Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: supreme court of india Year: 2012 Page 3 of about 115 results (0.127 seconds)

Mar 19 2012 (SC)

State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-19-2012

d.k. jain, j.:1. leave granted.2. this appeal by special leave, assails the judgment dated 12th february, 2008, rendered by a learned single judge of the high court of orissa at cuttack. by the impugned order, on a petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for short "the code"), the investigation initiated by the vigilance department of the state government into the allegations of irregularities in the receipt of excess quota, recycling of rice and distress sale of paddy by one m/s haldipada rice mill, a proprietary concern of the respondent, has been quashed.3. on receipt of a complaint, the civil supply department of the state government initiated an inquiry against the said concern, relating to the processing of paddy for and on behalf of the food corporation of india. preliminary inquiry conducted by the food and supply department revealed certain irregularities in the procurement and milling of paddy by the respondent. a subsequent departmental inquiry recommended initiation of a proper administrative action against the respondent. consequently, the state government directed the vigilance cell of the police department to conduct a preliminary inquiry regarding the alleged criminal acts.4. in the meantime, on filing of a writ petition, being w.p. no.8315 of 2005, by the respondent, a division bench of the high court while ordering the issue of the enforcement certificate to the respondent pending the ongoing inquiry, directed the completion of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2012 (SC)

Maria Margadia Sequeria Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-21-2012

dalveer bhandari, j.1. leave granted.2. this appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 5.5.2009 passed by the high court of bombay, bench at goa in civil revision application no.3 of 2009.3. appellant no.1 and respondent no.1, erasmo jack de sequeira (now dead) were sister and brother, hereinafter referred to as appellant and respondent respectively.4. according to the appellant, she is the sole owner and is in exclusive possession of the suit property. her title of the said suit property was clearly admitted, and never disputed by the respondent, erasmo jack de sequeira. according to the appellant, the suit property was given to her brother as a caretaker. the respondent has kept appellant, his own sister, out of her suit property for about two decades by suppressing relevant material and pertinent information from the court and abusing the process of law.5. both the appellant and the respondent hail from the state of goa and belong to one of the leading and well known families of goa. the father of the appellant and the respondent, dr. jack d. sequeira was an affluent businessman and a well-known politician of goa. dr. sequeira, during his lifetime, gave a number of properties worth crores of rupees to the respondent and also gave some properties to the appellant and her sisters. the respondent was given a soft drink factory at goa, mining leases of iron ore, agricultural lands and residential plots including one situated at dona paula, which is located next to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 2012 (SC)

Saroj Screens Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ghahshyam and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-26-2012

Reported in : 2012AIRSCW2081

g.s. singhvi, j.1. leave granted.2. these appeals are directed against judgment dated 16.10.2009 of the bombay high court, nagpur bench whereby the writ petitions filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 were partly allowed, resolution dated 28.8.1991passed by municipal corporation of the city of nagpur (for short, 'the corporation') for renewal of lease in favour of the appellant in respect of plot no.5, circle no.19/27, division i, old sarai road, geeta ground layout, nagpur as also sanction accorded by the state government under section 70(5) of the city of nagpur corporation act, 1948 (for short, 'the act') were quashed and a direction was issued to civil judge (senior division), nagpur to decide special civil suit no. 1135 of 1993 latest byfacts:3. on an application made by gopaldas mohta (father of respondent no. 1 - ghanshyam mohta and father-in-law of respondent no. 2 - smt. kamla devi),municipal committee of nagpur (for short, 'the committee') passed resolution dated 17.3.1944 for grant of lease to him in respect of the plot described herein above for a period of 30 years. in furtherance of that resolution, lease deed dated 28.10.1944 was executed in favour of gopaldas mohta. the tenure of lease commenced from 17.3.1944. for the sake of convenient reference, clauses 6 and 8 of the lease deed are extracted below:"6. the lessee shall upon every assignment of the said land or any part thereof within a calendar month thereafter deliver to the lessor or to such person as he may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2012 (SC)

Rameshkumar Agarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports P.Ltd

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-30-2012

p. sathasivam; j. chelameswar, jj.1. leave granted.2. this appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 08.06.2010 passed by the high court of judicature at bombay in appeal no. 40 of 2010 in chamber summons no. 1233 of 2008 in suit no. 2374 of 2007 whereby the high court disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant herein by partly allowing chamber summons no. 1233 of 2008 filed by respondent no.1 herein for amendment in the plaint.3. brief facts:(a) the property (bungalow) in question was constructed by the late ganpatrai agarwal, father of the appellant herein. vipin kumar agarwal, respondent no.4 is the brother of the appellant. the land on which the said bungalow is constructed is a leasehold property and belongs to hatkesh co-operative housing society limited (hereinafter referred to as "the society"). the society granted leasehold rights in respect of the said plot by indenture of lease dated 22.02.1976. the mother of the appellant passed away in 1991 and his father also passed away in 2002. after the death of the parents, the appellant holds 50% share in the suit property and his brother, respondent no.4 herein, also holds remaining 50% share in the suit property.(b) according to the appellant, in the year 2002, for setting up a new business, he was in need of substantial finance and for that purpose, he approached respondent no.1-company through its director mr. rajendra kumar aggarwal, who is his co-brother. respondent no.2 agreed to finance the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 2012 (SC)

Mun.Corp.of Gr.Mumbai Vs. Thomas Mathew and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-09-2012

p. sathasivam,j.1. delay condoned.2. leave granted.3. this appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated10.02.2011 passed by the high court of judicature at bombay in first appeal no. 223 of 2009 whereby the high court disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant herein with certain modifications in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in notice of motion no. 4026 of 2003 in l.c. suitno.539 of 2002.4. brief facts:a. the appellant-corporation is a public body duly enacted and formed for the benefit of public at large and to regulate and control the unauthorized construction carried out in the city of mumbai. the respondents are the owners of the suit premises.b. on 17.04.1998, a notice bearing no. kw/036/aem/od under section 314of the mumbai municipal corporation act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the mmc act) was issued to all persons who are in occupation of the patra structures which are constructed on foot paths and streets situated near empire house on veera desai road, last bus stop, andheri (west), mumbai directing to remove the said patra sheds etc. together with their belongings within two days. on failure to comply with the said direction, the corporation demolished the unauthorized structures raised by the respondents on 22.04.1998.c. again on 19.12.2001, the corporation issued notice under section 354aof the mmc act bearing no. kw/bf/354a/2154/je-v/seb-ii directing the respondents to stop the erection of structure/execution of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2012 (SC)

Society for Un Aided Private Schools of Rajasthan. Vs. U.O.i. and Anot ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-12-2012

Reported in : 2012(3)MLJ993; 2012(3)KantLJ177; 2012(6)SCC1; 2012(2)KCCR50SN; 2012(4)SCJ318

s.h. kapadia, cji.1. we have had the benefit of carefully considering the erudite judgment delivered by our esteemed and learned brother radhakrishnan, j. regretfully, we find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to disagree with the views expressed therein concerning the non-applicability of the right of children to free and compulsory education act, 2009 (for short "the 2009 act") to the unaided non-minority schools.2. the judgment of brother radhakrishnan, j. fully sets out the various provisions of the 2009 act as well as the issues which arise for determination, the core issue concerns the constitutional validity of the 2009 act.introduction3. to say that "a thing is constitutional is not to say that it is desirable" [see dennis v. united states, (1950) 341 us 494].4. a fundamental principle for the interpretation of a written constitution has been spelt out in r. v. burah [reported in (1878) 5 i.a. 178] which reads as under:"the established courts of justice, when a question arises whether the prescribed limits have been exceeded, must of necessity determine that question; and the only way in which they can properly do so, is by looking to the terms of the constitution by which, affirmatively, the legislative powers were created, and by which, negatively, they are restricted. if what has been done is legislation, within the general scope of the affirmative words which give the power, and if it violates no express condition or restriction by which that power is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2012 (SC)

Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-19-2012

..... .5,000 crores under the following specific heads: i) operation of morning/ evening/ special judicial-metropolitan magistrate/ shift courts rs.2,500 crores ii) establishing adr centres and training of mediators/conciliators rs.750 crores iii) lok adalat rs.100 crores iv) legal aid rs.200 crores v) training of judicial officers rs.250 crores vi) state judicial academies rs.300 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2012 (SC)

State of Haryana Vs. Shakuntla and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-19-2012

swatanter kumar, j.1. we may notice the case of the prosecution in brief at the very outset of this judgment. on 3rd july, 1994, manohar lal (deceased) who had retired from service as subedar in the indian army, had taken his wife, smt. sushila (deceased) to delhi for her treatment as she was complaining of pain in the chest. naresh kumar, pw-4 is the eldest son of manohar lal. all were residents of village nandrampurbas, haryana.2. in the evening, when pw-4 was putting earth on a ditch in front of his house, accused matadin and rajender came there and abused and beat him. however, pw-4 did not lodge any police report in this regard. on 5th july, 1994, manohar lal and his wife sushila returned from delhi at about 9 am. at that time pw-4, his sister rajesh, pw-5 and their brother suresh were sitting at the gate of their house. when manohar lal and sushila were enquiring about the incident that had taken place on 3rd july, 1994, all the nine accused, namely, matadin, rajender, krishan, bhim singh, shakuntla, premwati, kailash, sarjeeta and laxmi came there armed with lathis and other deadly weapons. laxmi opened the assault by giving an iron rod blow which hit sushila at her leg. thereafter, matadin gave a jaily blow on the head of manohar lal but manohar lal took it at his hand. to save themselves, manohar lal and sushila started running towards the house of guwarias but the accused chased them. then krishan gave a jaily blow which hit manohar lal at his back as a result of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2012 (SC)

C.N. Ramappa Gowda Vs. C.C. Chandregowda (Dead) by Lrs. and Another

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-23-2012

Reported in : 2012(5)SCC265; 2012(2)KLT92(SN)(C.No.86); 2012(3)LW326; AIR2012SCW2510,2012(4)SCJ991; AIR2012SC2528; 2012(5)ALD1; 2012(3)KCCR117(SN); 2012(3)BCR640; 2012(6)KarLJ1; 2012(5)MLJ611; 2012(2)CLT243; 2012(3)SLT364

gyan sudha misra, j.the impugned order dated 05.10.2010 passed by the division bench of the high court of karnataka at bangalore in r.f.a.no. 597/2004 is under challenge in this appeal after grant of special leave at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant by which the high court has set aside the judgment and decree of partition passed in favour of the plaintiff- appellant by the civil judge (sr. divn.) chikmagalur dated 28.01.2004 and the appeal was remanded to the trial court in order to consider the matter afresh. the defendants-respondents herein have also been granted liberty to file written statement and produce the documents within four weeks from the date of the order passed by the high court and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law within a period of six months. however, the decree of partition which the plaintiff- appellant already got executed in his favour was made subject to the result of retrial of the suit.2. (i) the core question which requires determination in this appeal is whether the high court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the trial court for retrial of the suit and permitting the defendants to file written statement and documents without assigning any justifiable and legally sustainable reason particularly when the defendants-respondents were admittedly served with the summons and were also duly represented by their advocate in the trial court?(ii) further question which is related to the issue is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2012 (SC)

C.N.Ramappa Gowda Vs. C.C.Chaqndergowda (D) by Lrs.and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-23-2012

gyan sudha misra, j.1. the impugned order dated 05.10.2010 passed by the division bench of the high court of karnataka at bangalore in r.f.a.no. 597/2004 is under challenge in this appeal after grant of special leave at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant by which the high court has set aside the judgment and decree of partition passed in favour of the plaintiff- appellant by the civil judge (sr. divn.) chikmagalur dated 28.01.2004 and the appeal was remanded to the trial court in order to consider the matter afresh. the defendants-respondents herein have also been granted liberty to file written statement and produce the documents within four weeks from the date of the order passed by the high court and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law within a period of six months. however, the decree of partition which the plaintiff- appellant already got executed in his favour was made subject to the result of retrial of the suit.2. (i) the core question which requires determination in this appeal is whether the high court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the trial court for retrial of the suit and permitting the defendants to file written statement and documents without assigning any justifiable and legally sustainable reason particularly when the defendants-respondents were admittedly served with the summons and were also duly represented by their advocate in the trial court?(ii) further question which is related to the issue .....

Tag this Judgment!


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