Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: us supreme court Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 67 results (0.055 seconds)

Dec 10 2003 (FN)

McConnell Vs. Federal Election Comm'n

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-10-2003

..... . 58 , 65, n. 6 (1963) ( the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press embraces the circulation of books as well as their publication ). division of labor requires a means of mediating exchange, and in a commercial society, that means is supplied by money. the publisher pays the author for the right to sell his book; it pays its staff who print .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 2003 (FN)

Georgia Vs. Ashcroft

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-26-2003

..... ., at 1540. the court then found that the 1995 plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. see id., at 1543. under court direction, georgia and the department of justice reached a mediated agreement on the constitutionality of the 1995 senate plan. georgia passed a new plan in 1997, and the department of justice quickly precleared it. the redrawn map resembled to a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 2003 (FN)

American Ins. Assn. Vs. Garamendi

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-23-2003

..... eizenstat); see s. eizenstat, imperfect justice 208-212 (2003). from the beginning, the government's position, represented principally by under secretary of state (later deputy treasury secretary) stuart eizenstat, stressed mediated settlement "as an alternative to endless litigation" promising little relief to aging holocaust survivors. ser 953 (press conference by secretary of state albright). ensuing negotiations at the national level produced .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 2003 (SC)

Shiv Bali and anr. Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-08-2003

Reported in : 2003CriLJ4637

u.s. tripathi, j.1. the above two appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5-11-1981 passed by iiird additional sessions judge, fatehpur in sessions trial no. 312 of 1980 convicting the appellants under section 302 read with section 34 ipc and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life.2. the prosecution story, briefly stated, was as under :--appellants shiv bali and bhola are real brothers and sons of baijnath. appellants ram mani and maheshwari are also real brothers and sons of ram gopal. baijnath, father of appellants shiv bali and bhola and ram gopal, father of appellants ram mani and maheshwari were real brothers. all the appellants and satya narain (p.w. 1) and his brother deo narain deceased were residents of village datauli, p.s. lilauli, district fatehpur. satyanarain (p.w.1) and deo narain deceased were residing at their dera in village burdawa to look after their cultivation.3. one shambhu was cousin brother of the appellants. shambhu had died leaving his widow smt. maharania, who was residing at village aunsar, district banda. smt. maharania had agricultural land in villages garhi and satkara. the appellants were cultivating the plots of smt. maharania. satyanarain (p.w.1) and his five brothers including deo narain deceased purchased agricultural land of smt. maharania prior to 4-5 months of the occurrence of this case. satya narain (p.w. 1) and others applied for mutation of their name over the plots of smt. maharania. sheo bali and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 2003 (SC)

Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Sri Jagadish Kalita and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-07-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)AWC105(SC); 2003(3)BLJR2399; (SCSuppl)2004(1)CHN8; [2004(2)JCR86(SC)]; JT2003(8)SC26; 2004(2)MhLj611; 2004MPLJ259(SC); (2004)137PLR255; 2003(8)SCALE356; (2004)1SCC27

s.b. sinha, j. 1. this appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 20.5.1991 passed by gauhati high court dismissing the second appeal preferred by the appellant herein. background fact 2. md. sadagar sheikh was the original owner of the suit premises. he transferred the same to gayaram kalita and kashiram kalita. the premises in suit, thus, owned and possessed by the said gayaram kalita and kashiram kalita, who were brothers. by reason of a registered deed of partition dated 1.12.1938, the structures standing on the land in suit being holding nos. 522 and 523 of the nalbari municipality were divided into half and half, each measuring 51/2 lechas. prafulla kalita, son of gayaram kalita, allegedly, amalgamated both the said holdings and got them registered in his name as holding no. 121 in the records of nalbari municipality. holding no. 522 was sold and portion of holding no. 523 was leased out in favour of the respondent no. 3 by prafulla kalita. 3. upon the death of md. sadagar sheikh, however, his sons got the lands mutated in their favour in mutation case no. 414/70-71 in terms of an order of the sub divisional officer of the nalbari municipality. 4. by reason of a registered deed of sale dated 28.11.1972, the defendants nos. 7, 8 & 9 transferred their possessory rights in holding no. 523 including the house to the appellant for valuable consideration. on or about 24.9.1977, the legal representatives of md. sadagar sheikh, being defendant nos. 10, 11 & 12 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 2003 (SC)

Ahuja Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-03-2003

Reported in : AIR2003SC3519; JT2003(3)SC566; 2003(3)SCALE623; (2003)5SCC365; [2003]3SCR351

bhan, j.1. the instant appeal seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 1st february, 2001 passed by the division bench of the karnataka high court in writ appeal no. 570 of 2001, (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order') upholding the order of the single judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated under the karnataka industrial areas development act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') including survey no. 6 (with which the appellant is concerned) measuring 1 acre 30 guntas. the appellant is aggrieved not only with the acquisition proceedings but also with the manner in which the acquisition proceedings have been commenced and proceeded with under the act. according to him the mandatory requirements for the declaration of the industrial area as well as issuance of a show cause notice to the appellant to file objections have not been complied with.2. before adverting to the points raised in this appeal it would be necessary to enumerate the basic facts, which are as under:3. on 10th february, 1993 appellant purchased land ad-measuring 1 acre 30 guntas bearing survey no. 6 by registered sale deed located at krishna sagar village, attibele hobli, anekal taluk, bangalore urban district from khujam and rahmath shariff. according to the appellant he was put in possession of the said land from the date of sale. however, his name was not shown in the revenue record as the land had not been mutated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2003 (SC)

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mrs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-26-2003

Reported in : AIR2003SC3669; (2003)4CompLJ377(SC); 106(2003)DLT181(SC); JT2003(8)SC278; (2003)3MLJ204(SC); 2003(6)SCALE685; (2003)7SCC301

sema, j. 1. these two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. civil appeal no. 34 of 1995 has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.5.1994 passed by the high court in 3696 of 1992 and civil appeal no. 5424 of 1999 is preferred against the order of the national consumer disputes redressal commission, new delhi, dated 1.4.1998 passed in revision petition no. 933 of 1997. since the facts of both the appeals are identical, we are taking the facts from civil appeal no. 34 of 1995. 2. shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal arises under the following circumstances: -one ram dhan (since deceased) had purchased a plot no. d-3, community center, narayana, in the public auction held by the delhi development authority (hereinafter the 'dda') on 25.5.1969. the perpetual lease deed of the plot was executed between ram dhan and the president of india on 17.2.1972. on 18.9.1978, ram dhan died without any construction on the plot. the respondent herein - mrs. vijaya c. gurshaney, seems to have applied for grant of letters of administration to the district judge, delhi, on the strength of a will, said to have been executed by ram dhan on 26.10.1977 in her favour. it appears that the district judge granted letters of administration on 7.5.1980. thereafter, the respondent had applied to dda for substitution of her name in place of deceased ram dhan. dda issued show cause notice for non-construction on plot within the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 2003 (SC)

Ram Swaroop and anr. Vs. Mahindru and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-18-2003

Reported in : 2004(5)ALD7(SC); 2004(2)BLJR1446; 2004(1)CTC272; JT2003(10)SC422; 2003(10)SCALE92; (2003)12SCC436

a.c. lakshmanan, j.1. the above appeal was filed by the defendants against the order dated 07.01.1997 passed by the high court of himachal pradesh at shimla in r.s.a. no. 66 of 1987.2. the brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are:-3. once krishan dutt, who is the father of the respondents herein, (lrs of plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration in the court of senior sub-judge mahasu at shimla and prayed for a decree of declaration thereby declaring the respondent to be in joint possession of the property having 1/3rd share and for partition of his share in respect of shops, vacant plots and for a decree for rendition of accounts. the respondents alleged in the plaint that the appellants/defendants are joint owners of the property detailed in the plaint that the respondents have got 1/3rd share in the properties and are accordingly entitled to 1/3rd share by partition, the parties being in joint possession of the properties. 4. the appellants filed their written statement and apart from taking legal objections have contended that there is no cause of action nor locus standi of the respondents to file the suit that kanshi ram (first husband of gangi) died about 32 years ago and gangi the widow of kanshi ram inherited the properties. it has been further submitted that after about one year of the death of shri kanshi ram, smt. gangi in accordance with the customs prevailing in the area became the wife of bala ram, the father of the appellants/defendants and on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 2003 (SC)

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.V. Hanumantha Rao (D) Thr. Lrs. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-14-2003

Reported in : JT2003(9)SC438; (2004)1MLJ49(SC); 2003(8)SCALE688; (2003)10SCC121

dharmadhikari j.1. the state of andhra pradesh is in appeal against the common judgment dated 18.9.1996 passed by the high court of a.p. in w.p. no. 10074 of 1992 and batch of writ appeals whereby the judgment dated 30.7.1992 of the special court, hyderabad under the andhra pradesh grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 [for short 'the act of 1982'] has been reversed with declaration that the respondents are not 'land grabbers' within the meaning of definition clause contained in section 2(d) of the act of 1982.2. the principle submission made before us by the learned senior counsel appearing for the state of andhra pradesh is that the high court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction had no justification, as in appeal to re-appreciate the whole evidence led by the parties before the special court and record contrary conclusions. reliance is placed on swarn singh and anr. v. state of punjab and ors. : air1976sc232 and j.m.d. alloys ltd. v. bihar state electricity board and ors. : [2003]2scr690 .3. the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgment of the high court contending that the special court, established under the act of 1982, overlooked vital documents of title produced by the occupants of the disputed land and gave undue importance to the fact that in revenue papers, the names of the occupants are not recorded as being in lawful possession of the lands in question. the submission made is that where a special court exercising exclusive .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 2003 (SC)

Remco Inds. Workers House Bldg. Coop. Soc. Vs. Lakshmeesha M. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-28-2003

Reported in : AIR2003SC3167; (2004)97CALLT83(SC); 97(2004)CLT83(SC); JT2005(11)SC360; 2003(6)SCALE789; (2003)11SCC666

dharmadhikari, j.1. these two appeals arise out of common judgment dated 06.9.1996 passed by the high court of karnataka at bangalore in cross appeals filed by the plaintiff and defendants [regular first appeal nos. 191/1987 & 747/1986] against the judgment dated 30.10.1986 of city civil court, bangalore in civil suit no. 5634 of 1980. the appellant which is a housing co-operative society of workers in remco industries, was defendant no. 2 before the trial court.2. the subject matter of dispute is the land in survey no. 132/2 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas [now said to have been merged into survey no. 305] situate in village kempapur (now part of bangalore city). the present appellant - society of workers claims title to the land and it is submitted that it has built houses for its members on it. it is not in dispute that the suit land was an inam land. inams were abolished by karnataka (personal & miscellaneous) inams abolition act, 1954. under the said act, tenants in occupation of land are given preferential right to apply for occupancy rights and if they fail to do so, the inamdar has been given a right to apply for grant of occupancy rights.3. the plaintiff [respondent no. 1 herein] is the purchaser of suit land from smt. subbalakshamma, the inamdar. one muniyappa who claimed to be a tenant, applied on 22.4.1959 for grant of occupancy rights - amongst others on the suit land. his application for grant of occupancy rights for suit land in survey no. 132/2 with others lands was .....

Tag this Judgment!

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