Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2014 Page 8 of about 192 results (0.098 seconds)

Oct 28 2014 (SC)

Kulwant Singh and ors Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-28-2014

non-reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal nos. 9927-28 of2014(arising out of slp (civil) nos.1499-1500 of2014 with civil appeal nos. 9929-30 of2014(arising out of slp (civil) nos 29128-29129 of2014(cc nos.4232-4233 of2014 kulwant singh & ors. ..... appellants versus oriental insurance company ltd. ..... respondents judgment adarsh kumar goel j.1. delay condoned in slp (c) no of 2014 [cc. nos.4232-4233 of 2014]..2. leave granted in all the matters.3. these appeals have been preferred against common judgment and order dated 5th august, 2011 in mac appeal nos.70 and 68 of 2011 and dated 8th march, 2013 in review petition nos.793 and 776 of 2011 respectively of the high court of delhi at new delhi.4. the question raised for consideration is whether the insurance company is entitled to recovery rights on the ground of breach of conditions of insurance policy when the driver possesses valid driving licence for driving light vehicle but fails to obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle.5. the claim petition was filed before the motor accident claims tribunal by the dependents of the deceased rizwan s/o kadir @ abdul kadir who died in a road accident on 8th october, 2005 at about 05.30 a.m. while driving tempo no.hr-g-5234 which was hit by a tempo (tata-407) bearing no.dl-1l-d3186. the tribunal held that the death was on account of negligence of the driver of the offending tempo (tata-407) bearing no.dl-1l- d3186 and the claimants were .....

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!

May 06 2014 (SC)

M/S. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of T.N. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-06-2014

in the supreme court of india civil original/appellate jurisdiction writ petition (c) no.232 of2005m/s. kone elevator india pvt. ltd. petitioner versus state of tamil nadu and ors. respondents with writ petition (civil) nos. 298/2005, 487/2005, 528/2005, 67/2006, 511/2006, 75/2007, 519/2008, 531/2008, 548/2008, 569/2008, 186/2009, 23/2010, 62/2010, 232/2010, 279/2010, 377/2010, 112/2011, 137/2011, 181/2011, 207/2011, 278/2011, 243/2011, 372/2011, 398/2011, 381/2011, 468/2011, 547/2011, 107/2012, 125/2012, 196/2012, 263/2012, 404/2012, 567/2012, 145/2013, 241/2013, 454/2013, 404/2013, 723/2013, 440/2012, 441/2012, 156/2013, 533/2013, 403/2012, 824/2013, 428/2009, 1046/2013, 1047/2013, 1048/2013, 1049/2013, 1050/2013, 1051/2013 1052/2013, 1098/2013, with civil appeal nos. 5116-5121 of 2014 (arising out of slp (c) nos. 14148-14153/2005) with civil appeal nos. 5135-5141 of 2014 (arising out of slp (c) nos. 14961-14967/2005) with civil appeal nos. 5142-5147 of 2014 [arising out of slp (c) nos. 17842-17847/2005 with civil appeal no.5152 of 2014 [arising out of slp (c) no.5377/2006 with civil appeal no.5153 of 2014 [arising out of slp (c) no.7037/2006 with civil appeal no.5154 of 2014 [arising out of slp (c) no.30272/2008 with civil appeal no.5156 of 2014 [arising out of slp (c) no.30279/2008 with civil appeal no.5157 of 2014 [arising out of slp (c) no.5289/2009 with civil appeal nos. 5159-5160 of 2014 [arising out of slp (c) nos. 6520-6521/2009 with civil appeal nos.5162-5164 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 2014 (SC)

Shree Ram Urban Infras.Ld.Forml.S.R.Mill Vs. Court Receiver,high Court ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-09-2014

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.5528 of2014[arising out of slp(c) no.30298 of 2010]. shree ram urban infrastructure ltd. (formerly known as shree ram mills ltd.) .. appellant :versus: the court receiver, high court of bombay respondent judgment pinaki chandra ghose, j.1. leave granted.2. this appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16th september, 2010 passed by the high court of judicature at bombay in civil revision application no.452 of 2009, dismissing the civil revision application filed by the appellant-tenant. the brief facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal are thus: an immovable property known as dev ashish is a tenanted property situated at padam tekri, peddar road, bombay (hereinafter referred to as the suit property ). the respondent herein was appointed by the bombay high court to take charge of the suit property in suit no.234 of 1987, which was filed on the original side of the bombay high court, in terms of prayer clause (a) of the notice of motion which reads as follows: (a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of above suit, the court receiver, high court, bombay or some other fit and proper person be appointed as a receiver of an immovable property known as dev ashish situate on sub-plot no.1 of plot no.c.s.s.755 at padam tekdi, pedder road, bombay 400 026, with all powers under order xl, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, including the owner to recover, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 2014 (SC)

Manzoor Ali Khan Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-06-2014

reportable in the supreme court of india civil original jurisdiction writ petition (c) no.305 of2007manzoor ali khan ... petitioner (s) versus union of india & ors. ... respondent (s) judgment adarsh kumar goel, j.1. this petition, by way of public interest litigation, seeks direction to declare section 19 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 ( pc act ) unconstitutional and to direct prosecution of all cases registered and investigated under the provisions of pc act against the politicians, m.l.as, m.ps and government officials, without sanction as required under section 19 of the pc act.2. according to the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is a practising advocate in the state of jammu & kashmir. in the said state, several government officials have been charged for corruption but in the absence of requisite sanction, they could not be prosecuted. referring to several instances including those noticed by this court in various orders, it is submitted that the provision for sanction as a condition precedent for prosecution is being used by the government of india and the state governments to protect dishonest and corrupt politicians and government officials. the discretion to grant sanction has been misused.3. the petition refers to various orders of this court where incumbents were indicted but not prosecuted for want of sanction. in common cause, a registered society vs. union of india & ors. (1996) 6 scc593 captain satish sharma, the then minister for .....

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!

Nov 26 2014 (SC)

Gram Panchayat,village Bahmanian Vs. Jagir Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-26-2014

in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.10562 /2014 [arising out of s.l.p. (civil) no.35854 of 2009]. gram panchayat, village bahmanian ... appellant (s) versus jagir singh and others ... respondent (s) judgment kurian, j.: leave granted. alleging that the first respondent had encroached upon the land belonging to the panchayat, more particularly, a public street, the appellant-gram panchayat has been airing its grievance before various forums. it succeeded in getting an order of eviction from the competent authority. that order was challenged in civil writ petition no.20116 of 2005 by the first respondent. the learned single judge of the high court of punjab and haryana, in judgment dated 30.05.2009, passed the following order: ".it appears that the panchayat is unnecessarily trying to create problem for the petitioner. the petitioner apparently has constructed a house and as per the report has not encroached upon any street. his plea is that it may be a private street leading to his house constructed on a land bought by him from the private respondent. this will explain the attitude of respondent no.4 in objecting to the proposal being accepted. the petitioner, thus, is given liberty to deposit the compensation at twice the collector rate for the land in his possession in the accounts of the gram panchayat. this order is basically passed in equity considering that the petitioner has constructed a house and is ready to compensate the gram .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 2014 (SC)

Gram Panchayat,village Bahmanian Vs. Jagir Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-26-2014

in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.10562 /2014 [arising out of s.l.p. (civil) no.35854 of 2009]. gram panchayat, village bahmanian ... appellant (s) versus jagir singh and others ... respondent (s) judgment kurian, j.: leave granted. alleging that the first respondent had encroached upon the land belonging to the panchayat, more particularly, a public street, the appellant-gram panchayat has been airing its grievance before various forums. it succeeded in getting an order of eviction from the competent authority. that order was challenged in civil writ petition no.20116 of 2005 by the first respondent. the learned single judge of the high court of punjab and haryana, in judgment dated 30.05.2009, passed the following order: ".it appears that the panchayat is unnecessarily trying to create problem for the petitioner. the petitioner apparently has constructed a house and as per the report has not encroached upon any street. his plea is that it may be a private street leading to his house constructed on a land bought by him from the private respondent. this will explain the attitude of respondent no.4 in objecting to the proposal being accepted. the petitioner, thus, is given liberty to deposit the compensation at twice the collector rate for the land in his possession in the accounts of the gram panchayat. this order is basically passed in equity considering that the petitioner has constructed a house and is ready to compensate the gram .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2014 (SC)

Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U P and Anr

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-05-2014

in the supreme court of india criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal no.2587 of2014(arising out of s.l.p. (crl.) no.8469 of 2014) neeru yadav ... appellant versus state of u.p and another ...respondents judgment dipak misra, j.leave granted. the present appeal, by special leave, calls in question the legal substantiality and defensibility of the order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the high court of judicature at allahabad in criminal misc. bail application no.31078 of 2014 whereby the learned judge, in exercise of power under section 439 of code of criminal procedure, 1973 (cr.pc) had admitted the 2nd respondent to bail in crime no.237 of 2013 instituted for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120b and 34 of the indian penal code (ipc). as the impugned order would reveal, it was contended on behalf of the 2nd respondent that similarly placed co-accused, ashok, had already been enlarged on bail by the high court by order dated 23.9.2013 in criminal misc. bail application no.21876 of 2013 and role of the accused-respondent no.2 was identical to that of ashok kumar and he should be released on bail. thus the foundation of the prayer for grant of bail was on the bedrock of parity. the said prayer for grant of bail was opposed with vehemence by the learned a.g.a. contending, inter alia, that the accused had criminal antecedents and the role attributed to him was different. the same was controverted by the accused asserting that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2014 (SC)

Pooja Ravinder Devidasani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-17-2014

reportable in the supreme court of india criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal nos.2604-2610 of2014arising out of special leave petition (crl) nos. 9133-9139 of2010pooja ravinder devidasani ... appellant versus state of maharashtra & anr. ... respondents judgment n.v. ramana, j.leave granted.2. these appeals by special leave are filed by the appellant challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 6th october, 2010 passed by the high court of judicature at bombay in writ petition nos. 614-620 of 2010 whereby the high court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the complaints filed by the respondent no.2 under section 138 read with section 141 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the n.i. act").3. the brief facts of these appeals are that respondent no.2, a finance company, filed seven complaints under the n.i. act against the appellant and others viz., (1) complaint no.3370/ss/2008 claiming rs.1,64,69,801-14 (2) complaint no.3641/ss/2008 claiming rs.1,06,55,289-91 (3) complaint no.3368/ss/2008 claiming rs. 1,41,95,806-40 (4) 3640/ss/2008 claiming rs. 85,21,294/- (5) 3369/ss/2008 claiming rs. 1,88,12,292/- (6) 3642/ss/2008 claiming rs. 1,69,95,353-50 and (7) complaint no.4086/ss/2009 for a claim of rs. 8,08,973-25. in all the complaints the allegation was that the respondent no.2 company had extended trade finance facility to m/s elite international pvt. ltd. to which the appellant was a director at .....

Tag this Judgment!


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