Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2012 Page 12 of about 115 results (0.122 seconds)

Nov 08 2012 (SC)

Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-08-2012

dr. b.s. chauhan, j.1. this appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2009, passed by the high court of bombay (aurangabad bench) in writ petition no.3129 of 2009, filed by respondent no.5, challenging the caste certificate of the appellant.2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows:a. the competent authority in the present case, issued a caste certificate dated 19.10.1989, after following due procedure, in favour of the appellant stating that he does in fact, belong to bhil tadvi (scheduled tribes). on the basis of the said certificate, the appellant was appointed as senior clerk in the municipal corporation of aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the, 'corporation') on 6.2.1990, against the vacancy reserved for persons under the scheduled tribes category. the corporation referred the caste certificate of the appellant for the purpose of verification, to the caste certificate scrutiny committee (hereinafter referred to as the, "scrutiny committee"). the vigilance cell attached to the scrutiny committee, upon conducting vigilance enquiry, vide order dated 29.12.1998, found that the appellant did, in fact, belong to bhil tadvi (scheduled tribes) and thus, the said certificate was verified. the scrutiny committee, on the basis of the said report and also other documents filed by the appellant in support of his case, issued a validity certificate, dated 23.5.2000 to the appellant belonging to bhil tadvi ( .....

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!

Jul 02 2012 (SC)

Smt. Khela Banerjee and Another Vs. City Montessori School and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-02-2012

g. s. singhvi, j.1. the main question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether, having rejected its prayer for issue of a mandamus to lucknow development authority (lda) to accept the total amount of sale consideration with regard to plot no.92a/c (khasra no. 754), mahanagar, lucknow, the high court could have relied upon the provisions of the right of children to free and compulsory education act, 2009 (for short, 'the 2009 act') and granted relief to city montessori school (respondent no.1 in civil appeal no.10181 of 2011 and the appellant in civil appeal no.10180 of 2011) in substantially similar terms. an ancillary question which needs determination is whether the high court had rightly quashed the action taken by lda and nazul officer, lucknow in compliance of order dated 4.5.2009 passed in writ petition no.4085/2009.2. for the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the appellants and respondent no.1.3. background facts and details of the cases filed by the parties3.1. the nazul officer leased out plot no.92a, mahanagar, faizabad road, lucknow to shri moni mohan banerjee (hereinafter described as 'shri banerjee') in 1958 for a period of 30 years with a right to seek two renewals of 30 years each. the terms of the lease were incorporated in the registered deed executed on 14.2.1959.3.2. after about 3 years, the nazul officer granted lease of the adjoining plot bearing no. 92 a/c to shri banerjee for a period of 7 years .....

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!

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!

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 //