Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2012 Page 12 of about 115 results (0.119 seconds)

Sep 19 2012 (SC)

Mahesh Chandra Verma and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-19-2012

(smt.) ranjana prakash desai, j.1. leave granted.2. these appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment dated 07/03/2011 delivered by the division bench of the jharkhand high court. they involve the same questions of law and facts and hence can be disposed by a common judgment. the appellants in these appeals were posted as additional district judges, fast track courts. they are direct recruits from the bar. by the impugned order, the high court disposed of the writ petition filed by the judicial officers who are members of the subordinate judiciary of the state of jharkhand, challenging the appointment of the appellants to the posts of additional district judge (for short, adj), fast tract courts (for short, ftc). the writ petitioners before the high court, inter alia, claimed that they were eligible for being appointed as adjs and that they are directly affected persons in monetary terms as well as in terms of their future promotional avenues because of the appellants appointments. they sought a declaration that the entire selection process for appointment of the appellants to the post of adjs, ftcs pursuant to advertisement dated 23/5/2001 is illegal. they prayed that the notifications dated 2/2/2008 and 12/8/2002 whereby the appellants were appointed be quashed. they are respondents before this court. the high court by the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition.3. it is necessary to state case of respondents 5 to 35 before the high court for better .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2012 (SC)

Jayesh Dhanesh Goragandhi. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-04-2012

k.s. radhakrishnan, j.1. leave granted.2. the question that has come up for consideration before us is whether after framing a town planning scheme and the final scheme brought into force, after reserving plots for public purposes, providing compensation under chapter v of the maharashtra regional and town planning act, 1966 (for short 'the mrtp act'), can the land owner insist that the land be acquired only by following the provisions of chapter vii of the mrtp act, especially under section 126 of the mrtp act.facts3. vallabhadas goragandhi was the original owner of plot no. 9 which was renumbered as final plot no.44 in the town planning scheme for borivali with few structures thereon. after the death of vallabhadas, his son hiralal became the owner of the plot. originally, that plot was under the borivali municipal council in thane district, bombay. a town planning scheme was prepared under the town planning act, 1919 for borivali with effect from 15.07.1919. in the year 1941, hiralal expired and the appellant herein and respondent nos.3 to 6 are the legal heirs of hiralal.4. the bombay town planning act, 1919 was replaced by the bombay town planning act, 1954 and the borivali municipal council declared its intention to vary the scheme prepared earlier. then government of bombay declared on 31.12.1956 the intention of the municipal council to vary the scheme. with effect from 01.07.1957, borivali suburban became a part of greater mumbai and municipal corporation of greater .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 2012 (SC)

Punjab Urban Planning and Dev. Authority and ors. Vs. Raghu Nath Gupta ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-16-2012

k.s. radhakrishnan, j.1. leave granted.2. the questions raised in both these appeals are the same, hence, we are disposing of both the appeals by a common judgment.3. the question that has come up for consideration in these appeals is whether the respondents are legally obliged to pay the interest, penal interest and penalty on account of the delayed payment of installments after having accepted the allotment of commercial plots by way of auction. the high court has taken the view that since there was delay on the part of the punjab urban planning and development authority (for short puda) in providing the basic amenities like parking, lights, road, water, sewerage etc. in time, puda cannot legally claim the interest, penal interest as well as penalty on account of the delayed payment of installments. the high court placed reliance on the judgment of this court in municipal corporation, chandigarh and ors. v. shantikunj investment (p) ltd. (2006) 4 scc 109 to reach that conclusion.4. we heard mrs. rachna joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of puda as well as shri p.s. patwalia, learned senior counsel assisted by mr. tushar bakshi, appearing for the respondents.5. for the disposal of these appeals, we may refer to the facts of civil appeal no. of 2012 [arising out of slp (civil) no. 8732 of 2009], as follows: - puda, on 16.3.2001, conducted a public auction for sale of the commercial plots. raghu nath gupta, the respondent was the successful bidder of a single .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 29 2012 (FN)

In the Matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administra ...

Court : UK Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-29-2012

..... been met, for clients which are insurance undertakings with respect of client money received in the course of insurance mediation activity according to their respective interests in it; (4) on failure of the firm, for the payment of the costs properly attributable to the distribution of the client money in ..... is an error for (4)], for the clients (other than clients which are insurance undertakings when acting as such with respect of client money received in the course of insurance mediation activity and that was opted in to this chapter) for whom that money is held, according to their respective interests in it; (3) after all valid claims in (2) have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 2012 (SC)

Saroj Screens Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ghahshyam and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-26-2012

Reported in : 2012AIRSCW2081

g.s. singhvi, j.1. leave granted.2. these appeals are directed against judgment dated 16.10.2009 of the bombay high court, nagpur bench whereby the writ petitions filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 were partly allowed, resolution dated 28.8.1991passed by municipal corporation of the city of nagpur (for short, 'the corporation') for renewal of lease in favour of the appellant in respect of plot no.5, circle no.19/27, division i, old sarai road, geeta ground layout, nagpur as also sanction accorded by the state government under section 70(5) of the city of nagpur corporation act, 1948 (for short, 'the act') were quashed and a direction was issued to civil judge (senior division), nagpur to decide special civil suit no. 1135 of 1993 latest byfacts:3. on an application made by gopaldas mohta (father of respondent no. 1 - ghanshyam mohta and father-in-law of respondent no. 2 - smt. kamla devi),municipal committee of nagpur (for short, 'the committee') passed resolution dated 17.3.1944 for grant of lease to him in respect of the plot described herein above for a period of 30 years. in furtherance of that resolution, lease deed dated 28.10.1944 was executed in favour of gopaldas mohta. the tenure of lease commenced from 17.3.1944. for the sake of convenient reference, clauses 6 and 8 of the lease deed are extracted below:"6. the lessee shall upon every assignment of the said land or any part thereof within a calendar month thereafter deliver to the lessor or to such person as he may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 2012 (SC)

Winston Tan and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-04-2012

r.m. lodha, j.1. leave granted.2. the forfeiture of flat no. 4, kamala mansion, ground floor, promenade place, no. 45/2, promenade road, bangalore 560 042 under section 7 of the smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators (forfeiture of property) act, 1976, to be referred as safema, is the subject matter in this appeal. col. k. m. somana (retd.) was the original owner of that flat. on 20.3.1997, he sold the flat to mohd. ismail shabandari and his wife fathima kauser ismail by a sale deed which was registered in the office of the sub-registrar, bangalore.3. mohd. ismail shabandari was detained under conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 (for short, cofeposa) on 2.5.2003. the detention order came to be passed at the instance of the enforcement directorate, bangalore; his premises were searched on 31.7.2002. in that search indian currency of rs. 13,50,000/- along with incriminating materials showing illegal transfer of money from abroad was seized. the documents seized from the residence of mohd. ismail shabandari on 31.7.2002 by the enforcement directorate also indicated that he had received rs. 92,09,480/- from different persons as instructed by one hussain sherrif of dubai and he had made payments in india to various persons to the tune of rs. 78,59,480/- leaving a balance of rs. 13,50,000/- which was seized at the time of search. it was in this backdrop that the order dated 2.5.2003 for detention of mohd. ismail shabandari .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2012 (FN)

R (on the Application of Km) (by His Mother and Litigation Friend Jm) ...

Court : UK Supreme Court

Decided on : May-31-2012

..... of the computation should, in broad terms, have been explained; and such was its third significant mistake. even a session of mediation which took place in may 2010 proved abortive for want of the explanation; but at least the mediator facilitated the extraction from cambridgeshire of a commitment to provide it within 14 days. in the event cambridgeshire finally provided a full .....

Tag this Judgment!


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