Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: supreme court of india Year: 2012 Page 6 of about 115 results (0.118 seconds)

Jul 24 2012 (SC)

Rampal Singh Vs. State of Up

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-24-2012

..... to murder. the explanations spell out the elements which need to be satisfied for application of such exceptions, like an act done in the heat of passion and without pre- mediation. where the offender whilst being deprived of the power of self- control by grave and sudden provocation causes the death of the person who has caused the provocation or causes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 2012 (SC)

Syed Ahmed. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-31-2012

madan b. lokur, j.1. the appellant (syed ahmed) was acquitted by the trial court of offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988. the acquittal was set aside by the high court and he is aggrieved thereby. we are in agreement with the order of conviction handed down by the high court. we are not in agreement with the sentence awarded, but prefer to let the matter rest. accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.2. the facts:nagaraja @ nagarajegowda (pw1) and his father, thimmegowda (pw4) are owners of some land. on 7th june, 1993 they had a boundary dispute with their immediate neighbour, channakeshavegowda which resulted in their being assaulted by him and others. thimmegowda then lodged a complaint on the same day with the konanur police station in this regard.3. according to syed ahmed (a police officer in the konanur police station), the complaint was inquired into by s.c. rangasetty (pw7). according to nagaraja, illegal gratification was demanded by syed ahmed to enable him to file a charge-sheet against channakeshavegowda and others on the complaint by thimmegowda.4. the dispute between thimmegowda and channakeshavegowda was, however, amicably resolved in a few days time and the settlement entered into between them is exhibit p.15 in the trial court. unfortunately, on 27th june, 1993 a boundary dispute again arose between nagaraja and thimmegowda on the one hand and channakeshavegowda and others on the other. this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 2012 (SC)

Bar Council of India Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-03-2012

r.m. lodha, j.1. bar council of india by means of this writ petition under article 32 of the constitution of india has raised challenge to the vires of sections 22-a, 22-b, 22-c, 22-d and 22-e of the legal services authorities act, 1987 (for short, 1987 act) as inserted by the legal services authorities (amendment) act, 2002 (for short, 2002 amendment act).2. by 2002 amendment act, in section 22 of the 1987 act, the words lok adalat were substituted by lok adalat or permanent lok adalat and a new chapter vi-a entitled pre-litigation conciliation and settlement comprising of sections 22-a to 22-e came to be inserted. in section 23 of the 1987 act, the words members of the lok adalats were substituted by the words members of the lok adalats or the persons constituting permanent lok adalats.3. the challenge is principally on the ground that sections 22-a, 22-b, 22-c, 22-d and 22-e are arbitrary per se; violative of article 14 of the constitution of india and are contrary to the rule of law as they deny fair, unbiased and even-handed justice to all.4. we have heard mr. manoj goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. t. s. doabia, learned senior counsel for the union of india. after oral arguments were over, mr. manoj goel, learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed written submissions. elaborating the vice of arbitrariness in the impugned provisions, in the written submissions, it is submitted that section 22-c(1) read with section 22-c(2) provides .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 2012 (SC)

Dayal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-03-2012

swatanter kumar, j.1. settled canons of criminal jurisprudence when applied in their correct perspective, give rise to the following questions for consideration of the court in the present appeal:a) where acts of omission and commission, deliberate or otherwise, are committed by the investigating agency or other significant witnesses instrumental in proving the offence, what approach, in appreciation of evidence, should be adopted?b) depending upon the answer to the above, what directions should be issued by the courts of competent jurisdiction?c) whenever there is some conflict in the eye-witness version of events and the medical evidence, what effect will it have on the case of the prosecution and what would be the manner in which the court should appreciate such evidence?2. the facts giving rise to the questions in the present appeal are that the fields of gurumukh singh and dayal singh were adjoining in the village salwati within the limits of police station sittarganj, district udham singh nagar. these fields were separated by a mend (boundary mound). on 8th december, 1985, gurumukh singh, the complainant, who was examined as pw2, along with his father pyara singh, had gone to their fields. at about 12 noon, smt. balwant kaur, pw4, wife of pyara singh came to the fields to give meals to pyara singh and their son gurumukh singh. at about 12.45 p.m, the accused persons, namely, dayal singh, budh singh & resham singh (both sons of dayal singh) and pahalwan singh came to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 2012 (SC)

Rajoo Alias Ramakant. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-09-2012

madan b. lokur, j.1. after hearing arguments in this appeal, we had reserved judgment. while preparing the judgment, it was noticed that the appellant (rajoo) was not represented in the high court.2. the issue that arises, therefore, is whether rajoo was entitled, as a matter of right, to legal representation in the high court. our answer is in the affirmative. the facts:3. on 06.12.1998, seven persons including rajoo are alleged to have gang- raped g. the trial court convicted all of them for the offence and sentenced each of them to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 500/-. in default thereof they were required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months.4. appeals were filed by all the convicted persons before the high court. by its judgment and order dated 05.09.2006, the high court set aside the conviction in respect of five of the convicts, but upheld the conviction in respect of rajoo and vijay. we have been informed that vijay has accepted the judgment of the high court. only rajoo has appealed against his conviction and sentence. before us rajoo was represented by learned counsel who took us through the material on record and made his submissions. constitutional and statutory provisions :by the 42nd amendment to the constitution, effected in 1977, article 39-a was inserted. this article provides for free legal aid by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other manner, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 2012 (SC)

Phool Kumari Vs. Office of the Superintendent

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-09-2012

order.p.sathasivam,j.1) leave granted.2) this appeal is directed against the final order dated 19.05.2011 passed by the high court of delhi at new delhi in criminal misc. case no. 2243 of 2010 whereby the high court disposed of the petition filed by the appellant herein.3) brief facts:(i) the appellant was convicted by the trial court in case fir no. 487 of 1995 under sections 323, 342, 307 read with section 34 of the indian penal code, 1860 (in short ipc) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (ri) for 10 years and, thereafter, the high court, in an appeal filed by the appellant, reduced the period of sentence to 5 years. the appellant remained in tihar central jail, new delhi from 24.03.2007 to 23.12.2010 i.e., for a period of 3 years and 10 months after grant of remission. during this period, she was allotted work in medical inspection (mi) room as sewadar (assistant) for assisting the doctors in opd of jail no. 6. apart from that, she was also taking care of the cleanliness of the said room till her release.(ii) in the year 2009, the appellant, through her husband, filed an application before the superintendent of jail for the payment of wages for the work done during her custody in prison but the same was rejected. aggrieved by the same, he filed a complaint before the visiting judge, additional sessions judge (asj) for the release of wages for the work done by his wife. after perusing the documents on record, by order dated 08.04.2010, the visiting judge (asj) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 2012 (SC)

Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas Vs. Craig Mcleod

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-16-2012

madan b. lokur, j.1. leave granted.2. the vice chancellor, guru ghasidas university is aggrieved by an interim order dated 09.08.2010 passed by the high court of chhattisgarh at bilaspur in w.p.(c) no. 694 of 2010 filed by craig mcleod.3. the subject matter of the impugned interim order, is three directions given by the university on 02.02.2010. these three directions are: (1) suspending craig mcleod from attending classes in the university of which he is a student, (2) stopping him from availing the facilities of the university till final orders are passed in respect of his alleged gross misbehavior, and (3) restraining from entering the university premises.4. all three directions were stayed by the high court by the impugned interim order till the disposal of the writ petition. the interim stay was subject to the condition that craig mcleod gives an undertaking, inter alia, of good behaviour. the impugned interim order also directed the university not to pass a final order in respect of the alleged gross misbehaviour of craig mcleod.5. in our opinion the impugned interim order is not sustainable and while passing final orders, we have taken subsequent developments into consideration. the facts:6. it is alleged that on 02.02.2010 craig mcleod grossly misbehaved on campus with two professors of the university. as a result of the incident, a first information report was lodged with the police and the proctorial board of the university took an emergent decision to expel him .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 2012 (SC)

Punjab Urban Planning and Dev. Authority and ors. Vs. Raghu Nath Gupta ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-16-2012

k.s. radhakrishnan, j.1. leave granted.2. the questions raised in both these appeals are the same, hence, we are disposing of both the appeals by a common judgment.3. the question that has come up for consideration in these appeals is whether the respondents are legally obliged to pay the interest, penal interest and penalty on account of the delayed payment of installments after having accepted the allotment of commercial plots by way of auction. the high court has taken the view that since there was delay on the part of the punjab urban planning and development authority (for short puda) in providing the basic amenities like parking, lights, road, water, sewerage etc. in time, puda cannot legally claim the interest, penal interest as well as penalty on account of the delayed payment of installments. the high court placed reliance on the judgment of this court in municipal corporation, chandigarh and ors. v. shantikunj investment (p) ltd. (2006) 4 scc 109 to reach that conclusion.4. we heard mrs. rachna joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of puda as well as shri p.s. patwalia, learned senior counsel assisted by mr. tushar bakshi, appearing for the respondents.5. for the disposal of these appeals, we may refer to the facts of civil appeal no. of 2012 [arising out of slp (civil) no. 8732 of 2009], as follows: - puda, on 16.3.2001, conducted a public auction for sale of the commercial plots. raghu nath gupta, the respondent was the successful bidder of a single .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 2012 (SC)

Subhash Krishnan. Vs. State of GoA.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-17-2012

fakkir mohamed ibrahim kalifulla, j.1. leave granted in slp (crl) 3966 of 2010.2. these appeals have been preferred by the second accused. though, in all eight persons were accused of the alleged offences, records reveal that accused nos. 7 and 8 were absconding even at the time of filing of the charge sheet and hence as many as six accused persons were charge-sheeted for the offences under section 120b read with section 302, ipc, sections 342, 364, 504 read with section 34, ipc for the alleged abduction, wrongful confinement and killing the deceased shanu komarpant on 10.10.2003. accused no.5 and a-6 were acquitted by the trial court giving benefit of doubt while a-1 to a-4 were acquitted of charges under section 342, 504 and 364 read with section 34 ipc. the accused nos.1 to 4 were, however, convicted for offences under sections 120b, 302 read with section 34, ipc and were imposed with the sentence of life imprisonment apart from a fine of rs.5,000/-each, in default to undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment. accused nos.1 to 4 preferred individual appeals being criminal appeal nos.7/2007, 12/2007 and 13/2007. the appeal preferred by the second accused was criminal appeal no.13/2007. the state preferred appeal no.6 of 2008 against the acquittal of charges under sections 342, 504 and 364 read with section 34 ipc and the total acquittal of a-5 and a-6. all appeals were tried together and by a common judgment impugned in these appeals, the high court dismissed the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 2012 (SC)

Kalu Alias Amit. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-17-2012

(smt.) ranjana prakash desai, j.1. these two appeals, by special leave, can be disposed of by a common judgment as they challenge the judgment and order dated 11/7/2006 passed by the high court of punjab & haryana whereby the high court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant - kalu @ amit (original accused 3) and the criminal appeal filed by appellants joginder and varun kumar (original accused 1 and 2 respectively) challenging judgment and order dated 7/9/2000 delivered by the additional sessions judge, rewari convicting them for offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the indian penal code (for short, the ipc) and sentencing them to life imprisonment. we shall refer to the accused wherever necessary by their names, for the sake of convenience.2. the case of the prosecution is that on 7/4/1999 pw-5 ram chander yadav had gone to ahir college, rewari for attestation of his certificates. he met pw-4 karambir yadav there. at about 8.30 a.m., he went to geography department of the college. pushpinder (the deceased) was standing there. the deceased asked pw-5 ram chander yadav as to how he was there. pw-5 ram chander yadav informed him that he was there as he had to get copies of his certificates attested. by that time, suddenly, the accused equipped with deadly weapons came running towards the deceased, who was standing in the company of pw-5 ram chander yadav and pw-4 karambir yadav. kalu @ amit dealt a sword blow on the takna (ankle) of the deceased .....

Tag this Judgment!


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