Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: us supreme court Year: 1998 Page 1 of about 67 results (0.047 seconds)

Dec 08 1998 (FN)

Ortiz Vs. Fibreboard Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-08-1998

..... ' asbestos personal injury and death claims. claimants seeking compensation would be required to try to settle with the trust. if initial settlement attempts failed, claimants would have to proceed to mediation, arbitration, and a mandatory settlement conference. only after exhausting that process could claimants go to court against the trust, subject to a limit of $500,000 per claim, with punitive ..... to be by the trilateral settlement agreement); the class members, by contrast, would be assured of a 3-year payout for claims settled, whereas the unsettled faced a prospect of mediation followed by arbitration as prior conditions of instituting suit, which would even then be subject to a recovery limit, a slower payout, and the limitations of the trust's spendthrift ..... there is a shortfall. it also permits an individual who wishes to retain his right to bring an ordinary action in court to opt out of the arrangement (albeit after mediation and nonbinding arbitration), but sets a ceiling of $500,000 upon the recovery obtained by any person who does so. see generally 162 f. r. d., at 518-519. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1998 (FN)

New Jersey Vs. New York

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-12-1998

..... ), there was clear reason to fear that the tax dispute would kill any disposition the united states might like to make. in 1960, the council of state governments tried to mediate the jurisdictional dispute, but negotiations simply came to impasse. n. j. exh. 134 (letter from regional director, council of state governments, to associate general counsel, gsa, dated july 28, 1960 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 1998 (SC)

Kanwar Singh and Others Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-30-1998

Reported in : 1998VIIIAD(SC)93; AIR1999SC317; 1998(6)ALT27(SC); JT1998(7)SC397; (1999)121PLR656; RLW1999(2)SC241; 1998(6)SCALE2; (1998)8SCC136; [1998]Supp2SCR505; 1999(1)LC13(SC)

v.n. khare, j.1. leave granted.2. this group of civil appeals is directed against the judgment of a division bench of delhi high court and the questions involved therein relate to the quantum of compensation with regard to acquisition of appellants' land situated in village rangpuri @ malikpur kohi, delhi. since common questions of fact and law are involved in this group of appeals, we propose to decide them by a common judgment noticing the fact of the case appearing on the record of civil appeal no. 7690 of 1994.3. a large tract of land in village rangpuri near palam airport was notified for acquisition vide notification dated 23.1.1965 issued under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') for planned development of delhi. simultaneously, notifications dated 23.1.1965 were also issued for acquisition of land in villages masoodpur and mahipalpur. some plots of land of village rangpuri were acquired vide award no. 1958/67 dated 16.3.1967. the land acquisition collector while assessing the market value of the acquired land covered by the aforesaid award, divided the said land into three blocks and fixed rs. 800, rs. 600 and rs. 400 per bigha for block-i, block-ii and block-ill respectively. the remaining land of village rangpuri not covered by earlier award were acquired by award no. 146/80-81 dated 30.3.1981. the land acquisition collector while giving the said award divided the land in to two blocks and fixed rs. 1800 and rs. 1500 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1998 (SC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Bharosi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-12-1998

Reported in : AIR1998SC3016; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)453; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)248; 1998CriLJ4053; JT1998(5)SC456; RLW1999(1)SC67; 1998(4)SCALE512; (1998)6SCC564; [1998]3SCR1129

d.p. wadhwa, j.1. we condone delay in slp (crl.) no. 2625 of 1998 and grant leave to appeal.2. we heard both the appeals together.3. state of rajasthan is aggrieved by the judgment dated may 1, 1996 of the division bench of the rajasthan high court (jaipur bench) for two reasons: (1) acquitting natthi, karan singh and ram bharosi of offences under sections 302/149, 149 and 447 indian penal code (ipc for short) though maintaining their conviction for offence under section 323 ipc but reducing their sentence to the rigorous imprisonment already undergone by them; and (2) acquitting makhan and gokula of charges under sections 302, 148, 447 and 323 ipc and instead convicting each of them for offence under section 307 ipc and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to a fine of rs. 2000 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. gokula and makhan have appealed against the same very judgment against their conviction and sentence.4. additional sessions judge, bayana (bharatpur), who tried eight persons, by judgment dated june 18, 1994 convicted makhan and gokula under section 302 ipc and natthi, karan singh and ram bharosi under sections 302/149 ipc and sentenced all five of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 500 each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. all the five accused were also convicted for offences under sections 148, 447 and 323 ipc .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1998 (SC)

Chintaman Vs. Shankar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-17-1998

Reported in : (1999)1SCC76

s.b. majmudar and; m. jagannadha rao, jj.1. leave granted.2. we have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent 3 who is the only contesting party. in our view, this is a fit case in which this court should interfere in the interest of justice. a few relevant facts for highlighting the aforesaid conclusion of ours are required to be noted.3. the appellant and respondent 1 are brothers. it is not in dispute that there were agricultural lands in which the appellant and respondent 1 and his another brother had 1/3rd undivided share each. the undivided 1/3rd shares of respondent 1 as well as his brother were sold to one chandramohini devi. thereafter, the present appellant as well as his brother, respondent 1 along with the third brother were sued by the said purchaser in a regular civil suit no. 12-a of 1954 in the court of civil judge, senior division, bhandara. the plaintiff wanted her 2/3rds share to be separated. the remaining 1/3rd share belonged to the present appellant, the third brother. there were other parties joined in the suit being defendants 4 to 10 with whom we are not concerned as ultimately in the suit, the trial court passed the decree in the following terms:1. it is hereby declared that the sale deed passed by defendants 1 and 2 to defendants 4 and 5 for the land kh. no. 35 village sawari on 17-4-1958 and the other sale deed passed by them to defendant 6 for kh. no. 27/2 of the same village on 11-5-1962, are not binding .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 1998 (SC)

Sonelal Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-15-1998

Reported in : 1998(1)ALD(Cri)321; JT1998(1)SC95; 1998(1)SCALE105; (1998)2SCC431; [1998]1SCR197

orderthomas, j.1. on the death of the sole appellant normally this appeal would have got abated. but appellant's widow smt. krishna bai applied for resuscitation of the appeal presumably because she was not inclined to bear the stigma fastened on her late husband with the finding of the high court that he was guilty of corruption charge. hence, she availed herself of the remedy envisaged in the proviso to section 394(2) of the crpc and applied for leave to continue the appeal. leave was granted after condoning the delay involved in making the aforesaid application.2. appellant was accused in a case tried by a special judge for the offence under section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act 1947. he was acquitted of the said charge by the trial court but was convicted by the high court on an appeal filed by the state in reversal of the finding of the trial court. he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of rs. 500. he preferred the present appeal by special leave.3. appellant was a revenue inspector. the nub of the case against him was that he wangled a bride of rs. 50 from one sewa ram (pw1) for performing an official act, but appellant was caught red-handed in a trap laid by the police.4. more details of the case are these : pw1 - sewa ram got a sale-deed in respect of 50 acres of land. he approached the appellant for certification of the said sale-deed for facilitating mutation proceedings. appellant demanded a sum of rs. 100 as remuneration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1998 (SC)

S.G.P. Committee Vs. M.P. Dass Chela (Dead) by Lrs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-30-1998

Reported in : 1998IVAD(SC)382; AIR1998SC1978; JT1998(3)SC604; (1998)119PLR547; 1998(3)SCALE351; (1998)5SCC157; [1998]3SCR119

m. srinivasan, j.1. leave granted.2. this proceeding had its origin in an application by 60 persons claiming to be worshippers of gurudwara dera lang shri guru granth sahib situate within the revenue estate of village sardargarh, tehsil and district bahatinda under section 7(1) of the sikh gurudwara act 1925 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'act'). under the provisions of sub-section (8) of section 7 of the act, the governor of punjab issued a notification no. 1301- gp dated 7th august 1984 published in the government gazette alongwith a list of rights, titles and interests in properties said to belong to the said gurudwara. one mahant puran dass filed a petition under section 8 of the act with the state government which was forwarded under section 14 (1) of the act to the sikh gurudwaras tribunal, punjab at chandigarh. mahant puran dass claimed that the institution was not a sikh gurudwara but it was a dera of udasi sadhus. the tribunal impleaded the appellant herein as party respondent in the said petition. evidence as adduced by both the parties. the tribunal held that mahant puran dass was not a hereditary office holder and had no locus stand! to maintain a petition under section 8. the tribunal also held that the institution in question is a sikh gurudwara within the ambit of section 16 (2)(iii)of the act.3. aggrieved thereby, mahant puran dass filed an appeal under section 34 of the act before the high court of punjab & haryana. as per the requirement of the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1998 (SC)

Muneshwar (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Raja Mohammad Khan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-20-1998

Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)284; AIR1998SC2995; JT1998(5)SC583; 1998(4)SCALE618; (1998)6SCC582; [1998]Supp1SCR53

d.p. wadhwa, j.1. appellant is aggrieved by judgment dated 02.12.1980 of the allahabad high court rejecting his objections filed by him under section 9 of the u.p. consolidation of holdings act, 1953 (for short 'the consolidation act') which objections had been upheld by the authorities under that act.2. consolidation proceedings were taken up in the village of the appellant under section 8 and 8-a of the consolidation act. thereafter, notices were issued inviting objections to the records so prepared. the land in question in the records was shown in the names of the respondents to which the appellant filed objections. under section 9-a of the consolidation act the consolidation officer by judgment dated 12.07.1972 upheld the objections of the appellant and names of the respondents were removed from the records and name of the appellant was entered as 'sirdar'. respondents took up the matter in appeal before the settlement officer (consolidation), who dismissed the same by order dated 27.09.1972. the matter was yet further taken in revision by the respondents and by order dated 12.04.1973 deputy director consolidation dismissed the revision. respondents thereafter filed writ petition under article 226 of the constitution in the allahabad high court which by impugned judgment dated 02.12.1980 quashed the orders of all the three authorities. the result was that disputed land stood in the names of the respondents in the revenue records under the consolidation act.3. to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 1998 (SC)

Ram NaraIn Arora Vs. Asha Rani and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-31-1998

Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)574; AIR1998SC3012; JT1998(6)SC181; 1998(5)SCALE12; (1999)1SCC141; [1998]Supp1SCR188

s. rajendra babu, j.1. this is a tenant's appeal arising out of certain proceedings initiated under the delhi rent control act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the respondent-landlord filed a petition under section 14(l)(e) read with section 25b of the act seeking for the possession of the house by evicting the appellant as he required the same for his bona fide need and occupation. the appellant before us filed his written statement contending that the landlord has alternate accommodation at subzi mandi and he has deliberately shifted to the disputed premises with an ulterior motive to make out a case for the eviction of the respondent and this fact of availability of the said premises in subzi mandi had not disclosed in the petition.2. in the course of the proceedings before the rent controller a finding was recorded by him as to the bona fide requirement of the respondent in the following terms:-'if the accommodation in occupation of the petitioner on the ground floor of the house in dispute is compared with the extent of the family members of the petitioner excluding of course kishan sarup bhatnagar, the petitioner would be said to be too short of accommodation and if the petitioner does not have any other suitable residential accommodation he should be entitled to an eviction order.'3. on the question whether the respondent had disclosed the full facts necessary for the disposal of the petition filed by him, the rent controller noticed that from the evidence .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 1998 (SC)

Wamanrao Keshavrao Deshmukh and ors. Vs. Dinkarrao Bhausaheb Deshmukh ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-28-1998

Reported in : AIR1999SC322; JT1998(7)SC333; (1999)IMLJ77(SC); 1998(5)SCALE683; (1998)7SCC447; 1999(1)LC407(SC)

orders.p. kurdukar, j. 1. the lands bearing survey nos. 9/1b, 8b, 3b, 4b, and 5b situate in village shivgaon, taluka khanapur, district sangli, were owned by one mahadeo mohite (since deceased). these lands were watan lands of class iv and the said watan was abolished under the provisions of bombay pargana and kulkarni watan act, 1950. from 1.5.1956, the interest in these lands vested in the state government pending the regrant. concededly, the first respondent dinkar deshmukh was the tenant in lawful possession of these lands till 8.2.1959 on which date according to the watandar mahadeo mohite, the tenant had voluntarily surrendered his tenancy rights in his favour. the lands were regranted to the watandar by the state government on payment of occupancy price on 8.8.1963. before such regrant was made, mahadeo mohite, the former watandar, had sold these lands to m/s. hanumant rao deshmukh and wamanrao deshmukh the appellants herein, by registered sale deed dated 4.4.1959. pursuant to this sale transaction, mutation was sought to be made in favour of the appellants to which the tenant objected claiming that he was wrongfully dispossessed by the watandar and the purchasers. 2. after dispossession, the first respondent-tenant (for short tenant) filed an application on 25.9.1959 under section 84 of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948 (for short act) for possession on the ground that the appellants are in unauthorised occupation of these lands. this application was .....

Tag this Judgment!


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