Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2014 Page 3 of about 192 results (0.116 seconds)

Feb 18 2014 (FN)

Qingjian International (South Pacific) Group Development Co. Pte Ltd. ...

Court : Singapore Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-18-2014

..... or otherwise. as an aside, one troubling aspect of this case was that the parties had already been engaged in aa 105/2013 and had settled it by way of mediation without any issue being taken as to the existence of a contract in writing within the meaning of the act. this fundamental issue was only raised in the adjudication response ..... without completing all the documentary formalities" alluded to in singapore construction adjudication review [2005-2007] (chow kok fong, christopher chuah and mohan pillay gen eds) (sweet and maxwell asia, singapore mediation centre, 2009) at para 2.4. it would accordingly be consistent with the policy and purpose of the act as outlined in terence lee at [2]-[5] as well as ..... july 2013. the plaintiff attempted to file an adjudication response at 4.35pm on 29 july 2013 and the defendant took objection on the basis that pursuant to the singapore mediation centre rules, the adjudication response would be considered as lodged the next day as it was lodged after 4.30pm. the adjudicator agreed with the defendant and did not consider ..... the position that the defendant was claiming against the wrong party and that it ought to look to the plaintiff for payment instead. aa 105/2013 was eventually settled at mediation on 18 july 2013 and, in exchange for a cheque payment from the plaintiff, the defendant re-issued, inter alia, the 8 january 2013 quotation by addressing it to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2014 (SC)

Municipal Corpn., Gwalior Vs. Puran Singh @ Puran Chand and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-02-2014

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.8605 of2013municipal corporation, gwalior appellant versus puran singh alias puran chand & ors. respondents judgment sudhansu jyoti mukhopadhaya, j.this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15th april, 1998 passed by the high court of madhya pradesh, jabalpur, bench at gwalior in civil first appeal no.1 of 1995. by the impugned judgment and decree the high court allowed the appeal, preferred by plaintiffs- respondents, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit of plaintiffs-respondents.2. the factual matrix of the case is as follows: the respondents were plaintiffs and the appellant- municipal corporation, gwalior was a defendant in the original suit. the original civil suit no.44-a/1985 was filed by plaintiff-respondents against the defendant- the municipal corporation, gwalior seeking declaration that land bearing original survey no.486/19 (old) (new survey no.619) measuring 1 bigha is owned and possessed by them. they also sought for permanent injunction against the defendant on the ground that municipal authorities tried to interfere with their possession by dismantling the fencing standing on their land.3. the case of the plaintiffs was that their ancestors were the owners of the suit land. one ram nath was the original tenure-holder (mool krishak) and thereafter they became joint bhumiswami. they claimed to be in possession on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 2014 (SC)

B.L. Wadhera Vs. U.O.i. and ors

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-14-2014

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction special leave petition (c) no.28189 of2014(cc no.2940 of2014 with special leave petition (c) no 28195-96 of2014(cc no.1707 of2014 raunaq education foundation .... petitioner versus state of haryana & ors. ..... respondents order adarsh kumar goel, j.1. delay condoned. heard on merits.2. these petitions have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27th september, 2013 passed in lpa no.1687 of 2013, order dated 16th september, 2013 passed in lpa no.1618 of 2013 and order dated 16th december, 2013 passed in ra lp no.133 of 2013 in lpa no.1618 of 2013 by the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh, upholding the order of the learned single judge, declining to interfere with the order of the government of haryana dated 18th september, 1998, resuming land measuring 76 acres 5 kanals and 5 marlas, except land measuring 7 acres left to be retained by the petitioner foundation.3. the case of the petitioner is that it gave a proposal on 1st april, 1972 to start a educational complex for the benefit of the residents of the state of haryana. accordingly, the state of haryana released 76 acres of land from the forest department and acquired the same under the land acquisition act, 1894 vide notifications dated 15th may, 1972 and 28th august, 1972 under sections 4 and 6 respectively. award for compensation was given on 21st february, 1973. possession was delivered to the petitioner on 24th january, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2014 (FN)

Mansource Interior Pte Ltd. Vs. Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd.

Court : Singapore Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-25-2014

..... debates, official report (16 november 2004) vol 78 at col 1117: the minister will appoint an authorised nominating body (anb) to administer the adjudication process. for a start, the singapore mediation centre (smc) will be appointed as the anb. smc is familiar with payment disputes and issues in the construction industry. more anbs may be considered in future, as and when ..... to the respondent and the adjudicator. in a letter dated 6 september 2013, it is stated that: an adjudication response was lodged by mansource interior pte ltd with the singapore mediation centre on 5 september 2013 at 4.32pm and it would be considered as lodged the following day as it was lodged after 4.30pm. 17. during the adjudication determination ..... notice of intention to apply for adjudication on 28 august 2013 pursuant to s 13(2) of the sop act. the respondent also lodged an adjudication application with the singapore mediation centre ("smc"), the authorised nominating body, pursuant to s 13(1) of the sop act on the same day. 5. the smc served the adjudication application on the appellant on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2014 (FN)

The Director of Public Prosecutions North Gauteng: Pretoria Vs. Skhosi ...

Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal

Decided on : Mar-31-2014

on appeal from:north gauteng high court (circuit local division for the eastern circuit district, middelburg, phatudi j sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal against sentence is upheld. 2. the order of the high court in respect of sentence is set aside and is replaced by the following: 1. the accused are sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment with effect from 31 june 2011. 2. the sentence currently being served by accused 2 is to run concurrently with the sentence now imposed. judgment lewis ja (shongwe and saldulker jja concurring): [1] this is an appeal by the director of public prosecutions, north gauteng, against sentences imposed by the north gauteng high court (eastern circuit district, middleburg) on the three respondents. all three were charged with the murder of a mrs thandi mtsweni. the state alleged that they had unlawfully and intentionally killed her on 27 june 2007 in the district of leslie. in the alternative, the respondents were charged with conspiring to murder the deceased. they were convicted on the charge of murder and the high court (phatudi j) imposed an effective sentence of 12 years imprisonment. i shall deal with the full sentence in due course since it is central to the appeal. the appeal lies at the instance of the state, with the leave of this court, and is against sentence only. in giving leave to appeal this court required the state and the respondents to address a number of questions which i shall set out later. [2] the context in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 2014 (SC)

Deo Kalya Patil and ors. Vs. Nagindas Shamjibhai Shah Thr. Lrs. and or ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-15-2014

non-reportable in the supreme cour of india civil appellate jurisdiction special leave petition (civil) no.19552 of2013deo kalya patil & ors. petitioners versus nagindas shamjibhai shah thr. lrs. & ors. respondents judgment chelameswar, j.1. the petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in suit no .632 of 2010 on the file of the special civil judge (senior division), thane and the respondents are the defendants therein. for the sake of convenience they are referred to in this judgment as they are in the suit. the suit is filed with the prayers as follow:- it be declared that the suit lands were agricultural lands on 1.4.1957; if be declared that the predecessor-in-title kalya padya patil of the plaintiffs was lawfully in possession and cultivating the suit lands on 1.4.1957 as tenant thereof and consequently had become the deemed purchaser thereof and the plaintiffs being the heirs of said kalya padya patil are therefore entitled to the benefits conferred upon him by the provisions of b.t. & a.l. act. it be declared that the sale transactions that took place after the tillers day i.e. dated 22.3.1960, 21.10.1963 and 30.5.1964 which were recorded in the mutation entry nos. 357, 466 and 467 respectively, are illegal, bad in law, void ab-initio and not binding upon the plaintiffs. it be declared that the proceedings i.e. tenancy case no.22 of 1964 and 23 of 1964 initiated by the predecessor-in-title of defendant nos. 1 to 6 were not maintainable hence, the orders dated 30.1.1965 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 2014 (SC)

Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-30-2014

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.1102 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.10677 of 2008) godrej & boyce mfg. co. ltd. & anr. .. .appellants versus the state of maharashtra & ors. ..respondents with civil appeal no.1103 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.10760 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1104 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.11055 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1105 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.11057 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1106 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.11393 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1107 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.11398 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1108 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.11401 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1109 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.11509 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1110 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.11622 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1111 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.11634 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1112 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.11640 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1113 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.12408 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1114 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.21389 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1115 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.15791 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1116 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.16470 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1117 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.24149 of 2008) with civil appeal no.1118 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (c) no.10730 of 2008) with civil appeal no. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2014 (SC)

Union of India and anr. Vs. Dinshaw Shapoorji Anklesari and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-06-2014

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.6194 of2013(arising out of slp (c) no.2933 of 2010) union of india & anr. appellants versus dinshaw shapoorji anklesari & ors. respondents judgment sudhansu jyoti mukhopadhaya, j.this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th november, 2009 passed by the high court of judicature at bombay in civil revision application no.272 of 2009. by the impugned judgment the high court dismissed the revision application and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court and the trial court.2. the dispute relates to the piece of property bearing glr survey no.258, admeasuring 0.90 acres which comprise of superstructure consisting of main bungalow, servant quarter and garage situated at elphinstone road, pune cantonment, pune (hereinafter referred as the suit premises ).3. the case of the appellants is that the suit premises as aforesaid belongs to the appellants pune cantonment board . the governor-general by its order no.14(g.g.o.-14) dated 6th january, 1827 intimated that officers not provided with public quarters may receive permission to erect houses within fortress or military cantonment conferring on them right of property whatever in the ground allotted to them for that purpose, which will continue to be the property of the state, and resumable at the pleasure of the government. the plot admeasuring 0.90 acres (suit premises) in question was initially granted to one .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 2014 (SC)

Purshottam Das Tandon Dead by Lrs.and anr. Vs. Military Estate Officer ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-13-2014

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.2147 of2006purshottam das tandon dead by lrs. appellant (s) versus military estate officer & ors. respondent (s) judgment ranjan gogoi, j.1. the challenge in this appeal is against the common order dated 27.05.2005 passed by the high court of judicature at allahabad in civil misc. writ petition no.13353 of 1992 and civil misc. writ petition no.28558 of 2002. the high court, by the impugned order, has dismissed both the writ petitions filed by the appellant and has further held that the entitlement of the appellant to the reliefs claimed therein will have to be adjudicated in a suit for declaration of title.2. the elaborate facts will necessarily have to be recited for the purposes of bringing out the controversy involved and also to embark upon a scrutiny of the correctness of the impugned conclusions recorded by the high court in the order under challenge.3. the suit property is bungalow no.29, chaitham lines, allahabad covered by survey no.143, old cantonment, allahabad. there is no dispute that late lala manohar lal grandfather of the present appellant had purchased the said property for a sum of rs. 2900/- in a court auction held on 25.11.1848. the auction sale was confirmed by the court on 27.12.1848. the possession of the property of the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant and thereafter of the appellant is not in dispute.4. the union of india issued a resumption notice dated 26. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2014 (SC)

Srihari (Dead) Through Lr. Smt. Ch. Niveditha Reddy Vs. Syed Maqdoom S ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-16-2014

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal nos.2352-2354 of2008srihari (dead) through lr. smt. ch.niveditha reddy . appellant versus syed maqdoom shah & ors. respondents judgment prafulla c.pant,j.1. all these three appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 21.4.2005 passed by the high court of andhra pradesh in a.s.m.p. no.11880 of 2004, a.s.m.p. no.1098 of 2005 and a.s.m.p. no.1099 of 2005 (moved in a.s. no.734 of 1991) whereby the high court exercising powers under section 152 of the code of civil procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred as the code ), has allowed the applications, and directed that the preliminary decree passed in a.s. no.734 of 1991, be amended allotting and dividing half share of syed makdoom shah (defendant no.11) and syed hussain shah in the suit schedule property in addition to 1/4th share of legal heirs of plaintiff khadar nawaz khan (since dead) and 1/4th share of the legal heirs of defendant feroz khan (died on 22.1.1978).2. brief facts of the case are that one qamaruddin ali khan was original owner and pattadar of agricultural land bearing s.nos. 41 to 43 situated in village kokapet. the land was purchased by khadar hussain khan through a registered sale deed, who died in the year 1942. khadar hussain khan died issueless as an unmarried person, leaving behind his real sister shahzadi bee and two step brothers namely feroz khan and khadar nawaz khan (plaintiff). khadar hussain khan .....

Tag this Judgment!


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