Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: supreme court of india Year: 2012 Page 11 of about 115 results (0.126 seconds)

Nov 08 2012 (SC)

Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-08-2012

dr. b.s. chauhan, j.1. this appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2009, passed by the high court of bombay (aurangabad bench) in writ petition no.3129 of 2009, filed by respondent no.5, challenging the caste certificate of the appellant.2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows:a. the competent authority in the present case, issued a caste certificate dated 19.10.1989, after following due procedure, in favour of the appellant stating that he does in fact, belong to bhil tadvi (scheduled tribes). on the basis of the said certificate, the appellant was appointed as senior clerk in the municipal corporation of aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the, 'corporation') on 6.2.1990, against the vacancy reserved for persons under the scheduled tribes category. the corporation referred the caste certificate of the appellant for the purpose of verification, to the caste certificate scrutiny committee (hereinafter referred to as the, "scrutiny committee"). the vigilance cell attached to the scrutiny committee, upon conducting vigilance enquiry, vide order dated 29.12.1998, found that the appellant did, in fact, belong to bhil tadvi (scheduled tribes) and thus, the said certificate was verified. the scrutiny committee, on the basis of the said report and also other documents filed by the appellant in support of his case, issued a validity certificate, dated 23.5.2000 to the appellant belonging to bhil tadvi ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 2012 (SC)

Shantibhai J. Vaghela and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-09-2012

ranjan gogoi, j.1. leave granted.2. the present appeals seek to challenge a judgment dated 10.01.2011 passed by the high court of gujarat at ahmedabad allowing criminal miscellaneous application no. 13519 of 2009 filed by the accused (respondents herein) seeking quashing of the criminal case registered against them under section 304 of the indian penal code. by its aforesaid order the high court has also dismissed special criminal application no. 770 of 2009 filed by the appellants, shantibhai j. vaghela and prafulbhai j. vaghela, seeking investigation of the aforesaid case against the accused by the central bureau of investigation. the high court has, however, directed that the proceedings against the accused respondents so far as the offence under section 304a of the ipc and section 23 of the juvenile justice (care and protection) act, 2000 may continue.3. the core facts in which the aggrieved parties had moved the high court may now be noticed:the appellants shantibhai j. vaghela and prafulbhai j. vaghela, who are related to each other, are the fathers of one dipesh (born 1998) and abhishek (born 1999). the aforesaid two children were admitted in class vi and v respectively in a gurukul located in an ashram of sant shree asharamji situated at motela. they were residing in the gurukul of the ashram. on 03.07.2008 both the children had gone to the dining hall of the gurukul at about 8.00 pm to have their dinner. at the time of taking the attendance of the students after .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2012 (SC)

Sangeet and anr. Vs. State of HaryanA.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-20-2012

Reported in : 2012(11)SCALE140

madan b. lokur, j.1. in these appeals, this court issued notice limited to the question of the sentence awarded to the appellants. they were awarded the death penalty, which was confirmed by the high court. in our opinion, the appellants in these appeals against the order of the high court should be awarded a life sentence, subject to the faithful implementation of the provisions of the code of criminal code, 1973.the facts:2. in view of the limited notice issued in these appeals, it is not necessary to detail the facts. however, it may be mentioned that as many as six persons (including the appellants) were accused of various offences under the indian penal code (for short the ipc) and the arms act, 1959. they were convicted by the additional sessions judge, rohtak by his judgment and order dated 13th november, 2009 in sessions case no. 47 of 2004/2009 of the offence of murder (section 302 of the ipc), attempt to murder (section 307 of the ipc), rioting, armed with a deadly weapon (section 148 of the ipc), house trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with death (section 449 of the ipc) read with section 149 of the ipc (every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of a common object). five of the accused were convicted of an offence under section 25(1-b) of the arms act, 1959. except the appellants, all of them were given a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and payment of fine. the appellants, as mentioned above, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 2012 (SC)

Raju Alias Balachandran and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-27-2012

madan b. lokur, j.1. the issue before us is whether the trial court and the high court were both right in believing the testimony of pw-5 srinivasan, a related and interested witness, that his brother veerappan and his mother marudayi were murdered by the appellants. whether such an issue is of such public importance that it requires a decision from this court is moot. but, be that as it may, we find no reason to disbelieve the witness and agree with both the courts that his evidence should be accepted.2. accordingly, we uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants for having committed the murder of veerappan and marudayi.the facts:3. appellant no. 1 (raju @ balachandran) is the father of appellant no. 2 (rajkumar) and of appellant no. 3 (sekar).4. the case of the prosecution was that there was some enmity between the appellants and veerappan relating to a ritual called "mandu vettal" performed before worshipping god in their village. the enmity dated back to about 4 or 5 years prior to the incident that we are concerned with.5. on 4th may 2003 at about 5.30 a.m. veerappan had gone to the tea shop of pw-7 kamaraj and was returning along with pw-1 thangavel and pw-5 srinivasan (brother of veerappan) who were following him. as veerappan approached his house, the appellants stopped him in the middle of the road and attacked him. raju dealt a sickle blow on his right leg below the knee. this was followed by sickle blows inflicted on his shoulder, neck and head by raj .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 2012 (SC)

Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and ors. Vs. State of Assam.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-30-2012

dipak misra, j.1. leave granted.2. in these appeals, the challenge is to the common judgment and order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the division bench of the high court of gauhati, assam in wa nos. 448 of 2004, 459 of 2004 and 465 of 2004 whereby stamp of approval has been given to the judgment and order dated 19.11.2004 passed by the learned single judge in wp(c) nos. 7482 of 2002, 7843 of 2002, 7564 of 2002, 8081 of 2002 and 298 of 2003 whereunder the learned single judge had maintained the order dated 11.10.2002 passed by the assam administrative tribunal, guwahati (for short "the tribunal") in appeal case no. 79ata of 1999, and dismissed wp(c) nos. 4028 of 2003, 4129 of 2003 and 1031 of 2003 which were preferred directly for issuance of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to consider the previous services rendered by the petitioners therein prior to their appointments in the assam police service (junior grade) in the year 1993 and to determine their inter se seniority in the promotional cadre accordingly and further disposed of wp(c) 69 of 2003 preferred by an additional superintendent of police, guwahati for quashing of the appointment to the promotional post of the private respondents therein on the foundation that they had been promoted in violation of the provisions of the assam police service rules, 1966 (for brevity "the 1966 rules").3. shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be stated are that the assam public service commission (for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2012 (SC)

PravIn Gada and anr. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-03-2012

dipak misra, j.1. leave granted.2. the present appeals by special leave have been preferred questioning the defensibility of the order dated 20th september, 2011 passed by the division bench of the high court of judicature at bombay in writ petition nos. 2689 of 2011, 7488 of 2011 and 7489 of 2011 whereby the high court has quashed the order dated 3rd march, 2011 passed by the debt recovery appellate tribunal (for short 'the drat) wherein the drat had set aside the order of the debt recovery tribunal (for short 'the drt') and restored the confirmation of sale conducted by way of public auction in favour of the respondents, who are the appellants herein.3. shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated for disposal of these appeals are that a company by the name of jay electric wire corporation ltd. had a factory at mysore situate on land admeasuring approximately 4.4 acres comprised in plots 44 and 47 in serial nos. 55 and 69 in the industrial area of village habal and serial no. 33 of metagally, hobla kasba. the said company, which closed down in february, 1995, had about 149 workers. as dispute arose between the workmen and the management because of termination, the matter was referred to the industrial tribunal at mysore after the reference made under section 10 of the industrial disputes act, 1947 and the said tribunal, vide award dated 5th january, 2001, directed the employer to pay back wages to the workmen with effect from 6th february, 1995 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2012 (SC)

Gudu Ram. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-04-2012

madan b. lokur, j.1. the question before us is whether, despite the sole eyewitness to the incident turning hostile, could the trial court and the high court legitimately hold that the appellant committed the murder of dalip singh. in our opinion, despite the sole eyewitness turning hostile, it can and should be held on the facts of this case that though the appellant did commit a crime, it was not of murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder.the facts:2. pw-2 sheetal singh was an employee of the himachal pradesh transport corporation, posted in a workshop of the corporation at taradevi in himachal pradesh. he was living in a rented accommodation and for the last about one year, his brother pw-1 jai pal singh and the deceased dalip singh (his cousin brother) were living with him. the appellant (a cousin of sheetal singh's wife) joined them in the rented accommodation about a week prior to the alleged murder of dalip singh by the appellant.3. on the intervening night of 12th and 13th november, 2003 sheetal singh was at work. around 8 p.m., the appellant, dalip singh and jai pal singh planned to cook some meat and consume some whisky brought by the appellant.4. during the consumption of drinks and dinner, a minor brawl took place between the appellant and dalip singh as a result of dalip singh's refusal to consume more whisky. at that time, jai pal singh intervened and some sort of a truce was worked out.5. later, jai pal singh went to urinate and upon his return, he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2012 (SC)

Jeetu Alias Jitendera and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-04-2012

dipak misra, j.1. leave granted.2. the present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the high court of chattisgarh at bilaspur in criminal appeal no. 639 of 2009 whereby the high court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under sections 147 and 327/149 of the indian penal code (for short "the i.p.c."), but reduced the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment on the second score to one year and maintained the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months in respect of the offence on the first score i.e. section 147, i.p.c. be it noted, both the sentences were directed to be concurrent.3. the facts as has been exposited are that on the basis of an f.i.r. lodged by the informant, aarif hussain, pw-10, at 11.50 p.m. on 16.4.2008 alleging that about 10.00 p.m. when he was going towards telibandha p.s., the accused persons met him near telibandha chowk and demanded rs.500/- for liquor and on his refusal they took him towards awanti vihar railway crossing in an auto rickshaw and assaulted him, crime case no. 129/2008 was registered under sections 327, 366 and 323 read with section 34 of the i.p.c. at the concerned police station. after the criminal law was set in motion, said aarif hussain was medically examined by dr. vishwanath ram bhagat, pw-1, and as per the injury report, exhbt. p-1, he had sustained four injuries on his person. the investigating officer, after completing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2012 (SC)

Jayesh Dhanesh Goragandhi. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-04-2012

k.s. radhakrishnan, j.1. leave granted.2. the question that has come up for consideration before us is whether after framing a town planning scheme and the final scheme brought into force, after reserving plots for public purposes, providing compensation under chapter v of the maharashtra regional and town planning act, 1966 (for short 'the mrtp act'), can the land owner insist that the land be acquired only by following the provisions of chapter vii of the mrtp act, especially under section 126 of the mrtp act.facts3. vallabhadas goragandhi was the original owner of plot no. 9 which was renumbered as final plot no.44 in the town planning scheme for borivali with few structures thereon. after the death of vallabhadas, his son hiralal became the owner of the plot. originally, that plot was under the borivali municipal council in thane district, bombay. a town planning scheme was prepared under the town planning act, 1919 for borivali with effect from 15.07.1919. in the year 1941, hiralal expired and the appellant herein and respondent nos.3 to 6 are the legal heirs of hiralal.4. the bombay town planning act, 1919 was replaced by the bombay town planning act, 1954 and the borivali municipal council declared its intention to vary the scheme prepared earlier. then government of bombay declared on 31.12.1956 the intention of the municipal council to vary the scheme. with effect from 01.07.1957, borivali suburban became a part of greater mumbai and municipal corporation of greater .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 2012 (SC)

Commissioner of Central Excise, VadodarA. Vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley F ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-11-2012

madan b. lokur, j.1. the assessee utilizes cenvat duty paid low sulphur heavy stock (for short lshs) as fuel input for generating steam. the steam so generated is utilized to generate electricity for the manufacture of fertilizer which is exempt from excise duty. according to the assessee, it is entitled to claim cenvat credit on the input, that is, lshs even though fertilizer is exempt from excise duty. the correctness of this view was disputed by the revenue.2. consequently, the commissioner, central excise & customs, vadodara-ii (hereinafter referred to as the commissioner') issued two notices to the assessee to show cause why cenvat credit wrongly availed by it should not be recovered under rule 12 of the cenvat credit rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as rules) read with section 11a of the central excise act, 1944. the assessee was also required to show cause why interest be not recovered on the wrongly availed cenvat credit and why penalty be not imposed on it.3. the first show cause notice issued to the assessee was dated 8th march 2004 and pertained to the period 31st march 2003 to september 2003 while the second show cause notice was dated 28th july 2004 and was for the period october 2003 to march 2004.4. the assessee replied to both the show cause notices and after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing, the commissioner adjudicated the first show cause notice by passing an order adverse to the assessee on 24th june 2004. the second show cause notice was .....

Tag this Judgment!


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