Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: supreme court of india Year: 2012 Page 4 of about 115 results (0.103 seconds)

Apr 27 2012 (SC)

P.A.Mohammed Riyas Vs. M.K.Raghavan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-27-2012

altamas kabir, j.1. the appellant herein, who contested the parliamentary elections held on 16th april, 2009 for the no.05 - kozhikode constituency of the lok sabha, challenged the election of the respondent, shri m.k. raghavan, who was the returned candidate from the said constituency, by way of an election petition filed under section 81 read with sections 100, 101 and123 of the representation of the people act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the "1951 act". the appellant contested the election as the official candidate of the communist party of india (marxist), hereinafter referred to as the "cpi(m)" led by the left democratic front, hereinafter referred to as the "ldf", whereas the respondent no.1 was a candidate of the indian national congress and he contested the election as the candidate of the united democratic front, hereinafter referred to as the "udf".2. the ground on which the election of the respondent no.1 was challenged was that he had published false statements with regard to the appellant and thereby committed corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(4) of the 1951 act, which provides that the publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false in relation to the personal character, conduct of any candidate, shall be deemed to be guilty of corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 of the 1951 act. the details of the publications have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2012 (SC)

A.Shanmugamvs. Ariya K.R.K.M.N.P.Sangam.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-27-2012

Reported in : AIR2012SC2010

dalveer bhandari j.1. delay condoned.2. leave granted.3. these two appeals arise out of cross suits filed before the high court of judicature at madras in s.a. no. 1973 of 2002 and s.a. no. 869 of 2009 dated april 20, 2011. in both these appeals, a. shanmugam is the appellant and ariya kshatriya raja kulavamsa madalaya nandhavana paripalana sangam is the respondent which for convenience hereinafter is referred to as the society.4. the property in question belonged to one, muthu naicker, who dedicated the suit land for construction of a dharamshala. in the southern part of india, it is called as choultry. a dharamshala is commonly known as a place where boarding facilities are provided either free of cost or at a nominal cost. in the instant case, a dharamshala was to be constructed for the benefit of the ariya kshatriya community. the appellants father, appadurai pillai was engaged as a watchman on a monthly salary by the respondent-society to look after the dharamshala and in that capacity lived in the premises with his family including the appellant.5. according to the appellant, in the year 1994, the respondent-society claiming to be the owner of the suit property tried to dispossess the appellant by force necessitating the appellant to file a suit in o.s. no.1143 of 1994 on the file of the second additional district munsif, tiruvannamalai praying for issuance of permanent injunction against the respondent-society. the said suit was, however, dismissed. as against that, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 2012 (SC)

Deepak Khinchi Vs. State of Rajasthan.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-30-2012

1. leave granted.2. this appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against judgment and order dated 24/01/2011 passed by the high court of rajasthan at jodhpur. by the impugned judgment, learned single judge dismissed criminal revision petition no.853 of 2010 filed by the appellant challenging order of addl. sessions judge (fast track), chittorgarh allowing application submitted by the prosecution under section 311 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, "the code") and directing that trial should proceed against the appellant for offences under sections 3,4, 5 and 6 of the explosive substances act, 1908.3. before, we turn to the facts of the case, it is necessary to have a look at section 7 of the explosive substances act, 1908 (for short, "the said act"), as the controversy revolves round the 'consent to prosecute' contemplated therein. it reads thus: "section 7: no court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this act except with the consent of the central government." it must be stated here that by act 54 of 2001, section 7 was amended and the words 'central government' were substituted by the words 'districtmagistrate'.4. the appellant claims to be a trader registered under the provisions of the rajasthan sales tax act, 1994. according to him, he deals in kerosene, lubricants, paints, varnish, thinner, petroleum products and has a license for the storage of solvents, petrochemicals and raw material issued for the purpose of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 2012 (SC)

Dsr Steel (P) Ltd Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-01-2012

1. these appeals under section 125 of the electricity act, 2003 call in question the correctness of an order dated 23rd november, 2006, passed by the appellate tribunal for electricity whereby a batch of appeals including those filed by the appellants against an order dated 8th june, 2006 passed by the rajasthan electricity regulatory commission, have been dismissed.2. jaipur vidyut vitran nigam limited ('jvvnl' for short), jodhpur vidyut vitran nigam limited ('jdvvnl' for short) and ajmer vidyut vitran nigam limited ('avvnl' for short), submitted separate applications before the rajasthan electricity regulatory commission (for short 'commission') at jaipur in terms of sections 62 and 64 of the electricity act, 2003 for revision of tariff to be effective from december 1, 2004.each one of these distribution companies ('discoms' for short) had an existing tariff but in their respective applications they sought an identical tariff revision which requests were taken up by the commission for consideration together and disposed of in terms of a common order dated 17th december, 2004, passed after notices regarding filing of the said applications were published in different newspapers having circulation in the state of rajasthan. several objections were filed and suggestions made by nearly 100 individuals and organisations in the course of the proceedings before the commission. all these objections were then considered by the commission no matter only 38 of those who had filed the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 2012 (SC)

ishwardas Rohani Vs. Alok Mishra and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-03-2012

altamas kabir, j.1. leave granted.2. the respondent no.1 herein, shri alok mishra, contested the 2008elections to the madhya pradesh state assembly as a candidate of the indian national congress party from cantt. legislative assembly no.99constituency, jabalpur. he was defeated in the elections by the appellant therein as a candidate of the bharatiya janata party. the said respondent filed election petition no.22 of 2009, challenging the election of the appellant on the ground of corrupt practice, as contemplated in sub-sections (1)(a) and (b), (2), (6) and (7) of section 123 of the representation of the people act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the"1951 act".3. the grounds relating to corrupt practice, as alleged by the respondent no.1 herein, inter alia, were to the following effect :i. as an ex-m.l.a. and ex-speaker of the vidhan sabha and being a close associate of the chief minister of the state, the appellant was able to exert undue influence on the collector, the district returning officer and other authorities for procuring their assistance for the furtherance of his prospects in the elections;ii. that on 2nd november, 2008, when the respondent no.1 was returning to jabalpur from new delhi, as the authorized candidate of the indian national congress, his supporters, who came to meet him at the railway station, were arrested, whereas the very next day, no action was taken against the supporters of the appellant herein who had deployed as many as 300 vehicles in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 2012 (SC)

Rashmi Rekha Thatoi and anr Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-04-2012

dipak misra, j.1. leave granted in both the petitions.2. "liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society." thus spoke bolingbroke.3. liberty is the precious possession of the human soul. no one would barter it for all the tea in china. not for nothing patrick henry thundered: "is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? forbid it, almighty god! i know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"the thought of losing one's liberty immediately brings in a feeling of fear, a shiver in the spine, an anguish of terrible trauma, an uncontrollable agony, a penetrating nightmarish perplexity and above all a sense of vacuum withering the very essence of existence. it is because liberty is deep as eternity and deprivation of it, infernal. may be for this protectors of liberty ask,"how acquisition of entire wealth of the world would be of any consequence if one's soul is lost?" it has been quite often said that life without liberty is eyes without vision, ears without hearing power and mind without coherent thinking faculty.4. almost two centuries and a decade back thus spoke edmund burke: - "men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love to justice is above their .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 2012 (SC)

Abdul Nawaz Vs. State of West Bengal.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-10-2012

..... dinghy which they had left behind while they had escaped from the spot in the other dinghy. it is not the case of the prosecution that there was any pre-mediation to commit the murder of the deceased. it is also common ground that the appellant was not armed with any weapon. the weapon allegedly used by him to assault the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 2012 (SC)

Atmaram and ors. Vs. State of M.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-10-2012

swatanter kumar, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment of the high court of madhya pradesh, bench at indore dated 23rd january, 2008. we may notice the necessary facts giving rise to the present appeal. according to the prosecution, udayram, pw-1 along with his younger brother namely gokul (the deceased) and sister rajubai, pw-2 had gone to the village lod for pilgrimage. after they reached the said village, they came to know that the pujari who was to perform the puja was not available. resultantly, all the said three persons decided to return back to their village dhuvakhedi, tehsil tarana, district ujjain.2. at about 4-4.30 p.m., when they reached near the said village, all of a sudden the accused persons namely atmaram, gokul, vikram, ramchandran and umrao emerged from the fields having soyabean crop. they shouted that the deceased and his relatives had set their soyabean crop afire and therefore, they should be taught a lesson. the accused ramachandra was armed with farsi, gokul was carrying dharia and other three accused were having lathis. all these accused persons started assaulting udayram (pw1) causing injury on his head, left hand and legs. gokul (the deceased) and pw2 tried to intervene and protect udayram. in this process, both these witnesses sustained a number of injuries caused by the accused with the help of the same weapons. the other witnesses present at the site, gajrajsingh, sardarsingh and gokul did not interfere in the assault because of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 2012 (SC)

Mrudul M Damle and anr Vs. C.B.i.,new Delhi.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-10-2012

t.s. thakur, j.1. in this petition under section 406 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, the petitioners pray for transfer of criminal case no. 45 of 2008 pending in the court of special judge, cbi cases, rohini courts, new delhi to the court of special judge, cbi cases, court of sessions at thane, maharashtra on the ground of convenience of the parties and the witnesses cited in the charge sheet by the prosecution.2. petitioners are husband and wife. while petitioner no.2-husband is currently posted as assistant commissioner, central excise, customs and service tax at vapi, gujarat, petitioner no.1-wife is practicing as a chartered accountant in the state of maharashtra. both the petitioners are facing prosecution in criminal case no.45 of 2008 for offences punishable under sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 read with section 109 ipc. the said case was registered on 14th july, 2005 against the petitioner-husband on the basis of recovery of cash and other property in the course of searches conducted at his houses in new delhi and thane. the bank locker in the name of the petitioner no.1-wife was also seized in the course of the said search operations.3. the prosecution case, it appears, is that the petitioner no.2-milind purushottam damle while posted as assistant commissioner, central excise, customs and service tax at new delhi, has amassed assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income in his name and in the name of his .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2012 (SC)

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-11-2012

swatanter kumar, j.1. by this order we will deal with and dispose of, the recommendations made by the central empowered committee (for short, "cec") in its report dated 20th april, 2012. since we have heard the affected parties, the petitioners and the learned amicus curiae, we shall summarize the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. the learned counsel appearing for the affected parties contended :a. cec has submitted its report without providing them an opportunity of being heard.b. cec has exceeded its jurisdiction and enlarged the scope of the enquiry beyond the reference made by the court. thus, the court should not accept any of the recommendations made by the cec.c. in relation to the alleged irregularities and illegalities pointed out in the report of the cec, even where criminality is involved or criminal offences are suspected, the matters are sub judice before the court of competent jurisdiction. thus, this court should not pass any orders for transferring the investigation of such offences to the central bureau of investigation (for short "cbi") as it would seriously prejudice their interests.2. in order to deal with these contentions, it is necessary for this court to briefly refer to the background of these cases, which has resulted in the filing of the unnumbered ia in writ petition no. 562/2009 and the peculiar facts and circumstances in which the cec has made itsrecommendations.3. concerned with the rampant pilferage and illegal .....

Tag this Judgment!


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