Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2012 Page 3 of about 115 results (0.074 seconds)

Oct 17 2012 (SC)

Geeta Mehrotra and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-17-2012

..... -parte decree of divorce, is pursuing the present case through her father with the sole purpose to unnecessarily harass the appellants to extract money from them as all efforts of mediation had failed.11. however, the grounds of challenge before this court to the order of the high court, inter alia is that the high court had failed to appreciate that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 2012 (SC)

Vishwanath Son of Sitaram Agrawal Vs. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-04-2012

..... various decisions in the field, this court took note of the fact that the wife had neglected to carry out the matrimonial obligations and further, during the pendency of the mediation proceeding, had sent a notice to the husband through her advocate alleging that he had another wife in usa whose identity was concealed. the said allegation was based on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2012 (SC)

Rampal Singh Vs. State of Up

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-24-2012

..... to murder. the explanations spell out the elements which need to be satisfied for application of such exceptions, like an act done in the heat of passion and without pre- mediation. where the offender whilst being deprived of the power of self- control by grave and sudden provocation causes the death of the person who has caused the provocation or causes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 2012 (SC)

Avtar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-10-2012

fakkir mohamed ibrahim kalifulla, j.1. these two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 27.03.2009 passed in criminal appeal no.916-db/2006 of the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh. the second accused is the appellant in criminal appeal no.1475/2010. accused nos. 4 to 9 are the appellants in criminal appeal no.1476 of 2010.2. according to the case of prosecution, there was a civil suit pending as between hansa singh (pw-11) and surjit singh s/o kundan singh (dw- 2) at samana (punjab), that there was also an interim order granted by the civil court in favour of hansa singh (pw-11) as against surjit singh, that after hearing was over on 09.04.2003 in the civil court, the complainant party returned back home and were present at the house of pw-10 harmesh singh s/o amarjit singh in the evening. at that time, one desa singh, uncle of harmesh singh (pw-10) came and informed that some persons had gathered near the land with reference to which the litigation was pending in the court at samana and that they might harvest the crops belonging to hansa singh (pw-11). on hearing the said information, harmesh singh (pw-10) along with his father the deceased amarjit singh, his uncle hansa singh, ujagar singh s/o chuman singh, paramjit singh s/o surjit singh, karnail singh s/o phuman singh, surjit singh s/o atma singh, darshan singh s/o surjeet singh, teja singh s/o karta singh, ranjit singh s/o phuman singh all residents of bhatian village proceeded towards the field of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2012 (SC)

Ramdas Bansal (D) Thr. Lr. Vs. Kharag Singh Baid and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-19-2012

altamas kabir, j. 1. leave granted. 2. from the materials on record, it appears that premises no. 91, mahatma gandhi road and premises no.6, sambhu chatterjee street, calcutta, together comprised lands on a portion whereof a building was erected and now known the grace cinema hall. out of the said two plots, premises nos.91-a, mahatma gandhi road and premises no.6a, sambhu chatterjee street were carved out. out of the said lands, one atal coomar sen was the owner of lands measuring 3 cottahs 3 chittacks and 30 sq. feet, situated at 91-a, mahatma gandhi road, calcutta, which was leased to one gunput rai bagla and radha kissen bagla with the right to construct a building thereupon, for a period of twenty years commencing from 1st april, 1905. pursuant to the right granted in the lease, the baglas constructed a building on the demised premises. on 3rd march, 1908, a registered agreement was entered into between atal coomar sen, gunput rai bagla and radha kissen bagla and one cowasji pallenjee khatow, whereby the baglas surrendered their rights for the unexpired period of the lease with regard to the land to atal coomar sen, while the structure standing on the land was sold to cowasji pallenjee khatow. atal coomar sen granted a fresh lease of the land to cowasji pallenjee khatow for 42 years from 1st april, 1908. atal coomar sen died on 5th november, 1927, leaving behind his son achal coomar sen, who sold the said land to aditendra nath mitter, anitendra nath mitter, ajitendra .....

Tag this Judgment!

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!

Apr 19 2012 (SC)

State of Haryana Vs. Shakuntla and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-19-2012

swatanter kumar, j.1. we may notice the case of the prosecution in brief at the very outset of this judgment. on 3rd july, 1994, manohar lal (deceased) who had retired from service as subedar in the indian army, had taken his wife, smt. sushila (deceased) to delhi for her treatment as she was complaining of pain in the chest. naresh kumar, pw-4 is the eldest son of manohar lal. all were residents of village nandrampurbas, haryana.2. in the evening, when pw-4 was putting earth on a ditch in front of his house, accused matadin and rajender came there and abused and beat him. however, pw-4 did not lodge any police report in this regard. on 5th july, 1994, manohar lal and his wife sushila returned from delhi at about 9 am. at that time pw-4, his sister rajesh, pw-5 and their brother suresh were sitting at the gate of their house. when manohar lal and sushila were enquiring about the incident that had taken place on 3rd july, 1994, all the nine accused, namely, matadin, rajender, krishan, bhim singh, shakuntla, premwati, kailash, sarjeeta and laxmi came there armed with lathis and other deadly weapons. laxmi opened the assault by giving an iron rod blow which hit sushila at her leg. thereafter, matadin gave a jaily blow on the head of manohar lal but manohar lal took it at his hand. to save themselves, manohar lal and sushila started running towards the house of guwarias but the accused chased them. then krishan gave a jaily blow which hit manohar lal at his back as a result of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 2012 (SC)

Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-20-2012

p. sathasivam, j.1) leave granted.2) this appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 20.09.2010 passed by the high court of himachal pradesh at shimla in r.s.a. no. 501 of 2009 whereby the high court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.3) brief facts:(a) one shanker lal owned and possessed several lands in district shimla including the land in question. originally the land in question was owned by smt. lari mohansingh @ madna wati and was in occupation of shankar lal as a tenant. after coming into force of the himachal pradesh abolition of big landed estates and land reforms act, 1953, shanker lal, moved an application on 21.01.1957, for proprietary rights under section 11 of the said act before the compensation officer, mahesu. in the meantime, madna wati sold the suit land to panu ram (defendant no.2) on 22.10.1960. defendant no.2 purchased the said land as benami in the name of his wife kamla devi (defendant no.1), who was a minor at that time. after the sale of suit land, defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 was substituted as respondents in place of madna wati in the application pending before the compensation officer. during the pendency of the application, shanker lal died on 07.06.1960 and after his death, his wife reshmoo devi was substituted as his legal representative. vide his order dated 31.08.1964, the compensation officer allowed the application and granted proprietary rights to reshmoo devi.(b) against the said order, kamla .....

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!

Sep 28 2012 (SC)

Chloro Controls (i) Pvt Ltd. Vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-28-2012

swatanter kumar, j.1. leave granted.2. the expanding need for international arbitration and divergent schools of thought, have provided new dimensions to the arbitration jurisprudence in the international field. the present case is an ideal example of invocation of arbitral reference in multiple, multi- party agreements with intrinsically interlinked causes of action, more so, where performance of ancillary agreements is substantially dependent upon effective execution of the principal agreement. the distinguished learned counsel appearing for the parties have raised critical questions of law relatable to the facts of the present case which in the opinion of the court are as follows :(1) what is the ambit and scope of section 45 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (for short the 1996 act)?(2) whether the principles enunciated in the case of sukanya holdings pvt. ltd. v. jayesh h. pandya [(2003) 5 scc 531], is the correct exposition of law?(3) whether in a case where multiple agreements are signed between different parties and where some contain an arbitration clause and others dont and further the parties are not identically common in proceedings before the court (in a suit) and the arbitration agreement, a reference of disputes as a whole or in part can be made to the arbitral tribunal, more particularly, where the parties to an action are claiming under or through a party to the arbitration agreement?(4) whether bifurcation or splitting of parties or causes of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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