Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2012 Page 2 of about 115 results (0.072 seconds)

Mar 13 2012 (SC)

Mahesh Kumar (D) by Lrs. Vs. Vinod Kumar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-13-2012

g. s. singhvi, j.1. these appeals are directed against judgment dated 22.7.2004 of the learned single judge of the madhya pradesh high court whereby he allowed the appeals filed by respondent no.1 - vinod kumar and respondent no.2 - anand kumar, set aside judgment and decree dated 21.11.2002 passed by ii additional district judge (fast track), harda (hereinafter described as the `trial court') and decreed the suit filed by respondent no.1 for declaration, possession, permanent injunction and recovery of rent in respect of the share of shri harishankar (father of the appellant and respondent nos.1 and 2) in the joint family property. the learned single judge also declared that respondent no.2 shall be entitled to possession of his share in the suit property in terms of will dated 9.6.1989 (ex. p - 1) executed by shri harishankar.2. for the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as the appellant and the respondents.3. appellant mahesh kumar who is now represented by his legal representatives, respondent nos. 1 and 2 and their father were members of the joint family. in 1965, respondent no.2 took his share and separated from the joint family. after 20 years, another partition took place among the remaining members of the joint family. in the second partition, respondent no.1 got 9.83 acres land of village nimchakhurd and a house situated at timarni bazar. the appellant got the other house situated at timarni and cash and shri harishankar got land comprised in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2012 (SC)

Abdul Rehman and anr. Vs. Mohd. Ruldu and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-27-2012

p. sathasivam, j.1. leave granted.2. this appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2007 passed by the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh in civil revision no. 4486 of 2007 whereby the high court dismissed the revision filed by the appellants herein and confirmed the order dated 06.06.2007 passed by the civil judge (jr. division) malerkotla in an application filed by the appellants herein for amendment of the plaint.3. brief facts:a. originally one jhandu, resident of village haider nagar, was the owner and in possession of land admeasuring 53 bighas 11 bis was at village haider nagar, tehsil malerkotla and 33 big has 15 biswas situated at village binjoli kalan, tehsil malerkotla. jhandu died leaving behind khuda bux as his son and aishan and kaki as his daughters. the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of khuda bux alone being his son.b. feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid mutation, kaki and aishan(daughters of jhandu) filed suit no. 280/162 against khuda bux claiming 9/36 share each in the said lands before the subordinate judge, ist class, sangrur, camp at malerkotla. by order dated 20.12.1971, the sub-judge dismissed the said suit.c. challenging the said judgment, kaki and aishan filed an appeal being civil appeal no. 21 of 1972 before the district judge, sangrur. vide order dated 04.07.1972 passed by the district judge, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. according .....

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!

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!

Sep 20 2012 (SC)

State of Rajasthan and ors Vs. Aanjaney Organic Herbal Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-20-2012

k.s. radhakrishnan, j.1. leave granted.2. we are, in this case, called upon to decide the question as to whether the transfer of land from a member of scheduled caste to a juristic person, other than scheduled caste, is void, in view of the provisions of section 42(b) of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (for short the act).3. the high court of rajasthan has answered the above question in several cases holding that such a transfer would not be hit by the above mentioned provision, since the expression person would not take in a juristic person and that juristic person does not have a caste and, therefore, any transfer made by a scheduled caste person would not be hit by section 42(b) of the act.4. in the impugned judgment, reliance has been placed on an earlier judgment of the high court of rajasthan in state of rajasthan v. indian oil corporation 2004 (5) wlc (raj.) 703, which held as follows: 6. it goes without saying that though the indian oil corporation is a juristic person but it does not have a caste. thus the sale in favour of indian oil corporation by a member of scheduled caste is not covered by the provisions of section 42 of the rajasthan tenancy act. thus taking into totality of the facts and circumstances, we feel that it is not a fit case where the delay of 480 days should be condoned. the special leave is rejected.5. the judgment in ioc (supra) was challenged before this court by the state of rajasthan in c.c. no. 19386 of 2010 with an application for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 2012 (SC)

Tehri Hydro Dev. Corpn. Ltd Vs. Jai Prakash Asso. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-25-2012

ranjan gogoi, j1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th july, 2006 passed by the high court of uttaranchal at nainital whereby the decree passed by the learned trial court under the arbitration act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the act) has been modified. the terms of award as passed by the learned arbitrator and the decree passed by the learned trial court as well as the modification thereof by the high court will now have to be noticed :2. the appellants and the respondent herein had entered into a contract for execution of certain works in connection with the tehri hydro dam project. the agreement between the parties was executed on 29th march, 1978 and the works in question were completed on 31st december, 1985. the completion certificate was issued by the competent authority of the appellant-corporation on 27th april, 1986. as the final bill of the respondent-contractor had not been prepared and security money, furnished by way of bank guarantee was not released, the parties went to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause under the contract/agreement. in the course of the aforesaid arbitration proceeding the appellant- corporation submitted a final bill which according to the respondent- contractor entitled it to receive a sum of rs.10,17,461.09 on account of work done besides a sum of rs. 12..50 lakhs that was lying in deposit with the corporation. as the amounts due. according to the respondent- contractor, had become .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 2012 (SC)

Phool Kumari Vs. Office of the Superintendent

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-09-2012

order.p.sathasivam,j.1) leave granted.2) this appeal is directed against the final order dated 19.05.2011 passed by the high court of delhi at new delhi in criminal misc. case no. 2243 of 2010 whereby the high court disposed of the petition filed by the appellant herein.3) brief facts:(i) the appellant was convicted by the trial court in case fir no. 487 of 1995 under sections 323, 342, 307 read with section 34 of the indian penal code, 1860 (in short ipc) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (ri) for 10 years and, thereafter, the high court, in an appeal filed by the appellant, reduced the period of sentence to 5 years. the appellant remained in tihar central jail, new delhi from 24.03.2007 to 23.12.2010 i.e., for a period of 3 years and 10 months after grant of remission. during this period, she was allotted work in medical inspection (mi) room as sewadar (assistant) for assisting the doctors in opd of jail no. 6. apart from that, she was also taking care of the cleanliness of the said room till her release.(ii) in the year 2009, the appellant, through her husband, filed an application before the superintendent of jail for the payment of wages for the work done during her custody in prison but the same was rejected. aggrieved by the same, he filed a complaint before the visiting judge, additional sessions judge (asj) for the release of wages for the work done by his wife. after perusing the documents on record, by order dated 08.04.2010, the visiting judge (asj) .....

Tag this Judgment!


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