Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2010 Page 11 of about 150 results (0.099 seconds)

Dec 06 2010 (SC)

Vijay Kumar Talwar. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-06-2010

1. challenge in these two appeals, by special leave, is to the orders dated 21st december, 2001 and 19th february, 2002 whereby the high court of delhi dismissed : (i) the appeal filed by the appellant herein under section 260-a of the income tax act, 1961 (for short "the act") in i.t.a. no.202 of 2001, holding that the order of the income tax appellate tribunal, new delhi (for short "the tribunal") did not give rise to any substantial question of law; and (ii) the review petition preferred by the appellant against order dated 21st december, 2001, holding that the petition was not maintainable.2. shorn of unnecessary details, the facts material for adjudication of the present appeals may be stated. these are :the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") was a partner in a firm, named and styled as m/s des raj tilak raj, having its business at delhi, with a branch at calcutta. the said partnership firm was dissolved w.e.f. 1st april 1982. as per the dissolution deed, the assessee took over the business of the calcutta branch of the erstwhile firm. thereafter, from 21st october, 1982, the assessee started a proprietary concern by the name of m/s des raj vijay kumar.3. on 27th may, 1983, a search took place at the assessee's premises during which certain incriminating documents were recovered and seized. during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1983-1984, for which the previous year ended on 31st march 1983, the assessing officer examined .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2010 (SC)

Kootha Perumal. Vs. State Tr. Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-15-2010

1. this appeal is directed against the judgment of the madras high court, madurai bench dated 7th march, 2007 in criminal appeal (md) no.821 of 1999 by which the high court affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned special judge-cum-additional district judge-cum- chief judicial magistrate, pudukottai in spl.c.c.no.1 of 1994. by the aforesaid judgment, the special judge convicted the appellant for offences punishable under section 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 (in short `the act') and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs.500/-, in default of payment to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and convicted him for the offence under section 7 of the act and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs.300/-, in default of payment to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.2. the prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows : the prosecution case as narrated by pw2, the complainant, has been extensively noticed by the trial court as also by the high court. for the purposes of this appeal, we may very briefly touch upon on the relevant facts. the complainant pw2, nayinar mohammed, is a resident of pudukottai. his father is the owner of house property at door no.36, mamundi madam, adappan vayal, pudukottai. since his father was seriously ill, he needed rs.75,000/- for his treatment. he approached a financial institution for a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2010 (SC)

Babu Vs. State Of Kerala

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-11-2010

Reported in : (2010)9SCC189

dr. b.s. chauhan, j1. this appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.8.2008, passed by the high court of kerala, at ernakulam, in criminal appeal no.908 of 2004, reversing the judgment of acquittal dated 8.4.2003 recorded by the sessions court, thrissur in sessions case no. 242 of 2001, wherein the appellant was charge sheeted for murdering his wife, sweety, by giving her sodium cyanide2. this is a most unfortunate case, in which, a young, b.com 2nd year student, sweety died under mysterious circumstances within 15 days of her marriage in her parent's house at chalakudy. the appellant, babu, is post-graduate and at relevant time had been employed in the gulf in a firm, namely, alukkas jewellery dealing with golden jewellery. the couple, after marriage on 15.5.2000, stayed for two days with the brother of the appellant at ollur and they came back to chalakudy on 17.5.2000, as the parents of sweety had arranged a reception for them at their house. the couple stayed there for two days and left for kozhikode on 19.5.2000 and stayed in the house of benny (pw.10), a friend of the appellant. the couple came back on 22.5.2000 to chalakudy, the family house of the deceased, sweety. the couple again went to kozhikode on 30.5.2000 to attend the marriage of benny (pw.10) with one seethal, which was scheduled to be held on 31.5.2000 and returned to chalakudy, at 4.00 p.m. on 1.6.2000. the appellant left sweety at her parent's house and went to amala hospital to meet .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 2010 (SC)

Daya Singh and anr. Vs. Gurdev Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-07-2010

Reported in : 2010(1)AWC680(SC); 109(2010)CLT383(SC); JT2010(1)SC54; 2010(I)OLR(SC)282; RLW2010(1)SC909; 2010(1)SCALE127; (2010)2SCC194; 2010(1)LC271(SC)

tarun chatterjee, j. 1. this appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 10th of september, 2001 of a learned judge of the punjab and haryana high court dismissing a second appeal being regular second appeal no. 3416 of 1997, inter alia, on the ground that the suit for declaration and injunction filed on 21st of august, 1990 was barred by limitation under article 58 of the limitation act, 1963 (in short `the act') which could only be filed within three years from the date when the cause of action arose.2. therefore, the only question that needs to be decided in this appeal by us is: whether the suit for declaration and injunction could be held to be barred by limitation as the same was filed after 18 years of the alleged compromise between the parties. for the purpose of deciding this question on limitation, as noted hereinabove, which was only urged by the learned counsel for the appellants before us and the high court also decided the second appeal on this question of limitation, we need to state the facts which would be relevant for the purpose of deciding the question of limitation only. the facts are as follows:3. the plaintiffs/appellants were the owners and in joint possession of 1/9th share in the entire land measuring about 286 kanals and 5 marlas of khewat no. 359 khatoni no. 702- 710 situated in village sukhchain falling under sirsa tehsil. two other individuals named jang singh and jangir singh were the owners of 2/3rd share in the said total .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2010 (SC)

Satyavir Singh Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-11-2010

Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE313

swatanter kumar, j.1. leave granted.2. satyavir singh, appellant-accused was tried for an offence under section 307 of the indian penal code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'code') and section 25/27 arms act, 1959 (for short the 'act') in the court of assistant sessions judge, bulandshahr, and was found guilty for both the offences after hearing the accused on the question of sentence, the court awarded him three years r.i. under section 307 of the code and one year r.i. under section 27 of the act. both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. upon appeal by the accused, the learned 1st additional sessions judge at bulandshahr set aside the judgment and sentence and while partly allowing the appeal by its judgment dated 06.11.1980 acquitted him of both the charges for which he was convicted by the learned assistant sessions judge, bulandshahr and only convicted him for offence under section 25(1)(a) of the act and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the court. with the leave of the high court, the state preferred an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. the high court of judicature at allahabad vide its judgment dated 20.10.2008 set aside the order of acquittal and while allowing the appeal partly, it convicted the appellant under section 307 of the code and declined to interfere with the sentence awarded by the first appellate court in relation to an offence under section 25 of the act.3. it will be useful to refer to the findings and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2010 (SC)

Hari Ram and anr. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-11-2010

Reported in : JT2010(2)SC235; 2010(2)SCALE339

r.m. lodha, j.1. this group of eight appeals involves identical controversy and, hence, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. as a matter of fact, five appeals (5440/2000, 5442/2000, 5443/2000, 5444/2000 and 5445/2000) have been disposed of vide common judgment dated august 13, 1998 by the division bench of the punjab and haryana high court. the other three appeals (5449/2000 5441/2000 and 5446/2000) have been disposed of by the high court vide separate judgments dated march 26, 1998, may 18, 1998 and august 13, 1998 respectively.2. the facts have been set out in the impugned judgments and, therefore, we do not deem it necessary to repeat the same. suffice, however, to say that large tract of land admeasuring 184.56 acres situate at narnaul was proposed to be acquired for urban mini estate by the haryana urban development authority (huda) and, for the said public purpose, notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (for short, 'act') was issued on october 30, 1992. many owners whose lands were sought- to be acquired filed objections under section 5a of the act before the concerned land acquisition officer. pursuant to these objections, land admeasuring 11.55 acres was excluded and declaration under section 6 of the act was made in respect of 173.01 acres on october 28, 1993. seventy eight landowners filed 32 writ petitions in the high court of punjab and haryana challenging the notifications under sections 4 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2010 (SC)

State Bank of Patiala and ors. Vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-22-2010

Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE353

orderr.v. raveendran, j.1. leave granted. heard.2. the respondent was an employee of the state bank of patiala (bank' for short). regulation 19 of the state bank of patiala (officers) service regulations, 1979 provides that an officer shall retire from the service of the bank on attaining the age of 58 years or upon the completion of thirty years service whichever occurs first. it also provides that an officer will retire on the last day of the month in which he completes the stipulated service or age of retirement. as respondent completed thirty years of service on 17.11.2006, the bank made an order dated 17.11.2006 retiring the respondent with effect from 30.11.2006 under regulation 19 of the said regulations.3. the bank had formulated an 'exit option scheme' on 1.12.2005 with the object of bringing down the staff strength of the bank by providing an exit route to eligible officers who may be demotivated due to lack of career prospects. the release of an officer from service under the said scheme becomes effective only after the approval of the request of an employee by the designated authority, is communicated to such officer. the respondent who joined the bank's service on 18.11.1976, and due to retirement on 17.11.2006, made an application dated 14.11.2006 for being relieved under the said scheme. as the said application was made hardly three days before the completion of thirty years of service, there was obviously no time to process it, and before it could be processed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2010 (SC)

Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-15-2010

Reported in : JT2010(2)SC185; 2010(2)SCALE362; (2010)3SCC746

h.l. dattu, j.1. this appeal, is directed against the judgment and order of the high court of punjab and haryana in criminal appeal no. 926-sb of 1997 dated 7.12.2007, whereby and where under, the high court has upheld the conviction of the appellant by the additional sessions judge, kurukhestra, vide judgment and order dated 5.11.1997/6.11.1997 in sessions case no. 14 of 1996, for offences punishable under section 20 of the narcotics drugs & psychotropic substances act, 1985.2. the factual matrix of the case is as under: that on 24.1.1996, asi maya ram accompanied by other police officials, namely, head constable raja ram and constables gian chand and shyam singh was on patrol duty. the said police party was present near the markanda bridge when the accused along with another person randhir singh were seen coming from the side of ismailabad. on seeing the police party, the appellant and other person randhir singh made an attempt to turn back and escape. however, the police over-powered them as their activities were found suspicious. thereafter, they were served with a notice under section 50 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') vide memo (ex. pd) giving an option to them to be searched either by the gazetted officer or the magistrate. they signed the memo by making the choice to be searched by the gazetted officer and they were arrested by the head constable raja ram and c-1 gian chand. both of them were produced .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 2010 (SC)

R. Ravindra Reddy and ors. Vs. H. Ramaiah Reddy and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-17-2010

Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE459

altamas kabir, j.1. one dodda appanna reddy owned vast properties in halasahalli thippasandra village, sarjapura hobli, anekal taluk, bangalore urban district. he died in 1968 leaving behind his only son, pilla reddy, and grandson, h. ramaiah reddy, the respondent no. 1 herein, to succeed to his estate. the petitioners herein are the sons of h. ramaiah reddy.2. after appanna reddy's death pilla reddy and h. ramaiah reddy constituted a joint family in respect of the ancestral properties and were in joint possession and enjoyment of the various properties, including the suit schedule properties.3. in 1972, there was a partition of the properties between pilla reddy and his son, h. ramaiah reddy, in respect of the joint family and ancestral properties. one annaiah reddy, a professional document writer at the sub-registrar's office at anekal taluk, was an attesting witness to the registered partition deed. pilla reddy executed two wills, both scribed by annaiah reddy, in 1972 and in 1979. the said annaiah reddy filed an application on 30th december, 1974, for grant of tenancy rights in respect of the suit schedule lands under section 48 of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 act', claiming occupancy rights on the ground that he had been cultivating the suit lands. only pilla reddy was impleaded as a party to the proceedings, although, the properties were said to be ancestral properties. it appears that on 11th december, 1975, the tenancy .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2010 (SC)

Jabar Singh Vs. Dinesh and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-12-2010

Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE856

ordera.k. patnaik, j.1. leave granted.2. the appellant is the father of prahalad singh, who is alleged to have been murdered by the respondent no. 1, and he has filed this appeal against the order dated 18.08.2006 of the high court of rajasthan in s.b. criminal revision petition no. 166 of 2006 in which the high court has held that the respondent no. 1 was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence and has directed that the matter will be remitted for trial under the provisions of the juvenile justice (care and protection of children) act, 2000 (for short, 'the act').3. the relevant facts very briefly are that on 11.07.2004 one bhomaram lodged a complaint in pratap nagar police station, jodhpur, against the respondent no. 1 and others alleging the offence under section 302 of the indian penal code (for short, 'the ipc') along with other offences under the ipc. a criminal case was registered and after investigation, the police filed chargesheet against inter alia the respondent no. 1 and the case was transferred by the sessions judge to the special judge, sc/st (prevention of atrocities) cases, jodhpur, for trial. before the charges could be framed in the case, an application was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 under section 49 of the act, stating therein that the date of birth of respondent no. 1 was 05.10.1988 and, therefore, on 11.07.2004, when the offence is alleged to have been committed, the respondent no. 1 was less than 18 years of age and he was, thus, a .....

Tag this Judgment!


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