Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 9 of about 118 results (0.087 seconds)

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!

Jan 04 2005 (SC)

Pallavi Refractories and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Singareni Collieries Co. L ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-04-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC744; 2005(1)AWC673(SC); [2005(2)JCR289(SC)]; JT2005(1)SC107; (2005)2SCC227

ashok bhan, j.1. leave granted in slp (c) no. 2783 of 1999.2. these appeals by grant of special leave have been filed by the writ petitioners - the appellants herein, against the common order passed by the high court of andhra pradesh in a group of writ petitions. the high court in the impugned judgment has upheld clause 10 of the price notification no. 3/96-97 dated 14.3.1997 issued by m/s. singareni collieries co. ltd. (hereinafter, for short 'the respondent').3. appellants are proprietors of various coal based small-scale industries who draw 'c' and 'd' grade coal from the respondent. respondent is a state owned company in which 51% shares are held by the state of andhra pradesh and 49% shares are held by the government of india.4. government of india has identified 7 core/priority sector industries. they are: 1) exports, 2) power utilities, 3) defence, 4) railways (loco), 5) fertilizers, 6) steel including sponge iron and pig iron and 7) other metallurgical industries who use coal/coke for their own use. core/priority sector industries alone consume about 90-95% of the coal produced and left over 5% plus are supplied to the non-core/unlinked sector industries to which the appellants belong.5. the government of india has been fixing the grades and prices of the coal produced in india in pursuance of clauses 3 and 4 of the colliery control order, 1945 as continued in force by section 16 of the essential commodities act, 1955. it appears that the company had accumulated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2005 (SC)

Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resources Polic ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-05-2005

Reported in : (2005)3CompLJ193(SC); 2005(1)CTC609; 2005(192)ELT8(SC); [2005(2)JCR294(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC135; (2005)13SCC186

y.k. sabharwal, j.1. considering the alarming situation created by dumping of hazardous waste, its generation and serious and irreversible damage as a result thereof to the environment, flora and fauna, and also having regard to the magnitude of the problem as a result of failure of the authorities to appreciate the gravity of situation and the need for prompt measures being taken to prevent serious and adverse consequences, a high powered committee (hpc) was constituted by this court with prof.m.g.k. menon as its chairman, in terms of order dated 30th october, 1997. the committee comprised of experts from different disciplines and fields and was required to examine all matters in depth relating to hazardous waste.2. on consideration of the detailed reports submitted by the hpc various directions have been issued by this court from time to time. presently, we are concerned with the presence of hazardous waste oil in 133 containers lying at nhava sheva port as noticed by hpc. on the directions of this court, the oil contained in the said 133 containers was sent for laboratory test to determine whether same is hazardous waste oil or not. it has been found to be hazardous waste.3. on consideration of report of hpc, the result of laboratory test and entire material on record, this court came to the prima facie conclusion that importers illegally imported waste oil in 133 containers in the garb of lubricating oil. in terms of the order dated 25th september, 2003, notices were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 2005 (SC)

Jamshed N. Guzdar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC862; 2005(3)BomCR139; JT2005(1)SC370; 2005(2)MhLj392; 2005(1)MPHT497; 2005MPLJ181(SC); (2005)2SCC591; 2005(2)LC812(SC)

shivaraj v. patil, j.1. the constitutional validity of the bombay city civil court and bombay court of small causes (enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction & amendment) act, 1986 (maharashtra act no. xv of 1987) (for short 'the 1987 act), which received assent of the president on 4.5.1987, maharashtra high court (hearing of writ petitions by division bench and abolition of letters patent appeals) act, 1986 (maharashtra act xvii of 1986) (for short 'the 1986 act'), which received the assent of the president on 28.2.1986, and the correctness of the full bench decision of the high court of madhya pradesh striking down the provisions of the madhya pradesh uchcha nyayalaya (letters patent appeals samapti) adhiniyam, 1981 (for short 'the adhiniyam) abolishing letters patent appeals as invalid are under challenge in these matters.civil appeal no. 2452/19922. this appeal is directed against the order of the division bench of the high court of maharashtra made in writ petition no. 738 of 1992. the appellant herein filed writ petition by way of public interest litigation questioning the constitutional validity of the 1987 act. in addition to challenging the constitutional validity of the aforementioned act, he also sought for declaration that the notification dated 20th august, 1991 issued by the state of maharashtra as illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the constitution of india. the high court, after dealing with the rival contentions, dismissed the writ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2005 (SC)

Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1891; 2005(3)ALD6(SC); 2005(1)ARC887; 2005(2)AWC1023(SC); 2005(2)BLJR937; (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN137; 100(2005)CLT297(SC); 2005(2)CTC582; JT2005(3)SC278; 2005(2)KLT491

r.c. lahoti, c.j.1. in respect of a property situated in the metropolitan city of calcutta, a lease of immovable property for a fixed term commencing 1.4.1964 and expiring on 24.6.1984 evidenced by a registered deed of lease dated 17.7.1964, came into existence. the lessee entered into possession of the leased premises on 1.4.1964. on 26.9.1983, the lessor served a notice on the lessee informing the lessee that the tenancy was to expire on 24.6.1984 and, therefore, on that day the lessee must deliver vacant possession of the demised premises to the lessor. on 8.11.1983, the lessee sent a reply taking a firm stand that he would not vacate the demised premises in terms of the lease deed and the request contained in the communication dated 8.11.1983. the lessee also disputed the entitlement of the lessor to demand possession from the lessee on a plea that the title of the lessor to claim possession had itself come to an end on account of eviction by a paramount title- holder. on 16.4.1984, the present suit was filed by the lessor against the lessee seeking the following reliefs:-'a) a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to be delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff on the expiry of the term of the said lease dated july 17, 1964, i.e. on the expiry of june 24, 1984.b) perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its agents and servants from subletting, assigning or parting with possession of the said premises or .....

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 17 2005 (SC)

Mediquip Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Proxima Medical System Gmbh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-17-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC4175; II(2005)BC366(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN56; [2005]124CompCas473(SC); (2005)4CompLJ6(SC); 2005(2)CTC392; JT2005(3)SC380; (2005)7SCC42; [2005]59SCL255(SC); 2005(

ar. lakshmanan, j.1. leave granted.2. this appeal is directed against the order passed by the division bench of the high court at calcutta in appeal from an order passed under its original civil jurisdiction being apot no. 786 of 2002. the division bench of the high court at calcutta dismissed the appeal of the appellant as well as the application for stay.3. the short facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are as follows:the appellant-company is engaged in business of import of medical equipment and service thereof in general and ultra-sound scanners, in particular. the respondent-proximalmedical system, gmbh, issued legal notice to the appellant-company under section 434 of the companies act mentioning that the appellant-company is liable to pay the respondent a sum of us $ 5000 and us $ 11000 aggregating to us $ 16000. the appellant replied to the said notice and denied the liability to pay the amounts to the respondent. the respondent-company filed a winding up petition being c.p. no. 316 of 2001 against the appellant-company, inter alia, praying that the company be wound up by the order of the court and official liquidator of the court be appointed as liquidator of the company to take charge of its assets. it was alleged therein that despite notice, the company failed and/or neglected to refund us $ 5000 and us $ 11000 which was allegedly remitted by the respondent-company as partial bid security in respect of two global tenders. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2005 (SC)

Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-31-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2090; 2005(2)BLJR1223; (2005)4CompLJ249(SC); 2005(2)ESC225; [2005(105)FLR630]; [2005(4)JCR124(SC)]; JT2005(4)SC40; (2005)IILLJ461SC; (2005)6SCC321; [2005]61SCL144(

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. challenge in this appeal is to correctness of the judgment rendered by a division bench of the kerala high court holding that the order directing respondent's dismissal from service was in violation of the principles of natural justice. therefore, it was held that the order was passed without proper application of mind regarding the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority on the basis of report of the enquiry officer, and relating to imposition of punishment. however, high court permitted the respondent - writ petitioner to make a detailed representation to the disciplinary authority in respect of the enquiry proceedings and findings, within a stipulated time and direction was given to the disciplinary authority to consider the submission and pass a fresh order. high court further directed that the period during which respondent was out of service was to be treated as period under suspension, and the employee was to be paid subsistence allowance. it would be relevant to note that the respondent filed a writ petition questioning the order directing his dismissal from service. learned single judge came to hold that the quantum of punishment i.e. dismissal from service was disproportionate to the misconduct proved. it was however, held that no prejudice was caused to the writ petitioner and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. both the writ petitioner and the present appellant had preferred writ appeals before the .....

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!

Apr 05 2005 (SC)

Kamalanantha and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-05-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2132; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN41; 2005(3)CTC764; JT2005(4)SC170; (2005)5SCC194

h.m. sema, j.1. these appeals by special leave are preferred by accused nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 against their conviction concurrently recorded by two courts. a-3 served out the sentence and a-5 died during the pendency of the appeal before the high court and his appeal stands abated. they were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment as under:-charge nos.convicted under sectionaccusedsentence of imprisonment/ fine imposed.(1)(2)(3)(4)1.120(b) i.p.c.a-1 to a-7no separate sentence.2.376(2)(c) i.p.c. (12 counts)a-1imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 5,10,000/- on each count. in default rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years and six months. (total fine rs. 61,20,000/-. imprisonment for life on each count is to run concurrently.3.376 r/w 109 i.p.c.a-2, a-4, a-6 & a-7 a-3imprisonment for life on each accused. rigorous imprisonment for two years, 7 months and 2 days (period of sentence already undergone) and to pay a fine of rs.10,000/-. in default. rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months.4.354 i.p.c. (one count)a-1no separate sentence.5.312 i. p.c. (four counts)a-3rigorous imprisonment for two years, 7 months and 2 days (period of sentence already undergone) and to pay a fine of rs.5,000/- on each count. in default, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 45 days. (total fine rs.20,000/-6.302 i.p.c.a-1imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of rs.10,000/-. in default, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months.302 r/w 34 i.p. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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