Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2006 Page 8 of about 159 results (0.111 seconds)

Sep 13 2006 (SC)

Tea Auction Ltd. Vs. Grace Hill Tea Industry and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-13-2006

Reported in : AIR2007SC67; 2006(6)ALD76(SC); 2007(1)ALT6(SC); 2006(4)AWC3915(SC); 2007(1)CTC81; JT2006(12)SC9; (2006)4MLJ1688(SC); RLW2007(1)SC490; 2006(9)SCALE223

s.b. sinha, j.1. leave granted.interpretation and application of the provisions of order ix rule 13 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for short, 'cpc') is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 2nd may, 2005 passed by a division bench of the calcutta high court in a.p.o.t. no. 86 of 2005 arising out of c.s.no. 234 of 2002 modifying an order passed by a learned single judge of the said court.2. the plaintiff is the appellant before us. it filed a suit on the original side of the calcutta high court claiming a decree for a sum of rs. 37,26,498/- with interest against the respondents. leave under clause 12 of the letters patent of the said court was also obtained. an application was filed for recording a decree under order xii rule 6 of code of civil procedure on 23rd may, 2002. on the said application, notice of motion was to be served upon the defendants/respondents. the notice was returnable on 12th june, 2002. on the said notice, nobody had appeared on behalf of defendant no. 1. a direction for filing of affidavit in opposition was issued upon the plaintiff's application. allegedly the said order was communicated to the respondent no. 1 by registered post. the matter was again listed on 15th july, 2002. on that date nobody appeared on behalf of defendant no. 1. a judgment and decree, upon admission for a sum of rs. 37,26,428/- along with interest, was passed against defendant no. 1.3. defendant no. 2 was a tea broker of defendant no. 1. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 2006 (SC)

Govindammal Vs. R. Perumal Chettiar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-19-2006

Reported in : AIR2007SC204; 2007(2)ALT91(SC); 2007(1)AWC947(SC); [2008(2)JCR139(SC)]; JT2006(10)SC121; (2007)11SCC600

a.k. mathur, j. 1. these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.12.1998 passed by learned single judge of the madras high court in second appeal no. 2253 of 1986 and second appeal nos. 145 & 146 of 1988.2. brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the plaintiff filed a suit being o.s. no. 409 of 1981 for partition and separate possession and also claimed for rendition of accounts. the plaintiff is the second wife of raju naidu. raju naidu married rajakanthammal as his first wife and she died in or about 1946 leaving behind the defendant nos. 1 & 2 as their sons and one daughter by name saraswathi. after the death of his wife, raju naidu married second time to the plaintiff as the second wife. there was no issue from the second wife. raju naidu died intestate in 1954 and on his death the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 & 2 were the legal heirs to inherit the properties of raju naidu. 'b' schedule properties are the separate and self acquired properties of raju naidu. it is alleged that the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 & 2 lived amicably for sometime. afterwards, the plaintiff started living separately and defendant nos.1 & 2 were giving her share of income from the properties. she demanded partition of the properties. it was promised by both the sons of raju naidu and step sons of the plaintiff but without any result. one year before filing of the present suit, defendant nos.1 & 2 started acting against the interest of the plaintiff and they .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 2006 (SC)

Mohammed Arshad Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-24-2006

Reported in : AIR2007SC624; 2006(12)SCALE370; 2007AIRSCW217; (2007)1SCC(Cri)726; (2007)1Crimes165(SC)

s.b. sinha, j.1. these criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 8.12.2004 passed by a division bench of the high court of judicature at bombay, bench at aurangabad in criminal appeal no. 478 of 2002.2. the appellants, along with one syed salim, were tried for commission of an offence under section 302/34 of indian penal code, 1860 ('ipc', for short) and were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. a fine of a sum of rs.3,000/- each was also imposed. 3. abdul karim (p.w.11), at the relevant point of time, was attached with shivaji nagar police station, nanded as police inspector. he received an information at about 10.45 p.m. that an incident had occurred at ashrafnagar. he went there in a police jeep and came to know that one kayyum was injured in a quarrel, which took place between him and one syed shaukat. he came to learn that kayyum was admitted in the government hospital. he went there and found him in the 'out patient department' (opd) in an injured condition. before him a statement was made by mohammed shakeel (p.w.6) which was treated as a first information report. since the deceased, kayyum, was operated, his statement could not be recorded immediately. p.w.11, however, went to the place of occurrence on the next day and recorded statements of some witnesses. he recorded the statement of one rauf, who was present in the hospital. he also seized the blood stained clothes of the victim.while in hospital, kayyum gave three dying declarations - .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 2006 (SC)

Rajiv Ranjan Singhlalan and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-21-2006

Reported in : (2006)205CTR(SC)512; [2006]156TAXMAN512(SC)

k.g. balakrishnan, j.these writ petitions are filed as public interest litigation by the two petitioners herein who were members of the parliament at the time of filing the petitions. respondent nos. 4 and 5 were formerly chief ministers of the state of bihar. it is alleged by the petitioners that they filed writ petitions before the high court of patna alleging large-scale defalcation of public funds and falsification of accounts involving hundreds of crores of rupees in the department of animal husbandry in the state of bihar and pursuant to these allegations, several cases were registered by the police and investigation of these cases was later handed over to the cbi. in an earlier petition filed before this court on 19th march, 1996, this court directed that the investigation shall be monitored by the division bench of the patna high court and in that order, it was indicated that the cbi officers entrusted with the investigation shall inform the chief justice of patna high court from time to time of the progress made in the investigation and if they needed any directions in the matter of conducting the investigation, obtain them from him and it was also said that the learned chief justice may either post the matter for directions before a bench presided over by him or constitute any other appropriate bench. it was also directed that the state government shall co-operate in assigning adequate number of special judges to deal with the cases expeditiously so that no evidence .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 2006 (SC)

Mathew Oommen Vs. Suseela Mathew

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-03-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC786; 2006(2)ALD22(SC); 2006(2)ALT3(SC); 2006(1)AWC790(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(2)CHN48; 2006(1)CTC300; [2006(2)JCR111(SC)]; JT2006(1)SC225; 2006(2)KarLJ80; 2006(1)KLT626

arun kumar, j.1. the appellant filed a petition for grant of letters of administration in respect of a will said to have been executed by his father late k.o. mathew. k.o. mathew was a practicing advocate of the local bar. the will in question is said to have been executed on 15.10.1984. the testator died on 24.10.1984. the appellant is the sole beneficiary under the will. the testator was survived by three children i.e. son, the appellant herein and two daughters named suseela, the contesting respondent, and leela. both the daughters were married during the lifetime of the testator and admittedly had been well provided for at the time of their marriage by the father. respondent is the only contestant, who herself is an officer in the local electricity board while her husband was an officer in the army. the other daughter leela is a practicing doctor with md qualification. the second daughter is not a party to the proceedings. she never contested the will of her father. the parties are christians and were governed by the travancore christian succession act, 1917. under this act when a daughter is married and she is given rs. 5000/- or more at the time of marriage, she has no right of inheritance in her father's estate. respondent suseela had admitted in her statement as dw 1 that her father had given her rs. 30,000/- and 45 gold sovereigns at the time of her marriage. however, a question of validity of the travancore christian succession act, 1917 had been raised and a writ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2006 (SC)

Rameshwar Prasad and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-24-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC980; 2006(3)CTC209; JT2006(1)SC457; (2006)2MLJ67(SC); 2006(1)SCALE385; (2006)2SCC1

y.k. sabharwal, c.j.1. the challenge in these petitions is to the constitutional validity of notification dated 23rd may, 2005 ordering dissolution of the legislative assembly of the state of bihar. it is a unique case. earlier cases that came up before this court were those where the dissolutions of assemblies were ordered on the ground that the parties in power had lost the confidence of the house. the present case is of its own kind where before even the first meeting of the legislative assembly, its dissolution has been ordered on the ground that attempts are being made to cobble a majority by illegal means and lay claim to form the government in the state and if these attempts continue, it would amount to tampering with constitutional provisions.2. one of the questions of far reaching consequence that arises is whether the dissolution of assembly under article 356(1) of the constitution of india can be ordered to prevent the staking of claim by a political party on the ground that the majority has been obtained by illegal means. we would first note the circumstances which led to the issue of impugned notification.factual background3. election to the state of bihar was notified by the election commission on 17th december, 2004. polling for the said elections were held in three phases, i.e., 3rd february, 2005, 5th february, 2005 and 13th february, 2005. counting of votes took place on 27th february, 2005. results of the said elections were declared by the election .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2006 (SC)

Shiva Nath Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-03-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC1181; 2006(2)ALD76(SC); 2006CriLJ1258; 2006(2)CTC216; 127(2006)DLT198(SC); JT2006(2)SC172; 2006(2)SCALE217; (2006)2SCC757

s.h. kapadia, j.1. leave granted.2. these appeals are filed by accused nos. 2 and 3 against the impugned judgment of the high court of calcutta refusing quashing of the process issued by the chief judicial magistrate(cjm), alipore in respect of alleged offences under sections 120b/406/417/420 of the indian penal code (ipc). 3. the undisputed facts are as follows:madhav prasad birla (mpb) and smt. priyamvada devi birla (pdb) were one of the richest and the wealthiest couples who had no issues during their lifetime. mpb was one of the famous industrialists from the birla family. the couple executed mutual wills in 1981. in 1982, the couple executed mutual wills revoking the earlier mutual wills. in 1988, during their lifetime, smt. birla formed four trusts and mpb formed the fifth trust. these trusts, 5 in number, covered corporate assets. on 30th july 1990 mpb died. on 10.9.1990, smt. birla gave directions in respect of mp birla trust under clause 6(b) and made nominations of beneficiaries in respect of her four trusts under clause 7(a) of the trust deeds in favour of three named public charitable institutions, viz., hindustan medical institution (hmi), east india education institution (eiei) and mp birla foundation. in terms of the said nominations made after the demise of mpb, the assets of the five trusts estimated at rs. 2400 crores stood settled for the benefit of hmi, eiei and mp birla foundation. however, on 15th april 1999 pdb purported to revoke all the five trusts ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2006 (SC)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-24-2006

Reported in : II(2006)ACC19; 2006ACJ1336; AIR2006SC3440; 2006(3)ALT81(SC); 2006(2)AWC1918(SC); [2006]131CompCas391(SC); II(2006)CPJ8(SC); 2006(2)CTC347; (2006)3GLR2224; [2006(3)JCR288(SC

s.b. sinha, j.1. leave granted.2. respondent no. 3 herein is owner of a jeep bearing registration no. br 03 p 9011. the said vehicle admittedly was being used as a taxi and, thus, a commercial vehicle. one ram lal was working as a khalasi in the said taxi. he used to drive the said vehicle sometimes. he had a driving licence. driving licence, however, was granted to him for driving a light motor vehicle. the said taxi met with an accident on 14.8.2000 at about 1 p.m. as a result whereof a girl aged about 12 years, km. anjali rai, died.3. on an allegation made in that behalf that the said taxi was being driven rashly and negligently by the aforementioned ram lal, a claim petition in terms of sections 163a and 166 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (for short 'the act') was filed by the first and the second respondents herein. the said taxi admittedly was insured with the appellant herein. one of the issues raised in the said proceeding was as to whether the driver of the said jeep was having a valid and effective licence. another question which arose was as to whether the said ram lal was driving the said vehicle.4. the learned tribunal did not go into the said question. it inter alia held that the said ram lal had been driving the said vehicle having regard to the fact that he had been shown as the accused in the criminal case. however, as regard the question as to whether by permitting the said ram lal to drive the said vehicle, the respondent no. 3 herein violated the terms .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 2006 (SC)

Secretary, State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Umadevi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-10-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC1806; (2006)6CompLJ1(SC); [2006(3)JCR36(SC)]; JT2006(4)SC420; 2006(4)KarLJ29; (2006)IILLJ722SC; (2006)2MLJ326(SC); 2006(4)SCALE197; (2006)4SCC1; 2006(3)SLJ1(SC)

p.k. balasubramanyan, j.leave granted in slp(c) nos. 9103-9105 of 20011. public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the constitution and the laws made thereunder. our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. equality of opportunity is the hallmark, and the constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals. thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme.2. a sovereign government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. going by a law newly enacted, the national rural employment guarantee act, 2005, the object is to give employment to at least one member of a family for hundred days in an year, on paying wages as fixed under that act. but, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a particular point of time, are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations. regular appointment must be the rule.3. but, sometimes this process is not adhered to and the constitutional scheme of public employment is by-passed. the union, the states, their departments and instrumentalities .....

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!


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