412; (2005)13SCC116

h.k. sema, j.1. the respondent was convicted by the trial court under section 302 ipc. the trial court relying upon the extra-judicial confession made before pw.1, pw.2 and pw.3 found the respondent guilty. the trial court also relied upon the evidence of pw.9, the investigating officer corroborated by the evidence of pw.5, doctor. on appeal being preferred by the accused, the high court acquitted the accused respondent herein.this appeal is preferred by the state by special leave.2. the high court recorded the acquittal on the ground that pw.1 and pw.2 before whom the accused made extra-judicial confession are strangers and there is no reason for the respondent to make the extra-judicial confession before pw.1, pw.2 and pw.3. the high court also found that the statements of pws. 1 and 2 were full of contradiction and artificial. on this ground the accused was acquitted, however, the high court has not assigned any reason with regard to the alleged contradiction between the statements of pw.1 and pw.2 and the acquittal is not supported at all. it is now well established principle of law that the judicial decision is based on reasons. we have been taken through the evidence of pws.1, 2 and 3 before whom the accused made extra-judicial confession. it is now established principle of law that extra-judicial confession is admissible if it inspired confidence ' and made voluntarily. the high court reasoning that the accused has made a confession statement before a stranger is .....

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 16 2005 (SC)

Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union Vs. Management of Birla Cotton Spinning and W ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-16-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1782; 2005(2)AWC1075(SC); [2005(105)FLR416]; [2005(3)JCR38(SC)]; 2005(2)KLT978(SC); (2005)IILLJ271SC; (2005)13SCC777; 2005(2)SLJ338(SC)

b.p. singh, j.1. the appellant kapra mazdoor ekta union has preferred this appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and order of the high court of delhi at new delhi in civil writ petition no. 2084 of 1990 dated august 31, 2001 whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent-management of m/s. birla cotton spinning and weaving mills limited was allowed and the order dated february 19, 1990 passed by the presiding officer. industrial tribunal no. ii, delhi was quashed. by the said order the industrial tribunal had in effect recalled its award of june 12, 1987 and framed an additional issue to be tried by the tribunal. the high court held that the award dated june 12, 1987 had effectively terminated the industrial dispute referred to the tribunal by the appropriate government on december 13, 1982.2. with a view to appreciate the submissions urged before us it would be necessary to notice the factual background in which these questions have arisen.3. the appellant-union is one of the eight unions representing the workers employed in the respondent-company. in the year 1982 on account of closure of some looms of the weaving section of the mill disputes arose between the workmen and the management of the respondent-company. the appropriate government in exercise of its powers conferred by section 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the industrial disputes act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') referred the said disputes to the industrial tribunal, delhi vide .....

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!

Apr 01 2005 (SC)

State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-01-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2191; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)697; 100(2005)CLT111(SC); 2005(183)ELT337(SC); JT2005(4)SC10; 2005(2)KLT547(SC); RLW2005(3)SC357; (2005)3SCC752; 2005(1)LC648(SC)

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. the state of nagaland questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned single judge of the gauhati high court, kohima bench refusing to condone the delay by rejecting the application filed under section 5 of the limitation act, 1963 (in short the 'limitation act') and consequentially rejecting of application for grant of leave to appeal. before we deal with the legality of the order refusing to condone the delay in making the application for grant of leave, a brief reference to the factual background would suffice3. application for grant of leave was made in terms of section 378(3) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short the 'code'). a judgment of acquittal was passed by learned additional deputy commissioner (judicial) dimapur, nagaland. the judgment was pronounced on 18.12.2002. as there was delay in making the application for grant of leave in terms of section 378(3) of the code, application for condonation of delay was filed. as is revealed from the application for condonation, copy of the order was received by the concerned department on 15th january, 2003; without wasting any time on the same date the relevant documents and papers were put up for necessary action before the deputy inspector general of police, (head quarters), nagaland. on the next day, the said deputy inspector general considered the matter and forwarded the file for consideration to the deputy inspector general of police (m&p;), nagaland. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 2005 (SC)

Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi Vs. Chhatra Devi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-12-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2497(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1642; 2006(1)BomCR466; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN135; 100(2005)CLT679(SC); 2005(3)CTC577; (2005)197CTR(SC)602; [2005(3)JCR201(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC167;

arijit pasayat, j. 1. leave granted.2. appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single judge of the patna high court in second appeal in terms of section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short the 'code'). the respondents are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff-ishraj narayan singh. the original plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of his title over the suit land and declaration of want of title of smt. ram sakhi devi, the appellant herein, the defendant no. 3 in the suit. the trial court had decreed the suit but in appeal the first appellate court reversed it. the respondents filed the second appeal before the patna high court. by the impugned judgment the high court restored the judgment and decree of the trial court and set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court.3. though many points v/ere urged in support of the appeal, the pivotal plea was that the high court could not have interfered with the judgment and decree of the first appellate court without framing a substantial question of law as enjoined by section 100 of the code. the high court can only exercise its jurisdiction under section 100 of the code in second appeal on the basis of substantial question of law framed at the time of admitting appeal. a second appeal can be heard and decided only on the basis of substantial question of law, if any. the judgment rendered by the high court in second appeal without following the aforesaid .....

Tag this Judgment!


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