Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2006 Page 9 of about 159 results (0.141 seconds)

Jul 11 2006 (SC)

Ramesh B. Desai and ors. Vs. BipIn Vadilal Mehta and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-11-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC3672; 2006(5)ALD18(SC); 2007(1)AWC299(SC); 2006(5)BomCR574; [2006]132CompCas479(SC); (2006)5CompLJ203(SC); (2006)3GLR2495; JT2006(6)SC253; (2006)4MLJ174(SC); 2006(

g.p. mathur, j.1. this appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.3.2000 of a division bench of high court of gujarat by which the appeal preferred against the order dated 12.3.1996 of the learned company judge, was dismissed and the order of the learned company judge dismissing the company petition no. 35 of 1988, was affirmed.2. the appellants had filed the company petition no. 35 of 1988 for rectification of the register of the company m/s. sayaji industries ltd. (hereinafter referred as to 'the company') as provided by section 155 of the companies act. the respondent nos. 1 and 2, viz., bipin vadilal mehta and priyambhai bipinbhai mehta moved company application no. 113 of 1995 before the learned company judge to dismiss the company petition no. 35 of 1988, without going into the merits of the petition, on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. this application was allowed by the learned company judge by the judgment and order dated 12.3.1996 and the said order was affirmed in appeal by a division bench of the high court by the judgment and order dated 10.3.2000, which are subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal.3. the company petition no. 35 of 1988 was filed by ramesh b. desai and 8 others, who are shareholders of the company, which is a public limited company. the allegations made in the company petition are as follows. vadilal lallubhai mehta was the chairman and managing director of the company. he had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 2006 (SC)

The Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College Vs. T. Jose and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-27-2006

Reported in : AIR2007SC570; 2007(2)ALLMR(SC)949; 2007(1)KLT22(SC); RLW2007(2)SC1654; 2006(13)SCALE1; (2007)1SCC386; 2007(3)SLJ74(SC)

r.v. raveendran, j.1. these appeals by special leave arise from the judgment dated 5.6.2003 of the high court of kerala in o.p. no. 10111/2000 and connected cases. as these appeals involve questions which are analogous, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. as the ranks of the parties vary, they will be referred to by their abbreviated names. facts in ca nos. 8599 and 8600 of 2003:2. the malankara syrian catholic college association of archdiocese at trivandrum is a society registered under the kerala literacy, scientific and charitable societies registration act, 1955. it is a minority organization and an educational agency (for short 'the society'). it has established and runs several private colleges in kerala. the colleges are managed by a 'managing council' (for short 'the management') appointed by the educational agency. the society has appointed a manager for the colleges under its management, who implements the decisions of the management. mar ivanios college ('college' for short) is one of the colleges run by the said educational agency. the said college is an aided private minority institution affiliated to kerala university under the kerala university act, 1974 ('act' for short). educational instruction is provided in the college, in accordance with the provisions of the statutes, ordinances and regulations made under the act. each of the colleges run by the society is headed by a principal, who is responsible for the functional efficiency, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2006 (SC)

Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle Vs. Shevanta ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-18-2006

Reported in : 2006(6)BomCR588; JT2006(7)SC435; 2006(8)SCALE114; (2006)7SCC200

r.v. raveendran, j.1. this appeal by special leave is against the order dated 9.7.1999 passed by the bombay high court rejecting w.p. no. 2599 of 1999 filed by the appellant. it is stated that 'sudam ganpat kutwal' shown as appellant is the p.a. holder of shankar sitaram bhosle, that he had filed w.p. no. 2599/1999 as the attorney holder of shankar sitaram bhosle, that he filed the slp also as attorney holder of shankar sitaram bhosle, but that has not been stated in the cause title due to oversight, though he has specifically mentioned this fact in his rejoinder affidavit filed on 26.4.2000. in view of it, the appellant is permitted and directed to amend the cause title so as to describe him as p.a. holder of shankar sitaram bhosle. in view of it, the term appellant in this order would refer to shankar sitaram bhosle.2. the appellant's case in brief is as follows:2.1) the appellant was inducted as the tenant of agricultural land bearing gat no. 332 in village jogwadi, taluk baramati, district pune, measuring 25 acres 9 guntas, in the year 1954 and was cultivating the same personally.2.2) under section 32 of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948 ('act' for short), on the first day of april, 1956 (referred to as 'tillers day'), every tenant was deemed to have purchased the land held by him as tenant, from his landlord, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon, on the conditions stated therein being fulfilled. the revenue records show that though the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 2006 (SC)

BipIn Bihari Vs. State of M.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-20-2006

Reported in : JT2006(12)SC161; 2006(9)SCALE418

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a division bench of the madhya pradesh high court, jabalpur bench confirming the conviction of the appellant in terms of section 307 of the indian penal code, 1860 (in short the 'ipc') as done by the trial court. however, the custodial sentence of imprisonment for life imposed was reduced, quantum of fine was increased from rs.5,000/- to rs.30,000/- and in default sentence was stipulated. the custodial sentence of two years was imposed. it was held that in case the fine is not paid within four months, the accused shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four years. the fine amount on deposit was to be paid as compensation to the victim. 3. the factual background in a nutshell is as under:complainant mahabali on 18.11.2002 at about 5.00 p.m. was grazing his ox in his field. his sister-in-law jamuni bai was cutting the crop. on hearing her cry for help, the complainant rushed towards her and found that the appellant had entered into an altercation with her. he found that the appellant was carrying a gun and was restraining his sister-in- law from cutting the crop. on seeing the complainant, appellant brandished the gun and gave threat of dire consequences. despite the threat, the complainant caught hold of the gun of appellant as a result of which appellant hurled abuses and threatened to kill him. thereafter the accused fired the gun and the bullet struck the right calf of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 2006 (SC)

Amrit Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-10-2006

Reported in : AIR2007SC132; 2007CriLJ298; JT2006(10)SC1; 2006(11)SCALE309

s.b. sinha, j.1. this appeal is directed against a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.3.2005 passed by the additional sessions judge, mansa awarding death penalty to appellant under sections 376 and 302 of the indian penal code and affirmed by the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh in reference no. 4/2005 and criminal appeal no. 284 (db) of 2005 by a judgment and order dated 3.8.2005. 2. the prosecution case is as under:on 3.11.2003 in the evening, the deceased raj preet kaur @ guddi, who is a student of iind standard has gone to the house of her classmate amarpreet kaur, daughter of gurbax singh, a cousin of the complainant. the house of the said gurbax singh was situated in the revenue estate of ramgarh, village shahpuria. at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased allegedly left the house of gurbax singh for her own house. she was accompanied to some extent by amanpreet. when she crossed pakka water house, amarpreet left her on her own. when the deceased did not reach her house, search was carried on. some persons then found her dead body in the agricultural field belonging to appellant situated in front of his house. the dead body was found near a neem tree and some cotton crop were found near the dead body. some dry leaves were found in her hair. in her hand some spreads of human hair were also noticed. it was fully smeared with blood. the father of the deceased on seeing the dead body called his brother baldev singh and leaving him at the spot, started for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 2006 (SC)

Om Prakash and ors. Vs. Shiv Kumar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-06-2006

Reported in : 2007(2)ALT38(SC); 2007(1)AWC466(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN26; [2007(3)JCR154(SC)]; 2006(13)SCALE657

markandey katju, j.1. this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the himachal pradesh high court dated 28.5.1999 in rsa no. 99 of 1992.2. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for possession of the land in question alleging that one smt. ram ditti, widow of data ram was owner in possession of the said land and she died issueless in october, 1983 leaving behind the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs as the only heir. it is alleged that the defendant-appellants had got a false and fabricated will purporting to be of smt. ram ditti prepared and on that basis got mutation in the revenue record with the connivance of the revenue officials and also obtained possession.4. the defendant-appellants contested the suit and it is alleged that the will of smt. ram ditti said to be executed in favour of the defendants on 29.6.1997, was a valid will which was registered before the sub-registrar on 30.6.1967. the trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed that judgment and decreed the suit and the judgment of the first appellate court was upheld by the high court.5. both the first appellate court as well as the high court have held that the burden was on the defendants who were the propounders of the will to remove any suspicious circumstances, but the defendant-appellants have failed to do so. various circumstances have been noticed by the first appellate court and the high .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2006 (SC)

Acharaparambath Pradeepan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-15-2006

Reported in : 2007(1)KLT249(SC); 2006(13)SCALE600; 2007AIRSCW2140; (2007)1Crimes54(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)21

s.b. sinha, j.1. a ghastly murder in mokeri east u.p. school, paramel, kannur distt., kerala took place on 1.12.1999 at about 10.40 a.m. k.p. jayakrishnan master (deceased) was a teacher in the said school. he was the class teacher of class vi b. the school did not have a proper building. it was a semi- permanent shed. whereas two sides of it had pucca walls with a height of about seven feet, the western and eastern walls were having kutcha ones. it had three classrooms, viz., for students of classes va, vi b and vii b. in the northern room, class viib was to be held whereas class vib was situate in the middle room and to its south was the class room of va. on its eastern side, there was only 70 cm. wall having about 2 feet height. another building was separated by 2.5 metres wide pathway. classes vib and va were separated only by a screen.2. the deceased was the state vice president of bhartiya yuva morcha. appellants were members of the communist party of india (marxist group). political enmity between the two parties is not in dispute. there had been a threatening to the life of the deceased. he had been provided with personal security. at the time of incidence, the body guard of the deceased was sitting at the gate of the school. he was overpowered by pouring some poisonous liquids in his eyes and mouth and his service pistol was taken away to prevent any possible obstruction that he may cause. he was, thus, made immobile. there was a house by the side of the said school .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2006 (SC)

Raj Pal and ors. Vs. the State of Haryana

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-19-2006

Reported in : 2006(1)ALD(Cri)678; 2006(II)OLR(SC)118; 2006(4)SCALE456; (2006)9SCC678

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of learned single judge of the punjab and haryana high court dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants. learned additional sessions judge, gurgaon had convicted the appellants and one dharam singh for offence punishable under section 304 part i read with section 34 of the indian penal code, 1860 (in short 'ipc'). they were also convicted for offence punishable under section 325 read with section 34 ipc as well as section 323 read with section 34 ipc. they were sentenced to undergo ri for ten years and to pay a fine of rs. 2,000/-; in default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo ri for six months for the first named offence. they were further sentenced to undergo ri for two years and six months respectively for other two offences. fine of rs. 500/- with default stipulation was imposed. two other accused persons, namely, vijay singh and rattan singh were released on probation for a period of two years under section 4 of the probation of offenders act, 1958 (in short 'probation act') in respect of their conviction under section 323 ipc. accused vijay singh died on 22.5.1992.3. accused raj pal, bir singh and chhater pal question their conviction and sentences imposed.the factual background in a nutshell is as follows:-the appellants are sons of one bhanwar singh, and grandson of one ariya alias arimal. the complainant and party are their collateral. arimal had another son hira singh .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 2006 (SC)

Rajinder Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jun-05-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC2257; 2006CriLJ2926; 2006(3)KLT218(SC); 2006(6)SCALE454; (2006)5SCC425

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted. 2. appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a division bench of the punjab and haryana high court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, upholding the conviction recorded and sentenced imposed on the appellant by learned additional sessions judge, hissar, for alleged commission of offences punishable under section 302 of the indian penal code, 1860 (in short 'ipc') and section 27 of the arms act 1959, (in short the 'arms act'). the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 ipc and sentenced to undergo ri for life and to pay a fine of rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. he was also convicted in terms of section 27 of the arms act and was sentenced to undergo ri for one year and to pay a fine of rs. 500/ with default stipulation.3. background facts in a nutshell are as follows:(i) vishnu ram (pw-8) followed agricultural pursuits at village tharwa. his elder brother prithi raj lived separately from him. subhash (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was the son of said prithi raj. about 1= years prior to this occurrence, the police had recovered poppy husk from appellant - rajinder. he suspected that deceased had given secret information to the police and he had a hand in getting the poppy husk, recovered from him. then in the year 1995, prithi raj had taken 10 acres of land on lease from indal kumar, brother of appellant-rajinder. rajinder took ill of it.(ii) on 29.4.1995 at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 2006 (SC)

Settu and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-22-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC2986; 2006CriLJ3889; JT2006(7)SC524; 2006(8)SCALE382; (2006)10SCC549

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. heard learned counsel for the parties.appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a division bench of the madras high court confirming conviction of each of the appellants and imposition of sentence as done by the learned additional sessions judge vellore. while appellant nos.1 and 2 were convicted for offence punishable under section 302 of the indian penal code, 1860 (in short the ipc), appellant no. 3 was convicted for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 ipc.3. the trial court held that the prosecution had established the accusations that on 22.8.1995 at 6.00 p.m. the appellants caused injuries to ramesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by cutting him with knife and pichuvas and as a result of the said injuries, the deceased breathed his life at about 3.2o p.m. on 29.8.1995 at christian medical college hospital, vellore while undergoing treatment. the further allegation against appellant no. 2 was that during the incident he caused injuries to babu (pw-12). appellant no. 2 was accordingly found guilty of offence punishable under section 324 ipc and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment.4. the factual position as highlighted by the prosecution during trial essentially as follows:chandru (p.w.1) is the elder brother of the deceased and babu (p.w.12) was his friend. on 22.08.1995 at about 3.30 p.m. babu (p.w.12) met the deceased, at the bus stop near sankaranpalayam and deceased .....

Tag this Judgment!

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