Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2006 Page 6 of about 159 results (0.312 seconds)

Aug 22 2006 (SC)

Rangnath Haridas Vs. Dr. Shrikant B. Hegde

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-22-2006

Reported in : 2006(4)AWC4092(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(1)CHN1; 103(2007)CLT3(SC); 2006(2)CTLJ175(SC); [2007(1)JCR185(SC)]; JT2006(7)SC546; 2006(6)MhLj708; (2006)4MLJ1721(SC); 2007MPLJ33(SC); 20

dalveer bhandari, j.1. leave granted.2. by the order dated 17.08.2004, chamber summons no. 1460 of 2003 in execution application no. 388 of 2003 in suit no. 3550 of 1990 was made absolute by the single judge of the high court of bombay. 3. aggrieved by the said order of the single judge, the appellant-defendant filed an appeal before the division bench. the division bench of the bombay high court dismissed the said appeal (appeal no. 672 of 2004) by an order dated 21.10.2004. the appellant aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the learned single judge and the division bench has preferred this civil appeal before this court.4. the brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal is recapitulated as under:the respondent-plaintiff entered into an agreement with the appellant for the purchase of a flat on 16.9.1985. despite making part payment, when the appellant did not perform his part of the agreement, the respondent filed a suit no. 3550 of 1990 in the high court of bombay for seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 16.9.1985.5. during the pendency of the suit, the parties have amicably settled the dispute involved in the suit and filed the consent terms on 1.11.1991. the details of the chamber summons and the consent terms incorporated in the order of the learned single judge are reproduced hereinafter for proper appreciation of the facts of this case.that pending the above execution application, this hon'ble court be pleased to appoint the court receiver .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 2006 (SC)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kiran Combers and Spinners

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-08-2006

Reported in : 2007ACJ532; AIR2007SC393; 2007(2)ALD16(SC); 2007(2)AWC1243(SC); [2007]135CompCas192(SC); I(2007)CPJ1(SC); [2007(2)JCR289(SC)]; (2007)1MLJ761(SC); RLW2007(3)SC2150; 2006AIRSCW6292

a.k. mathur, j. 1. this appeal is directed against the order passed by the national consumer disputes redressal commission, new delhi in original petition no. 74/1994 on 18.7.2003.2. brief facts giving rise to this appeal are:the respondent/complainant m/s kiran combers & spinners filed its complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of united india insurance company. the case of the complainant/respondent was that they got their building and stock insured from the united india insurance company (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the company'). the respondent- complainant held a valid fire policy for its stock (building rs. 25 lakhs, machinery rs. 40 lakhs, stocks rs. 25 lacks and furniture/fixtures rs. 1 lakh) effective from 11.1.1993 to 10.1.1994. this policy also endorsed to cover risk of flood. on account of heavy rains and floods in the city, insured property was affected by floods on 24th july, 1993 at about 7.45 p.m. which caused damage to building, machinery and stocks. this incident was reported to the company on 25th july, 1993 and an fir was lodged on 27th july, 1993. the respondent-claimant claimed rs. 20,03,842/- in july, 1993 from the company. surveyor, namely, m/s vij engineer's enterprise appointed by the company carried out its preliminary survey and submitted a report on 29th july, 1993. second surveyor; m/s mita marine and general survey agencies pvt. ltd. also visited the premises and submitted its detailed report on 14th september, 1993. m/s mita .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2006 (SC)

Shanti Devi Vs. Daropti Devi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-14-2006

Reported in : 2007(2)AWC1153(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN83; 2006(5)CTC262; 2006(13)SCALE577

s.b. sinha, j.1. leave granted.2. an order of remand passed by a division bench of the delhi high court dated 07.11.2003 passed in r.f.a. no. 435 of 1992 is in appeal before us.3. the parties are sisters being the daughters of shri tara chand madan and smt. budho bai (since deceased). tara chand madan died on 21.03.1954. smt. budho bai executed a deed of sale in respect of the property bearing no. 16/26, old rajinder nagar, new delhi, by a registered deed dated 14.06.1965. she allegedly disowned respondent no. 1 as her daughter. a will was executed by her on 22.02.1977, beneficiary whereof was said to be the appellant. smt. budho bai died on 20.04.1980.4. appellant filed an application for mutation of her name. respondent filed a suit for perpetual injunction, which was marked as civil suit no. 308 of 1980, claiming, inter alia, for the following reliefs:(a) a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant no. 3 from dealing the said property in any manner whatsoever and from getting the said property no. 16/26, situated at old rajinder nagar, new delhi, together with the lease hold rights of the land thereunder admeasuring 85 sq. yds. or thereabouts substituted/transferred exclusively in her name to the exclusion of the plaintiffs from defendants nos. 1 & 2 on the basis of the alleged will dated 22.02.1977 and also restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from enforcing or acting in any manner whatsoever on the basis of the said alleged will dated 22.02.1977 and thereby .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 2006 (SC)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-02-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC1383; (2006)4CompLJ330(SC); (2006)201CTR(SC)346; [2006]282ITR273(SC); JT2006(3)SC114; 2006(2)SCALE752; (2006)3SCC1; [2006]145STC91(SC); 2006[2]STR161; [2006]152

ruma pal, j.1. the principal question to be decided in these matters is the nature of the transaction by which mobile phone connections are enjoyed. is it a sale or is it a service or is it both? if it is a sale then the states are legislatively competent to levy sales tax on the transaction under entry 54 list ii of the seventh schedule to the constitution. if it is a service then the central government alone can levy service tax under entry 97 of list i (or entry 92c of list i after 2003). and if the nature of the transaction partakes of the character of both sale and service, then the moot question would be whether both legislative authorities could levy their separate taxes together or only one of them.2. the contenders are the service providers on the one hand and the states on the other. it is the case of the service providers (who are for the purposes of convenience referred to in this judgment as 'petitioners' irrespective of the capacity in which they are arraigned in the several matters before us) that there is no sale transaction involved and that the attempt of the several states to levy tax on the provision of mobile phone facilities by them to subscribers was constitutionally incompetent. it is their case that the transaction in question was merely a service and that the union government alone was competent to levy tax thereon.3. they are supported in their stand by the union government.4. the states' (who are correspondingly referred to as 'the respondents') .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 2006 (SC)

Kuldip Nayar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-22-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC3127; JT2006(8)SC1; 2006(8)SCALE257; (2006)7SCC1

y.k. sabharwal, c.j.background1. by this writ petition under article 32 of the constitution of india, petitioner seeks to challenge amendments made in the representation of people act, 1951 (for short, 'the rp act', 1951') through representation of people (amendment) act 40 of 2003 which came into force from 28th august, 2003. by the said amendment act 2003, the requirement of 'domicile' in the state concerned for getting elected to the council of states is deleted which according to the petitioner violates the principle of federalism, a basic structure of the constitution.in the writ petition, there is a further challenge to the amendments in sections 59, 94 and 128 of the rp act, 1951 by which open ballet system is introduced which, according to the petitioner, violates the principle of 'secrecy' which, according to the petitioner, is the essence of free and fair elections as also the voter's freedom of expression which is the basic feature of the constitution and the subject matter of the fundamental right under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution.text of the statute before the amending act 40 of 20032. from 1951 upto 2003, sections 3, 59, 94 and 128 as originally stood were as follows:3. qualification for membership of the council of states. - a person shall not be qualified to be chosen as a representative of any state or union territory in the council of states unless he is an elector for a parliamentary constituency in that state or territory. 59. manner of voting at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2006 (SC)

Surendra Singh @ Bittu Vs. State of Uttaranchal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-28-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC1920; (2007)1CALLT30(SC); 2006CriLJ2461; JT2006(5)SC213; 2006(4)SCALE647; (2006)9SCC531

s.b. sinha, j.1. leave granted2. the appellant is before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 15.9.2005 passed by the high court of uttaranchal in criminal appeal no.148/2002, whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by him from a judgment dated 17.6.2002 of the fast track court, kashipur (udham singh nagar), convicting him for an offence under section 302 of the indian penal code ('ipc', for short) was dismissed. 3. having regard to the fact that a limited notice was issued in the matter, namely, as to whether the judgment of conviction under section 302 ipc should be altered to one under section 304 ipc, we need only notice the facts relevant to that aspect:the parties belong to mohali jungle of p.s. bazpur, district udham singh nagar. they have their own agricultural lands in the said village. the appellant has his own cattle. the cattle belonging to the appellant used to enter into the agricultural lands of the deceased, ram singh, which were adjoining to the agricultural lands of the accused and were separated by a bund. ram singh made a number of complaints thereabout to the appellant. on 14.6.2001, again the cattle allegedly damaged the crops grown in the plot of the deceased. he made a protest there against whereupon hot exchanges of words ensued. there was a scuffle. rajendra singh, the elder brother of the accused, allegedly, exhorted that the deceased has been creating trouble and he should be killed, whereupon the appellant is .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 2006 (SC)

Seema Arshad Zaheer and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumb ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-05-2006

Reported in : 2006(5)ALD1(SC); 2006(5)ALT26(SC); 2006(3)AWC3059(SC); 2006(4)BomCR46; 102(2006)CLT777(SC); 2006(4)KLT65(SC); 2006(5)MhLj218; 2006(5)SCALE263; (2006)5SCC282

r.v. raveendran, j.1. these matters relate to certain alleged unauthorized structures put up in plot no. x, xi, xiia later renumbered as plot nos. 7 to 10 of palton road estate, saboo siddique road, mumbai - 40 bearing cedestral survey no. 14/1504 of fort division, mumbai, belonging to the central works public department, government of india. the said land, it is alleged, was leased to one mohamedbhai abdullabhai moonim under lease-deed dated 6.7.1939. the said property was thereafter known as moonim compound.2. according to the petitioners, the said tenant - mohamedbhai abdullabhai moonim, who was carrying on business therein under the name of m/s abdullabhai faizullabhai, assigned his business to m/s abdullabhai faizullabhai private ltd, a company promoted by him, in or about the year 1947; and the said company let out several portions thereof to different sub-tenants. it is alleged that abdullabhai faizullabhai private ltd assigned all its right, title, interest and claim in the said property to m/s global marketing, a partnership firm, under deed of assignment dated 21.9.2000, for a consideration of rs. 18 lakhs, on 'as is, where is basis' subject to the condition that it shall be the sole responsibility of the assignee to obtain tenancy occupancy possessory rights of the assignor in respect of the said property and to continue to use and enjoy the said property on such terms and conditions that the cpwd may stipulate in that behalf. 3. it is alleged by the petitioners .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 2006 (SC)

Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-19-2006

Reported in : 2007(4)ALD105(SC); 2007(5)ALLMR(SC)475; (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN40; 2007(3)CTC170; 2008(1)KLJ463; 2006(10)SCALE393; (2006)8SCC457

p.k. balasubramanyan, j.1. what is the rule of appropriation in execution of money decrees? is the rule the same in the case of an award decree under the land acquisition act or, is there anything in the land acquisition act, 1894 as amended by the land acquisition (amendment) act, act 68 of 1984 making that rule inapplicable or not wholly applicable? these are the questions that arise for consideration in these petitions for special leave to appeal.2. leave granted.3. in prem nath kapur and anr. v. national fertilizers corporation of india ltd. and ors. : (1996)2scc71 , a three judge bench of this court held that the expression 'compensation' under section 23(1) of the land acquisition act, 1894 as amended by act 68 of 1984 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the act') read in the context of section 28 or section 34 thereof, by necessary implication excludes solatium and that no interest is payable on solatium or on the additional amount under section 23(1)(a) of the act. in other words, it was held that the liability to pay interest was only on the excess amount of compensation determined under section 23(1) of the act by the civil court either under section 26 or on appeal under section 54 of the act over and above the amount awarded under section 11 of the act. it was also held that the normal rule of appropriation contained in order xxi rule 1 of the code of civil procedure relating to execution of decrees for recovery of money, stands excluded by sections 28 and 34 of the act .....

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!

Nov 07 2006 (SC)

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nippon Steel Corporation Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-07-2006

Reported in : AIR2007SC327; 2006(4)ARBLR171(SC); 2007(1)AWC648(SC); 2007(4)BomCR233; [2006]134CompCas712(SC); JT2006(10)SC238; 2006(12)SCALE211; (2007)2SCC382

ar. lakshmanan, j.1. leave granted.2. oil & natural gas corporation ltd. is the appellant. aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6th/8th december, 2005 passed by the high court of judicature at bombay in appeal no. 321 of 1997 in arbitration petition no. 260 of 1996 in award no. 98 of 1996, this appeal was preferred. the question that falls for determination in this appeal is whether the filing of the award dated 2.3.1996 by m/s little & co., advocate for the oil & natural gas corporation ltd. (for short 'ongc') in the court on 23.3.1996 is the deemed notice under section 14(2) of the arbitration act, 1940 and whether the limitation for setting aside the said award at the instance of ongc shall commence from that date.3. the appellant is a public sector oil company incorporated under the companies act, 1956 and engaged in the business of exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons. the appellant, ongc and the respondent m/s nippon steel corporation ltd. entered into a contract for transportation and installation of fabricated structures of south basin platform complex which was to be located at about 80kms. west of bombay in the arabian sea. disputes and difference arose between the parties which were subsequently arbitrated and an award was passed on 2.3.1996 under the indian arbitration act, 1940 which confers statutory jurisdiction on courts of law either to convert a legally valid award into a rule of the court or set aside/remit the same on the grounds specifically .....

Tag this Judgment!


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