Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: supreme court of india Year: 2012 Page 12 of about 115 results (0.085 seconds)

Dec 14 2012 (SC)

Kumar Vs. Karnataka Industrial Coop. Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-14-2012

ranjan gogoi, j.1. leave granted in each of the special leave petitions.2. the appellants who have been acquitted of the charges under sections 406 and 420 read with section 34 of the indian penal code have filed the instant appeals challenging the conviction ordered by the high court of karnataka in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 of the code of criminal procedure. the appellant in each of the appeals has been sentenced to undergo r.i. for three months for the offence punishable under section 406 ipc and r.i for six months for the offence under section 420 ipc. while both the sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently, each of the appellants has also been sentenced to pay fine or undergo the default sentence that has been imposed.3. the facts lie within a short compass and may be briefly enumerated herein under.the respondent no. 1 in each of these appeals i.e. karnataka industrial corporation bank ltd., hubli (hereinafter shall be referred to the complainant bank) had filed 18 different complaints in the court of judicial magistrate, first class, hubli alleging that between 12.07.2003 and 31.03.2004 loans were taken by each of the appellants by mortgaging gold ornaments. according to the complainant bank, on 10.06.2004, a news item had appeared in the local newspapers that the appraiser of maratha cooperative bank had given false appraisal reports on the basis of which the said bank had granted loans against fake .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2012 (SC)

Lahu Kamlakar Patil and anr. Vs. State of MaharashtrA.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-14-2012

dipak misra, j.1. the present appeal has been preferred by original accused nos. 2 and 3 assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the high court of judicature at bombay in criminal appeal no. 790 of 1989 whereby the high court has confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned additional sessions judge, raigad, alibag in sessions case no. 113 of 1988 for offences punishable under sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 452 of the indian penal code, 1860 (for short "the i.p.c.") and sentenced the appellants to suffer life imprisonment and pay a fine of rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.2. filtering the unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that on 19.2.1988, pw-1, chandrakant phunde, the informant, who is the owner of a rickshaw bearing no. mct-858, while going from somatane to panvel for his business, met pw-2, janardan bhonkar, who hired his rickshaw for panvel. on the way, they met the deceased shriram @ bhau harishchandra patil who wanted to go in the rickshaw and with the consent of janardan, the three of them proceeded towards panvel. the deceased, bhau harishchandra patil, went to gemini tailors to pick up his stitched clothes at palaspe phata and thereafter they stopped near milan hotel to have some snacks. as the prosecution story proceeds, when they were inside the hotel, 10 to 15 people entered inside being armed with swords, iron bars and sticks. as alleged, lahu kamlakar patil, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2012 (SC)

Attar Singh. Vs. State of MaharashtrA.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-14-2012

gyan sudha misra, j.this appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.6.2008 passed by the high court of judicature at bombay, bench at aurangabad in criminal appeal no. 7/2007 whereby the high court upheld the judgment and order passed by the sessions judge, dhule in sessions case no. 90/2005 by which the appellant had been convicted for an offence under section 302, indian penal code (i.p.c. for short) and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of rs.1,000/-. in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.2. the appellant was initially charged and tried for an offence under section 302 and 498-a of the i.p.c. for killing his wife by hitting her on her head with a woodenlog as he was suspecting her loyalty and character.3. the specific case of the prosecution which was registered under section 302 and 498-a of the i.p.c. is that the appellant- attarsingh barakya pawara was residing along with his wife and 9 children at village majanipada in shirpur taluk. on 22.6.2005, the complainant-khandu kalu ahire who is also the village kotwal received an information from one ramesh pawara, resident of majanipada and appa shahada pawara, resident of fattepur village that the appellant attarsing has committed murder of his wife by hitting her with a woodenlog on her head. on receipt of this information, the village kotwal along with the sarpanch bhatu ditya and one rattan lalsing went to the .....

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 //