Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 9 of about 118 results (0.108 seconds)

Aug 24 2005 (SC)

impression Prints Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-1

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-24-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3980; 2005(102)ECC1; 2005(187)ELT170(SC); JT2005(7)SC585; (2005)7SCC497

s.n. variava, j. 1. this appeal is against the judgment dated 27th december, 1999 by the customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal (for short cegat), new delhi.briefly stated the facts are as follows:the appellants are manufacturers, amongst others, of items like bed sheets, bed covers and pillow cases. in this appeal, we are concerned with the question as to whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of notification no. 65/87-ce dated 1st march, 1987 in respect of bed sheets, bed covers and pillow cases. these items fall under tariff item 6301 which consists of 'made up textile articles'. under the notification, these articles have a 'nil' rate of duty 'if made without the aid of power'. the appellants had not taken out any license and were not paying duty. they were issued a show-cause- notice as to why duty be not levied on these items and why penalty be not imposed. the appellants claimed that under the abovementioned notification these items bore a 'nil' rate of duty and that they were therefore not liable to pay duty. their case was not accepted on the ground that in the process of manufacturing printed bed sheets, bed covers and pillow cases they mixed colour with the help of colour mixing machine which was operated with the aid of power. the appellants were therefore called upon to pay duty. penalty was also imposed on them. the appeal of the appellants has been dismissed by the cegat by the impugned judgment.mr. bagaria points out that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 2005 (SC)

V. Ramana Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-05-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3417; 2005(4)AWC3079(SC); [2005(107)FLR262]; (2005)IIILLJ725SC; (2006)2MLJ162(SC); (2005)7SCC338; 2006(1)SLJ77(SC)

arijit pasayat, j.1. challenge in this appeal is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a full bench of the andhra pradesh high court holding that the order of termination passed in the departmental proceedings against the appellant was justified.2. the factual background is essentially as follows:the appellant was working as a conductor in the organization of the andhra pradesh state road transport corporation. charges were made against him which related to not issuing tickets at the boarding point itself to the passengers who were in the bus, failure to collect fare and issue tickets to persons who were alighting at a particular destination and not properly maintaining records of tickets and fare. explanation of the appellant was considered and was found to be not, satisfactory and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. the enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges leveled and after giving him opportunity of hearing as regards the quantum of punishment, order of removal from service was passed. 3. questioning correctness of the said order, writ petition was filed. learned single judge before whom the matter was placed held that there was some divergence of view in the judgments of learned single judges and, therefore, referred the matter to a larger bench. the reference was as regards the effect of acquittal in the criminal case and smallness of the amount involved. the high court by the impugned judgment held that the acquittal of the case was really of no .....

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!

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!


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