Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2006 Page 10 of about 159 results (0.134 seconds)

Sep 01 2006 (SC)

Sham Shankar Kankaria Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-01-2006

Reported in : JT2006(8)SC533; 2006(II)OLR(SC)708; 2006(8)SCALE760

arijit pasayat, j.1. these appeals are directed against a common judgment of the division bench of the bombay high court by which eight appeals were disposed of. six of them were by the accused persons while two were by the state. out of the two criminal appeals filed by the state, one was against the acquittal of the accused persons of the charge under section 302 read with section 34 of the indian penal code, 1860 (in short the 'ipc') and of section 135 of the bombay police act, 1951 (in short the 'bombay act'). the other was for enhancement of sentence. the two appeals filed by the state were allowed, except in respect of two who had died, while the six appeals filed by the accused persons were dismissed.2. the appeals were directed against the judgment and order dated 6th february, 1993 passed by the learned third additional sessions judge, nasik whereby accused no. 1 sham shankar kankaria was convicted for offence punishable under section 304 part ii ipc. the other five accused persons were convicted for offence punishable under section 325 read with section 34 ipc. all the six accused persons were convicted for offence punishable under section 342 read with section 34 ipc. for the first offence accused no. 1 sham shankar kankaria was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation. for the second offence each of accused nos. 2 to 6 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2006 (SC)

K.R. George Vs. Industrial Engineering Corporation and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-21-2006

Reported in : 2006(9)SCALE501; (2006)10SCC198

ar. lakshmanan, j.1. delay condoned.2. leave granted in both the special leave petitions.3. civil appeal no. 4226 of 2006 (@ s.l.p. (c) no. 3177 of 2005) was filed against the final order dated 12.3.2004 passed by the high court of kerala in r.p. no. 359 of 2003. civil appeal no. 4227 of 2006 (@ s.lp. (c) no. 3178 of 2005) was filed against the final order dated 9.4.2004 passed by the high court of kerala in c.m.a. no. 63 of 2000.4. we have heard the arguments advanced by mr. k. sukumaran, learned senior counsel for the appellant and the arguments of mr. t.lv. iyer, mr. m.n. krishnamani and mr. l.n. rao, learned senior counsel for the respective respondents. we have carefully perused the orders passed in c.m.a. no. 63/2000 and also the orders passed in r.p. no. 359/2003 and we have also considered other documents placed on record. a careful perusal of the orders in c.m.a. and the review petition, in our opinion, would reveal that both the appeals lack merits and liable to be dismissed for the reasons recorded in the orders passed in c.m.a. and review petition. when the instant matter came up for hearing before us on the last occasion, we passed the order at the request of mr. k. sukumaran, teamed senior counsel for the appellant and an opportunity was given to deposit a sum of rs.2 crores to show the bonafide of the appellant. accordingly, we passed the following orders on 5.9.2006:heard learned senior counsel appearing on either side at some length.during the pendency of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 2006 (SC)

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Bikash Kuanar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-10-2006

Reported in : [2006(111)FLR707]; JT2006(12)SC578; 2006(10)SCALE86; (2006)8SCC192; 2006(3)ShimLC293

dalveer bhandari, j.1. leave granted.2. this appeal is directed against the judgment of the division bench of the high court of orissa at cuttack in original jurisdiction case no. 8819 of 1999.3. brief facts of the case are as follows:respondent bikash kuanar's father was working as an extra development delivery agent (for short, 'edda') in narangochha b.o. and, on his superannuation a vacancy arose in the said post. the respondent herein had applied for the said post. in the process of selection, the respondent was selected and posted vide order dated 2.7.1998. pursuant to the said order, the respondent joined the service. the respondent, to his utter surprise and astonishment, on 2.1.1999 received a letter, wherein it was stated that the selection vis--vis the appointment of the respondent was reviewed and, thereafter, his appointment had been cancelled.4. the respondent, aggrieved by the said order dated 2.1.1999, filed an application before the central administrative tribunal. a counter affidavit was filed by the appellants before the tribunal. it was stated in the counter affidavit that an open advertisement was issued and in response to the same, the respondent herein and two other candidates, namely, pitamber majhi and seshadeba had applied for the said post. one pitamber majhi secured 348 marks in the matriculation examination as against 298 marks secured by the respondent. 5. according to the appellants, both these candidates pitamber majhi and seshadeba were wrongly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 2006 (SC)

Dr. T.A. Quereshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-06-2006

Reported in : (2006)206CTR(SC)489; [2006]287ITR547(SC); 2006(13)SCALE182; (2007)2SCC759

markandey katju, j.1. leave granted.2. this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2004 passed by the madhya pradesh high court in i.t.a. no. 33 of 1999.3. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. the appellant is an assessee. he is a doctor by profession at a place called 'garoth' in district mandsaur. on 18.7.1985, cbi sleuths arrested the appellant while transporting a huge quantity of contraband article (the narcotic drugs heroin) in a jeep (jonga) rso 3592. this led to further raid in his residential premises. in this raid, one clandestine laboratory to manufacture heroin powder along with several contraband drugs was recovered. all these contraband articles were seized and proceedings under the ndps act were initiated against the assessee. we are not concerned with these proceedings.5. so far as proceedings under the income tax act are concerned, with which we are concerned, the assessee-appellant filed his return for the assessment year 1986-87. in this assessment the assessee claimed that since the heroin seized from him forms part of his stock in trade hence its loss on account of seizure is an allowable deduction while computing his profits and gains of business/profession. the assessment officer by order dated 28.3.1989 did not accept the contention of the assessee and added a sum of rs. 5,50,000/-, being the assessed value of the heroin seized, as an income from undisclosed source. in appeal filed by assessee the cit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2006 (SC)

P.K. Sreekantan and ors. Vs. P. Sreekumaran Nair and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-04-2006

Reported in : AIR2007SC516; 2007(2)ALD117(SC); 2007(2)ALT40(SC); 2007(2)AWC1108(SC); 2007(2)CTC820; [2007(2)JCR207(SC)]; 2007(1)KLT100(SC); RLW2007(2)SC1642; 2006(13)SCALE289

arijit pasayat, j. 1. leave granted.2. challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the division bench of the kerala high court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants and the state.3. background facts in a nutshell are as follows:an extent of 2.81.20 hectares of land comprised in survey no. 1780/1, 1780/4, 1780/9, 1781/1,8,9, 1889/1,2 of the kadakampally village was acquired for the purpose of establishment of e.e.c. market at anayara. notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1894 (in short the 'act') was published on 29.5.1992. the possession of the land was taken on 23.7.1992 and an award was passed on 13.7.1992 fixing a total compensation of rs. 45,08,111/-. dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, applications were filed before the land acquisition officer for referring the matter for adjudication to the reference court. 4. the district collector by his letter dated 18.7.1994 forwarded the relevant records in respect of the matter for determination under section 18 of the act. along with the said letter, the names and addresses of the interested parties, who had filed the reference applications, were also furnished in the separate sheet attached. as per the sheet attached with the said covering letter, the appellant no. 1-p.k. sreekantan submitted his application dated 4.8.1993. respondent no. 1 p. sreekumaran nair submitted his application dated 26.8.1993 and the claimants 3, 4 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 2006 (SC)

Rakesh Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-03-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC820; 2006(1)BLJR118; 2006CriLJ808; JT2006(1)SC1; 2006(2)KLT26(SC); RLW2006(2)SC979; 2006(1)SCALE15; (2006)1SCC557

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 dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short the 'code') seeking quashing of the order of cognizance taken by learned judicial magistrate, patna, on a complaint filed by ramesh kumar dubey (respondent no. 2 in this appeal). by order dated 11.1.2000 learned judicial magistrate took cognizance of offences punishable under sections 342, 389, 469, 471 and 120 of the indian penal code, 1860 (in short the 'ipc'). learned chief judicial magistrate, patna had transferred the case on 18.1.1997 to the learned magistrate for enquiry and disposal and that is how the matter was placed before learned judicial magistrate, first class. primary stand taken by the appellant before the high court was that in the absence of sanction as contemplated under section 197 of the code, the proceeding cannot be continued. the high court by the impugned judgment rejected the prayer holding that since the requirement of section 100(4) of the code were not followed, while search was conducted in the respondent no. 2's premises the provisions of section 197 of the code were not applicable.3. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without noticing relevant factual background the high court has held that the protection under section 197 of the code were not available. according to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 2006 (SC)

Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy and anr. Vs. State of A.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-13-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC3517; 2006(2)ALD92(SC); JT2006(2)SC361; 2006(2)SCALE314; (2006)2SCC670

arijit pasayat, j.1. these appeals involve identical issues and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a division bench of the andhra pradesh high court. factual background is almost undisputed and the controversy relates to the scope and ambit of rule 11 of the andhra pradesh land reforms (ceiling on agricultural holdings) rules, 1974 (in short the 'ceiling rules'). the appellants were holding land in excess of the limit prescribed under the andhra pradesh land reforms (ceiling on agricultural holdings) act, 1973 (in short 'the act'). the surplus land was surrendered by them which had cashew nut tree plantation. on the surrendered land the trees were fruit bearing trees. the dispute relates to the amount payable in respect of fruit bearing trees standing on the land which were surrendered by the appellant. the number of trees is also not in dispute. the amount payable for the land vested in the government the amounts were duly paid. with regard to the amount payable for fruit bearing trees a commissioner was appointed, who submitted a report regarding number of fruit bearing trees and other trees standing on the land so surrendered. the commissioner of land reforms urban ceiling, hyderabad, andhra pradesh directed the district collector to issue necessary instructions not to fix the compensation payable in respect of the trees under the rules until further orders. according to the authorities the payment was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2006 (SC)

Canara Bank and ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Pani and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-24-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC1297; 2006(3)CTC203; JT2006(3)SC472; (2006)IILLJ432SC; 2006(2)SCALE604; (2006)3SCC251; 2006(2)SLJ476(SC)

s.b. sinha, j.1. these are two cross appeals between the parties. canara bank is appellant in civil appeal no. 1641 of 2004 and respondent in civil appeal no. 1642 of 2004. shri swapan kumar pani (hereinafter referred to as 'the first respondent') is appellant in civil appeal no. 1642 of 2004 and first respondent in civil appeal no. 1641 of 2004.2. the first respondent at all material time was working as accountant, in jajpur road, orissa branch of canara bank, calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank'). it is stated that in the said capacity he used to hold one set of keys of the locker of the bank. another set of keys used to be in the custody of the manager of the bank. admittedly on the ground that he had committed a misconduct; a departmental proceeding was proposed to be held in terms of regulation 6 of the canara bank officer employees' (discipline &appeal;) regulations, 1976 (regulations) where for the following articles of charge were served on the first respondent:m/s utkal iron & steel industries is a constituent of our jajpur road branch. they were sanctioned an m.l. limit of rs. 10.00 lakhs vide advances section -i, c.o. calcutta, letter cc: adv-i:0069:84t dated 6.1.1984. the loan was sanctioned on collateral security of bearer bonds of rs. 2.00 lacs besides other securities. the details of the bearer bonds are given in the statement of imputations.the bearer bonds were put in a loan paper cover and kept in double lock on 20.1.1984. on 23.1.1986, m/s s.k. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 2006 (SC)

Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority and Additional S ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-23-2006

Reported in : 2006(196)ELT385(SC); JT2006(4)SC78; 2006(3)SCALE477; (2006)4SCC303

ashok bhan, j.1. leave granted in special leave petition (civil) nos. 22905 - 22906 22905 - 22906 of 2003.2. this judgment shall dispose of civil appeal no. 773 of 2001 against the final order no. 22 of 2000-ad in appeal no. c/330/97-ad dated 2.2.2000 passed by the customs, excise & gold (control) appellate tribunal, new delhi [for short 'the tribunal']; civil appeals arising out of slp (c) nos. 22905 -22906 22905 -22906 of 2003 against the final order no. 10/03-ad and misc. order no. 9/03-ad dated 13.6.2003 passed by the customs, excise and service tax appellate tribunal, new delhi in appeal no. c/586/2001-ad with c/misc./100/2002-ad; civil appeal nos. 7159-7161 of 2004 against the final order nos. 14-16/2004-nb(a) dated 1.7.2004 passed by the customs, excise and service tax appellate tribunal, new delhi in appeal nos. c/260/2002-ad, c/596/2002-ad and c/687/2002-ad; and civil appeal no. 7162 of 2004 against the final order no. 17/2004-nb(a) dated 1.7.2004 passed by the customs, excise and service tax appellate tribunal, new delhi [for short 'the tribunal'] in appeal no. c/14/2003-ad.3. these appeals are interconnected and pertain to the same cause of action. civil appeal no. 773 of 2001 is against the final order imposing anti-dumping duty for a period of five years, civil appeals arising out of slp(c) nos. 22905-22906 22905-22906 of 2003 are directed against the orders passed in 'mid term review' and civil appeal nos. 7159-7162 of 2004 are against the order passed for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 2006 (SC)

Rodemadan India Limited Vs. International Trade Expo Center Limited

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-17-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC3456; 2006(2)ARBLR83(SC); 2006(3)AWC2262(SC); (2007)1CALLT18(SC); [2006]131CompCas326(SC); (2006)5CompLJ191(SC); 2006(3)CTC557; [2006(3)JCR3(SC)]; JT2006(5)SC203;

b.n. srikrishna, j.1. this is an application under section 11(6) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for appointment of a presiding arbitrator/ chairperson of the arbitral tribunal under the arbitration agreement. it has been placed before me as the person designated by the chief justice to act under section 11(6) of the act.2. the respondent-company has a lease of the land situated at plot no. a-11, sector-62, noida from the new okhla industrial development authority for a period of ninety years. the respondent wanted to construct and develop an exhibition center on the said land. there were negotiations between the petitioner-company and the respondent-company, as a result of which an exclusive management agreement was arrived at on 29.10.2003. under the said agreement, the petitioner was granted the exclusive right to manage the said plot of land for a period of ten years from the date on which 'vacant possession' was handed over to it. certain other terms as to payments were agreed to between the parties. two clauses, 8.0 and 8.1 of the said agreement, which are of relevance, are as under:8.0 in the event of breach of warranties by any of the parties the other party can seek relief by way of specific performance of the contract.8.1 arbitration: any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in relation to this exclusive management agreement shall be settled by a panel of three arbitrators (the 'arbitration panel') in .....

Tag this Judgment!


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