Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2006 Page 2 of about 159 results (0.079 seconds)

Apr 04 2006 (SC)

Hari Shankar Singhania and ors. Vs. Gaur Hari Singhania and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-04-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC2488; 2006(2)ARBLR1(SC); 2006(3)BomCR10; 2006(2)CTC597; JT2006(4)SC251; (2006)3MLJ243(SC); 2006(4)SCALE74; (2006)4SCC658; 2006(1)LC423(SC)

..... me.44. it is thus seen that the above facts would clearly go to show that the contesting respondent nos. 1-9 are not at all interested in any conciliation, mediation or arbitration but only interested in enjoying the bulk of the immovable properties of the firm and refusing to carry out their obligations under and pursuant to the said deed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 2006 (SC)

C.T. Radhakrishnan Vs. C.T. Viswanathan Nair and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-16-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC910; (SCSuppl)2006(2)CHN40; JT2006(1)SC318; 2006(1)KLT459(SC); 2006(1)SCALE258; (2006)1SCC794

..... of kunhimalu amma and her four children who were in joint possession with viswanathan nair, the son of ammini amma was fixed at rs. 2,500/- at the instance of mediators and kunhimalu amma and her children had decided to release their rights for that consideration in favour of viswanathan nair and they were doing so under the transaction, on receipt .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 2006 (SC)

Surendra and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-24-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC3063; JT2006(8)SC445; 2006(8)SCALE469; (2006)11SCC434

..... that mina had gone to police station prior to him. 6. in the first information report, pw-2 categorically stated:my father and sister went there to act as a mediator, so my brother dilip ran awayhe also stated:it is true that mina was not present when the accused assaulted my father.he admitted that there was a dispute as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 2006 (SC)

Hansa Industries Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Kidarsons Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-13-2006

Reported in : AIR2007SC18; (SCSuppl)2007(1)CHN78; [2006]134CompCas1(SC); JT2006(9)SC100; 2006(10)SCALE170; (2006)8SCC531; [2006]72SCL117(SC)

..... compensatory equalization payment to the company. parties by consent can, however, agree to a larger amount. 6. that shri p.n khanna, retired judge is at present acting as a mediator. he will act as a commissioner, to separate 30.14% of the assets of the company to be given to shri narendra nath nanda group as set out hereinbefore. 10 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2006 (SC)

Tundal (Dead) by L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Munshi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-18-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC3022; JT2006(8)SC519; 2006(8)SCALE124

lokeshwar singh panta, j.1. these appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 5th january, 1995 passed by the learned single judge of the high court of punjab and haryana dismissing regular second appeal nos. 724/1985, 1740/1990, 725/1985 and 307/1991 filed by the appellants- defendants against the judgment and decree of the additional district judge (ii), faridabad. the additional district judge has dismissed the civil appeal no. 101 of 1983 preferred by original defendant-appellant tundal against the judgment dated 7th june, 1983 of sub-judge first class, palwal, decreeing the civil suit no. 232 of 1980 instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents for possession of the land by way of redemption. we have taken up and heard these appeals together as they involve same and identical issues and they shall stand disposed of by this common judgment.2. brief facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals are that one smt. mohori, widow of dan sahai, was the owner in possession of the agricultural land comprising khasra nos. 871, 872, 873, 900, 901, 903 and 907 of khatoni no. 21 and khasra no. 576 of khatoni no. 22, khewat no. 7 admeasuring 14 bighas, 9 biswas situated in village raidaska, tehsil palwal, district faridabad. during consolidation proceedings, lands measuring 45 kanals 8 marlas was allotted to smt. mohori in lieu of old khasra numbers which was mortgaged by smt. mohori with possession with original appellant-defendant no. 1 tundal (now dead), vide .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2006 (SC)

Gram Panchayat, Vill Haripura Vs. the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-15-2006

Reported in : JT2006(12)SC153; (2006)4MLJ1844(SC); (2007)146PLR598; 2006(9)SCALE356; (2006)8SCC286; 2006(2)LC1240(SC)

a.k. mathur, j.1. both these appeals involve common questions of law & fact therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. for convenient disposal of these appeals, the facts given in c.a.no.433 of 2000 are taken into consideration. this appeal is directed against the order dated 21.7.1998 passed by learned division bench of the high court of punjab and haryana. the division bench disposed of c.w.p. no.11059 of 1998 and c.w.p. no. 11066 of 1998 both by this order. the division bench took the view that by virtue of section 8 of the punjab security of land tenures act, 1963, (hereinafter to be referred to as the act of 1963 ) tenancy does not come to an end on change of ownership or even on the death of the land owner. it was also held that the appellants became the owner of the disputed land and the contesting respondents were tenants. this finding of fact was given on the basis of the jamabandi i.e. revenue records. in jamabandi it was recorded that the respondent was a tenant on payment of rs. 64/- per kila sal tamam i.e. for one year. it further observed that after the gram panchayat became the owner it was receiving the rent from the contesting respondents, therefore, the gram panchayat accepted them as tenants. this was contested by the gram panchayat and it was submitted that such voluntary deposit of rent by occupier of land cannot be deemed to be tenant. in this connection, the full bench decision in the case of gram panchayat, village haripura v. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2006 (SC)

Amarjit Kaur and ors. Vs. Karamvir Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-25-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC2481; 2006(3)AWC2389(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(4)CHN51; 2006(4)SCALE553; (2006)11SCC610

arijit pasayat, j.1. challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by a learned single judge of the punjab and haryana high court at chandigarh in second appeal filed under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short the 'cpc').2. background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-one ajit singh was a common ancestor of the appellants and the respondents. the respondents as plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners to the extent of 17/24 share in the 107 kanals and 2 marlas of land, out of 151 kanals 5 marlas of land in dispute which had been allotted to their common ancestor ajit singh at the time of consolidation. ajit singh was a man of full vices, a spend- thrift person and had sold his land to one bishan singh without consideration and legal necessity. joginder singh, ancestor of the present appellants 1 to 5 and 7 had filed a suit for declaration that said sale was without consideration and legal necessity and as such void and had no effect on the reversionary rights. the said suit was decreed up to the high court. before this court a compromise was arrived at between joginder singh and bishan singh in which the latter admitted that the land was ancestral property and the sale was ineffective. he, therefore, relinquished his right in the same after accepting a sum of rs.30,000/- from joginder singh, the original defendant no. 1. with a mala fide intent joginder singh initially got the mutation sanctioned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 2006 (SC)

A.P. Nayar and ors. Vs. RehA. Min. Emp. Coop. House Bldg. Soc. Ltd. an ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-24-2006

Reported in : 2007(1)AWC213(SC); 129(2006)DLT386(SC); 2006(4)SCALE503; (2006)9SCC453

p.k. balasubramanyan, j.1. this appeal is by the contesting respondents in c.w. no. 3786 of 1992 on the file of the high court of delhi. the rehabilitation ministry employees cooperative group housing society limited (for short 'the society'), respondent no. 1 herein, filed the said writ petition challenging an order of the appellate officer under the evacuee interest (separation) act, 1951 (for short 'the separation act') by which the appellate officer allowed an appeal filed by the contesting respondents under section 14 of that act and set aside the order of the competent officer rejecting an application made by the contesting respondents under section 10 of the act. the appellate officer had set aside the order of the competent officer dated 30.05.1986 and remanded the matter back to the competent officer for deciding the claim of the contesting respondents afresh in accordance with law. the high court allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent-society and set aside the order of the appellate officer dated 4.8.1992, by holding that the society was a lessee of the land in question and the contesting respondents before it, the appellants herein, have no right, title or interest in the land in question except a right to receive compensation under the resettlement of displaced persons (land acquisition) act, 1948, hereinafter called 'the acquisition act'. the possession of the writ petitioner-society was also upheld. the contesting respondents were restrained .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 2006 (SC)

Devinder Singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-04-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC2850; 2007(1)AWC181(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(4)CHN140; JT2006(6)SC312; 2006(6)SCALE507; (2006)5SCC720; 2006(2)LC867(SC)

arijit pasayat, j.1. appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single judge of the punjab and haryana high court dismissing the second appeal filed by the appellants.2. backgrounds facts in a nutshell are as follows:appellants filed suit for declaration on 7.9.1991 to the effect that they are the owners in possession of share of the land measuring 155 kanals 4 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1983-84 situated in village kairanwali, tehsil and district sirsa and the order of allotment and declaration of surplus area so far as the said land is concerned are ineffective, inoperative and against the principles of natural justice, null and void and as such not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. the suit was decreed by learned senior sub judge, sirsa in civil suit no. 1054 of 1989. respondents filed an appeal before the district judge. the appeal was assigned to learned additional district judge who by his judgment and decree dated 14.10.1997 set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. a second appeal was carried before the high court which by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal holding that since section 26 of the haryana ceiling on land holding act, 1972 (in short 'the act') provides that no civil court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain or proceed with a suit for specific performance of the contract for transfer of land which affects the right of the state government to the surplus area .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 2006 (SC)

Tulsi and ors. Vs. Chandrika Prasad and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-24-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC3359; 2007(1)ALD20(SC); 2006(4)AWC3644(SC); 2006(4)CTC766; [2007(1)JCR87(SC)]; JT2006(8)SC158; 2007(1)MhLj893; 2007(I)OLR(SC)196; 2006(8)SCALE515; (2006)8SCC322

s.b. sinha, j. 1. leave granted. 2. whether the deed dated 30.12.1968 constitutes a sale with condition of purchase or mortgage by way of conditional sale is the question which falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.7.2004 passed by the high court of jharkhand in f.a. no. 23 of 1991 (r) . 3. the basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. the property in question is a house property. it belonged to one jawala prasad sah, defendant no. 3 in the suit. on 30.12.1968, he transferred the northern part of the house property to one balmukund chaudhary by way of mortgage for a consideration of rs. 4,300/- repayable by 30.1.1971. he sold the entire property to the plaintiffs for a valuable consideration of rs. 14,000/-. it included the right to redeem the mortgage. the transaction in question was also carried out on the same date, i.e. 30.12.1968. the husband of the appellant no. 1 herein banshidhar singhania was a tenant in the said premises. the respondents filed a suit for a decree for redemption of the said mortgage as also a decree for mesne profit for the period 3.1.1972 till the recovery of possession of the mortgaged property. in the alternative, a prayer for a decree of specific performance was made. 4. it is not in dispute that prior to filing of the suit by several notices, the plaintiffs expressed their intention to redeem the mortgage. a personal tender of the entire mortgage amount was made which was refused. an .....

Tag this Judgment!


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