Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: us supreme court Year: 2005 Page 6 of about 61 results (0.052 seconds)

May 23 2005 (FN)

Deck Vs. Missouri

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-23-2005

deck v. missouri - 04-5293 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 deck v. missouri supreme court of the united states deck v. missouri certiorari to the supreme court of missouri no. 04 5293.argued march 1, 2005 decided may 23, 2005 petitioner deck was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, but the missouri supreme court set aside the sentence. at his new sentencing proceeding, he was shackled with leg irons, handcuffs, and a belly chain. the trial court overruled counsel s objections to the shackles, and deck was again sentenced to death. affirming, the state supreme court rejected deck s claim that his shackling violated, inter alia, the federal constitution. held: the constitution forbids the use of visible shackles during a capital trial s penalty phase, as it does during the guilt phase, unless that use is justified by an essential state interest such as courtroom security specific to the defendant on trial. holbrook v. flynn, 475 u. s. 560 , 568 569. pp. 3 10. (a) the law has long forbidden routine use of visible shackles during a capital trial s guilt phase, permitting shackling only in the presence of a special need. in light of holbrook , illinois v. allen, 397 u. s. 337 , early english cases, and lower court shackling doctrine dating back to the 19th century, it is now clear that this is a basic element of due process protected by the federal constitution. thus, the fifth and fourteenth amendments prohibit using physical restraints visible to the jury .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2005 (FN)

Rhines Vs. Weber

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-30-2005

rhines v. weber - 03-9046 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 rhines v. weber supreme court of the united states rhines v. weber, warden certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit no. 03 9046.argued january 12, 2005 decided march 30, 2005 after petitioner rhines state conviction for first-degree murder and burglary became final and his state habeas petition was denied, he filed a federal habeas petition. because the 1-year statute of limitations imposed by the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 (aedpa) was tolled while his state petition was pending, see 28 u. s. c. 2244(d)(2), he had more than 11 months before the limitations period expired. however, by the time the district court ruled that eight of his claims had not been exhausted in state court, the limitations period had run. if the court had dismissed his mixed petition, rhines would have been unable to refile after exhausting his claims, so the court decided to hold his federal petition in abeyance while he presented his unexhausted claims in state court, provided that he commenced the state proceedings within 60 days and returned to the district court within 60 days of completing the exhaustion. the eighth circuit, which had previously held that a district court has no authority to hold mixed petitions in abeyance absent truly exceptional circumstances, vacated the stay and remanded the case for the district court to determine whether rhines could proceed by deleting .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2005 (FN)

Bell Vs. Cone

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-24-2005

bell v. cone - 04-394 (2005) bell v. cone - 04-394 (2005) per curiam bell v. cone 543 u. s. ____ (2005) supreme court of the united states ricky bell, warden v. gary bradford cone on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit no. 04 394.decided january 24, 2005 per curiam. the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit granted a writ of habeas corpus to respondent gary bradford cone after concluding that the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance found by the jury at the sentencing phase of his trial was unconstitutionally vague, and that the tennessee supreme court failed to cure any constitutional deficiencies on appeal. 359 f. 3d 785, 799 (2004). because this result fails to accord to the state court the deference required by 28 u. s. c. 2254(d), we grant the petition for certiorari and respondent s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and reverse. i respondent killed shipley todd, 93, and his wife cleopatra, 79, on august 10, 1980, in their home at the conclusion of a 2-day crime spree. the killings were accomplished in a brutal and callous fashion: the elderly victims were repeatedly beaten about the head until they died, state v. cone , 665 s. w. 2d 87, 90 91 (tenn. 1984), and their bodies were subsequently discovered horribly mutilated and cruelly beaten, id ., at 90. a tennessee jury convicted respondent of, inter alia , two counts of murder in the first degree and two counts of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2005 (SC)

Sona Bala Bora and ors. Vs. Jyotirindra Bhatacharjee

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-11-2005

Reported in : 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)1128; 2005(2)AWC1593(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN114; 100(2005)CLT147(SC); 2005(1)CTLJ345(SC); JT2005(4)SC418; (2005)4SCC501; 2005(1)LC626(SC)

ruma pal, j1. leave granted.2. the first appellant is the widow of bhogirath bora. the appellants 2-4 are their children. they reside in a bungalow which is situated in an area of .176 acres of land at shillong. there are two other bungalows on the same plot which are tenanted. the respondent claims to have purchased the three bungalows and the land from bhogirath in 1977 for a consideration of rs. 69,000/-.3. in 1978, the respondent filed a title suit against, inter alia the appellants and bhogirath, (who was named as a proforma defendant) claiming a declaration that he was the absolute and exclusive owner of the land and buildings, for a decree for vacant possession by evicting the appellants and the tenants therefrom, for mesne profits, interest thereon and costs.4. the appellants also, filed a suit against the respondent and bhogirath claiming a declaration that bhogirath did not have the absolute right to transfer the property to the respondent, that the sale made to the respondent was void and should be set aside, for a declaration that bhogirath was bound by the terms of a compromise petition dated 10th june, 1977 filed in ct. case no. 3/1977 and that the appellants had a preferential right and a right of preemption to purchase the other two houses on the land.5. it is an admitted position that in 1977, bhogirath had filed a complaint (case no. 3/1977) against some of the appellants before the magistrate under section 107 of the code of criminal procedure. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2005 (SC)

Yamuna Nagar Improvement Trust Vs. Khariati Lal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2245; 2005(3)AWC2353(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN148; JT2005(4)SC261; (2005)10SCC30; 2005(1)LC617(SC)

c.k. thakker, j1. leave granted.2. these appeals are filed by yamuna nagar improvement trust challenging the legality of judgment and decree passed by civil judge (senior division), jagadhri, dated january 28, 1999, confirmed by the additional district judge, jagadhri on november 24, 2000 and also confirmed by the high court of punjab and haryana on august 14, 2003.3. to appreciate the controversy in the appeals, relevant facts of both the cases may be stated in brief.4. in the first matter, a suit was filed by kharaiti lal, s/o deewan chand, for permanent injunction restraining yamuna nagar improvement trust ('trust' for short) from interfering with actual and physical possession over the residential house owned by the plaintiff by demolishing the construction made by him. the case of the plaintiff was that he along with his brother mulakh raj purchased the property bearing khasra no. 173 min, mauza gobindpuri now sham nagar, near bus stand, model town, yamuna nagar, from one mangal, s/o nihala vide registered sale deed dated march 9, 1962 for valuable consideration. it was his case that in pursuance of the sale deed, physical and actual possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff and his brother by mulakh raj. thereafter the plaintiff constructed a residential house wherein he was residing alongwith his family members. according to the plaintiff, he was paying house tax to the municipal committee, yamuna nagar. water and electric connection was also given to him .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2005 (SC)

iqbal Singh Marwah and anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2119; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)717; 2005CriLJ2161; 118(2005)DLT329(SC); JT2005(3)SC195; 2005(3)MhLj530; 2005(II)OLR(SC)102; (2005)4SCC370; 2005(1)LC675(SC)

g.p. mathur, j.1. leave granted in special leave petition (crl) no.4111 of 2000.2. in view of conflict of opinion between two decisions of this court each rendered by a bench of three learned judges in surjit singh v. balbir singh : 1996crilj2304 and sachida nand singh v. state of bihar 1998 (2) scc 493, regarding interpretation of section 195(1)(b)(ii) of code of criminal procedure 1973 (for short 'cr.p.c.'), this appeal has been placed before the present bench.3. the facts of the case may be noticed in brief. the appellant nos.1 and 2 are real brothers of mukhtar singh marwah, while respondent nos.1 and 2 are his widow and son respectively. mukhtar singh marwah died on 3.6.1993. the appellant no.1 filed probate case no.363 of 1993 in the court of district judge, delhi, for being granted probate of the will allegedly executed by mukhtar singh marwah on 20.1.1993. the petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that the will was forged. on their application the appellant no.1 filed the original will in the court of district judge on 10.2.1994. thereafter, the respondents moved an application under section 340 cr.p.c. requesting the court to file a criminal complaint against appellant no.1 as the will set up by him was forged. a reply to the said application was filed on 27.7.1994 but the application has not been disposed of so far. thereafter, the respondents filed a criminal complaint in may 1996 in the court of chief metropolitan magistrate, new delhi, for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 2005 (SC)

Shanti Prasad Devi and anr. Vs. Shankar Mahto and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2905; 2005(4)ALD116(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)848; 2005(3)AWC2537(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1608; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN119; 2005(3)CTC550; JT2005(6)SC6; 2005(II)OLR(SC)431; (2005)5

..... before the expiry of original period of lease and second, fixation of terms and conditions for the renewed period of lease by mutual consent and in absence thereof through the mediation of local mukhia or panchas of the village. the aforesaid renewal clauses (7) & (9) in the agreement of lease clearly fell within the expression 'agreement to the contrary' used in ..... . the renewal as provided in the original contract was required to be obtained by following a specified procedure i.e. on mutually agreed terms or in the alternative through the mediation of mukhias and panchas. in the instant case, there is a renewal clause in the contract prescribing a particular period and mode of renewal which was 'an agreement to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 2005 (SC)

Harbans Vs. Om Prakash and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-10-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC686; 2006(1)AWC312(SC); 2006(1)CTC678; JT2005(5)SC625; (2006)2MLJ54(SC); (2006)142PLR852; RLW2005(4)SC2923; (2006)1SCC129

arijit pasayat, j.1. judgment of a learned single judge of the punjab and haryana high court dismissing the second appeal filed by the appellant under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short the 'code') is the subject matter of challenge.2. background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows:a suit was instituted by the appellant against the defendants seeking decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff had become the owner in possession to the extent of 4 share and defendants 2 and 3 have become owner and possession of the balance suit property, on the ground of foreclosure since limitation for redemption of the land had expired. consequential relief of permanent injunction, for restraining defendant no. 1 from alienating the suit land and in any manner from interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 was sought for.3. specific stand of the plaintiff was that forefathers of the plaintiff alongwith forefathers of prem and lakhpat sons of banswari took the land in suit as mortgagees from the ancestors of bhira about more than 100 years ago, and since then they have continued to be in possession of the suit land as mortgagees. therefore, the plaintiff and defendants no. 2 and 3 are in cultivating possession of the suit land since smt. patori daughter of nanha has not been seen and heard by the plaintiff since he attained majority and her name has been wrongly shown by halqa patwari in place of banwari son of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 2005 (SC)

Kedar Nath Dubey (D) by Lrs. and ors. Vs. Sheo NaraIn Dubey (D) by Lrs ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-12-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1800(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN39; JT2005(5)SC467; (2005)10SCC621

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. challenge in this appeal is to the decision by a learned single judge of the allahabad high court holding that the auction sale on 18.8.1989 and confirmation thereof was illegal. kedar nath dubey, the predecessor of the appellant was the successful bidder. objection filed by sheo narain dubey, the predecessor of non-official respondents was rejected by order dated 18.8.1989.3. a brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.4. the writ petitioner, sheo narain dubey, the predecessor of non-official respondents had taken a loan for purchasing pumping set from u.p. state sahkari agricultural avam gram vikas bank limited, salenpur, deoria. as the said loan was not repaid within the stipulated time, proceedings were initiated for recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue under the uttar pradesh zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1950 (in short 'the act'). land belonging to the writ petitioner was auctioned on 18.8.1989. bid of kedar nath dubey, the predecessor of the present appellant was accepted. sheo narain dubey filed objection under rule 285(1) of the uttar pradesh zamindari abolition and land reforms rules, 1953 (in short 'the rules'). the stand taken was that there was material irregularity in the service of notice as well as in conducting the sale and thereby rule 285(a) of the rules had been violated. the said objection was rejected and the sale was confirmed. the writ petition was filed in 1991. mutation proceedings .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2005 (SC)

Amit Kumar Shaw and anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-13-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2209; 2005(4)ALD98(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)458; 2005(2)AWC1348(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1273; 2005(5)BomCR690; (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN83; 2005(4)CTC47; JT2005(5)SC20; 2005(2)KLT80; (2005)11SCC403

ar. lakshmanan, j. 1. leave granted.2. these two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2004 passed by the high court at calcutta in c.a.n. no. 2642 of 2004 in s.a.no. 631 of 1993 and in c.a.n. no. 2643 of 2004 in s.a.no. 632 of 1993 whereby the high court dismissed the applications filed by the appellants for substitution of their names, namely, amit kumar shaw and anand kumar shaw as contesting respondents in place and stead of birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey, both since deceased and represented by their legal heirs in their place. according to the appellants, the respondents above named had sold the suit property to the appellants, who are the only persons interested in the said suit property.3. the service of notice is complete in both the matters but no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.4. the short facts are as follows:the property in question originally belonged to khetra mohan das and subsequently by way of lease and transfer; the said property ultimately came in the hands of birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey. there were troubles in between the original owner and the said birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey and as a result of that, the suit was filed. one fakir mohammad claimed his right, title and interest in respect of the property in question by way of adverse possession. ultimately, both the appeals being title appeal no. 400 of 1989 and title appeal no. 7 of 1990 were allowed by a common judgment and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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