Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: us supreme court Year: 2003 Page 2 of about 67 results (0.047 seconds)

Sep 15 2003 (SC)

Audhar and ors. Vs. Chandrapati and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-15-2003

Reported in : AIR2003SC4389; JT2005(11)SC336; 2003(7)SCALE502; (2003)11SCC458

dharmadhikari, j. 1. a common judgment is being gassed in these two appeals as the subject matter of dispute in both of them is the same. civil appeal no. 6302 of 2001 has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.8.1998 passed by the learned single judge of the allahabad high court in civil misc. writ petition no. 678 of 1979. rejection by order dated 09.12.1998 of review petition no. 54933/98 filed by the appellants against the said judgement has given rise to connected civil appeal no. 6303 of 2001.2. the facts of this case are many and somewhat complicated but the question of law involved is a short one.3. it is not disputed by the appellants, as is apparent from the contents of their petition for special leave, that the lands in khata nos. 91, 92, 95 and 96 are tenancy lands of category 'bhumidari' and other lands in dispute in khata nos. 256, 283, 356 and 357 are tenancy lands of another category 'sirdari'. the lands are in village patilo gausput, district azam garh in the state of uttar pradesh.4. the writ petition before the high court arose out of order dated 09.11.1976 of the assistant director, consolidation, azam garh which was passed in exercise of his revisional powers under section 48 of the u.p. consolidation of holdings act of 1953 [for short the consolidation act of 1953].5. bereft of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are as under:-6. the main ancestor of the parties named duggan was survived by four sons viz., prag, tulsi, narain and ram saran. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 2003 (SC)

Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Sri Jagadish Kalita and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-07-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)AWC105(SC); 2003(3)BLJR2399; (SCSuppl)2004(1)CHN8; [2004(2)JCR86(SC)]; JT2003(8)SC26; 2004(2)MhLj611; 2004MPLJ259(SC); (2004)137PLR255; 2003(8)SCALE356; (2004)1SCC27

s.b. sinha, j. 1. this appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 20.5.1991 passed by gauhati high court dismissing the second appeal preferred by the appellant herein. background fact 2. md. sadagar sheikh was the original owner of the suit premises. he transferred the same to gayaram kalita and kashiram kalita. the premises in suit, thus, owned and possessed by the said gayaram kalita and kashiram kalita, who were brothers. by reason of a registered deed of partition dated 1.12.1938, the structures standing on the land in suit being holding nos. 522 and 523 of the nalbari municipality were divided into half and half, each measuring 51/2 lechas. prafulla kalita, son of gayaram kalita, allegedly, amalgamated both the said holdings and got them registered in his name as holding no. 121 in the records of nalbari municipality. holding no. 522 was sold and portion of holding no. 523 was leased out in favour of the respondent no. 3 by prafulla kalita. 3. upon the death of md. sadagar sheikh, however, his sons got the lands mutated in their favour in mutation case no. 414/70-71 in terms of an order of the sub divisional officer of the nalbari municipality. 4. by reason of a registered deed of sale dated 28.11.1972, the defendants nos. 7, 8 & 9 transferred their possessory rights in holding no. 523 including the house to the appellant for valuable consideration. on or about 24.9.1977, the legal representatives of md. sadagar sheikh, being defendant nos. 10, 11 & 12 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 2003 (SC)

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.V. Hanumantha Rao (D) Thr. Lrs. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-14-2003

Reported in : JT2003(9)SC438; (2004)1MLJ49(SC); 2003(8)SCALE688; (2003)10SCC121

dharmadhikari j.1. the state of andhra pradesh is in appeal against the common judgment dated 18.9.1996 passed by the high court of a.p. in w.p. no. 10074 of 1992 and batch of writ appeals whereby the judgment dated 30.7.1992 of the special court, hyderabad under the andhra pradesh grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 [for short 'the act of 1982'] has been reversed with declaration that the respondents are not 'land grabbers' within the meaning of definition clause contained in section 2(d) of the act of 1982.2. the principle submission made before us by the learned senior counsel appearing for the state of andhra pradesh is that the high court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction had no justification, as in appeal to re-appreciate the whole evidence led by the parties before the special court and record contrary conclusions. reliance is placed on swarn singh and anr. v. state of punjab and ors. : air1976sc232 and j.m.d. alloys ltd. v. bihar state electricity board and ors. : [2003]2scr690 .3. the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgment of the high court contending that the special court, established under the act of 1982, overlooked vital documents of title produced by the occupants of the disputed land and gave undue importance to the fact that in revenue papers, the names of the occupants are not recorded as being in lawful possession of the lands in question. the submission made is that where a special court exercising exclusive .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 2003 (SC)

Kewal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-14-2003

Reported in : AIR2004SC72; 2004CriLJ31; JT2003(Suppl2)SC485; 2003(8)SCALE626; (2003)12SCC369

b.p. singh, j.1. the three appellants in these appeals were put up for trial before the sessions judge, ferozepur who by his judgment and order dated july 8, 1998 in sessions case no. 32 of 1998 found the appellants guilty of various offences. appellant jagjit singh was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 i.p.c. while the remaining accused were found guilty of the offence under section 302 read with section 34 i.p.c.. appellant kewal singh was found guilty of the offence under section 307 i.p.c. while the remaining two accused were convicted and sentenced for the offence under section. 307 read with section 34 i.p.c.. jagjit singh was also found guilty of the offence under section 324 i.p.c. and the remaining two accused under section 324 i.p.c. read with section 34 i.p.c.. jagjit singh was also found guilty of the offence under section 379 i.p.c. while kewal singh and amarjit singh were found guilty of the offence under section 27 of the arms act. the appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302 and 302/34 i.p.c. they have also been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under the other sections of the i.p.c. and the arms act referred to hereinabove. 2. it appears that sukhwinder singh and two others of the prosecution party were also tried in sessions trial no. 34 of 1998 but were acquitted by the sessions court by a judgment of the same date.3. the appellants preferred two appeals before the high court of punjab and haryana .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2003 (FN)

McConnell Vs. Federal Election Comm'n

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-10-2003

..... . 58 , 65, n. 6 (1963) ( the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press embraces the circulation of books as well as their publication ). division of labor requires a means of mediating exchange, and in a commercial society, that means is supplied by money. the publisher pays the author for the right to sell his book; it pays its staff who print .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2003 (FN)

Castro Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-15-2003

castro v. united states - 02-6683 (2003) syllabus october term, 2003 castro v. united states supreme court of the united states castro v. united states certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit no. 02 6683. argued october 15, 2003 decided december 15, 2003 in 1994, petitioner castro attacked his federal drug conviction in a pro se motion for a new trial pursuant to federal rule of criminal procedure 33. the government responded that the claims were more cognizable as federal habeas claims under 28 u. s. c. 2255. the district court denied castro s motion on the merits, referring to it as both a rule 33 and a 2255 motion. castro did not challenge this recharacterization of his motion on his pro se appeal, and the eleventh circuit summarily affirmed. in 1997, castro, again pro se, filed a 2255 motion raising, inter alia, a new claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. the district court denied the motion, but the eleventh circuit remanded for the district court to consider, among other things, whether this was castro s second 2255 motion. the district court appointed counsel, determined that the 1997 motion was indeed castro s second 2255 motion (the 1994 motion being his first), and dismissed the motion for failure to comply with 2255 s requirement that castro obtain the court of appeals permission to file a second or successive motion. the eleventh circuit affirmed. held: 1. this court s review of castro s claim is not barred by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 2003 (SC)

Ram Swaroop and anr. Vs. Mahindru and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-18-2003

Reported in : 2004(5)ALD7(SC); 2004(2)BLJR1446; 2004(1)CTC272; JT2003(10)SC422; 2003(10)SCALE92; (2003)12SCC436

a.c. lakshmanan, j.1. the above appeal was filed by the defendants against the order dated 07.01.1997 passed by the high court of himachal pradesh at shimla in r.s.a. no. 66 of 1987.2. the brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are:-3. once krishan dutt, who is the father of the respondents herein, (lrs of plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration in the court of senior sub-judge mahasu at shimla and prayed for a decree of declaration thereby declaring the respondent to be in joint possession of the property having 1/3rd share and for partition of his share in respect of shops, vacant plots and for a decree for rendition of accounts. the respondents alleged in the plaint that the appellants/defendants are joint owners of the property detailed in the plaint that the respondents have got 1/3rd share in the properties and are accordingly entitled to 1/3rd share by partition, the parties being in joint possession of the properties. 4. the appellants filed their written statement and apart from taking legal objections have contended that there is no cause of action nor locus standi of the respondents to file the suit that kanshi ram (first husband of gangi) died about 32 years ago and gangi the widow of kanshi ram inherited the properties. it has been further submitted that after about one year of the death of shri kanshi ram, smt. gangi in accordance with the customs prevailing in the area became the wife of bala ram, the father of the appellants/defendants and on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 2003 (SC)

Purshottam Das Tandon Vs. Military Estate Officer and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-19-2003

Reported in : JT2003(10)SC268; 2003(10)SCALE87; (2004)1SCC559

orderashok bhan, j.1. this order shall dispose of civil appeal no. 7284 of 2001 arising from the order of the division bench of the high court of judicature at allahabad dated january 7, 2000 in civil misc. writ petition no. 13353 of 1992 and civil appeal no. 6637 of 2003 arising from the order of the another division bench of the high court of judicature at allahabad dated 5th march, 2003 in civil misc. writ petition no. 28558 of 2002. both the impugned orders pertain to the same set of property between the same parties. seemingly, there is a contradiction and inconsistency in the two orders passed by the two different benches. for the reasons stated hereinafter the matters need to be remanded back to the high court for a fresh decision for disposal by taking them up together to avoid any contradiction or inconsistency.facts in civil appeal no. 7284 of 20012. the property in dispute situate in survey no. 143, old cantonment, allahabad was put to auction in execution of a decree against the judgment debtors-scott and spencer. the property in dispute was put to auction on 25th november, 1848 and was purchased by the decree holder lala manohar lal, (grand father of the appellant) for a sum of rs. 2,900/-. the auction sale was confirmed by the court on 27.12.1848. respondents on behalf of the union of india on the strength of governor general's order no. 179 dated 12th september, 1836 issued a resumption notice dated 26th december, 1968 to the appellant and tried to take .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2003 (FN)

Lockyer Vs. Andrade

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-05-2003

lockyer v. andrade - 538 u.s. 63 (2003) october term, 2002 syllabus lockyer, attorney general of california v. andrade certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 01-1127. argued november 5, 2002-decided march 5, 2003 california charged respondent andrade with two felony counts of petty theft with a prior conviction after he stole approximately $150 worth of videotapes from two different stores. under california's three strikes law, any felony can constitute the third strike subjecting a defendant to a prison term of 25 years to life. the jury found andrade guilty and then found that he had three prior convictions that qualified as serious or violent felonies under the three strikes regime. because each of his petty theft convictions thus triggered a separate application of the three strikes law, the judge sentenced him to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life. in affirming, the california court of appeal rejected his claim that his sentence violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. it found the solem v. helm, 463 u. s. 277 , proportionality analysis questionable in light of harmelin v. michi gan, 501 u. s. 957 . it then compared the facts in andrade's case to those in rummel v. estelle, 445 u. s. 263 -in which this court rejected a claim that a life sentence was grossly disproportionate to the felonies that formed the predicate for the sentence, id., at 265-and concluded that andrade's sentence was not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 2003 (FN)

Woodford Vs. Garceau

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-25-2003

woodford v. garceau - 538 u.s. 202 (2003) october term, 2002 syllabus woodford, warden v. garceau certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 01-1862. argued january 21, 2003-decided march 25, 2003 amendments made to 28 u. s. c., ch. 153, by the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 (aedpa) do not apply to cases pending in federal court on april 24, 1996-aedpa's effective date. lindh v. murphy, 521 u. s. 320 . respondent was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in california state court. mter his petition for state postconviction relief was denied, he moved for the appointment of federal habeas counsel and a stay of execution in federal district court on may 12, 1995, and later filed a federal habeas application on july 2, 1996. although he filed the habeas application after aedpa's effective date, the district court concluded, inter alia, that it was not subject to aedpa because his motions for counsel and a stay were filed prior to that date. the ninth circuit agreed that the application was not subject to aedpa, but reversed for reasons not relevant here. held: for purposes of applying the lindh rule, a case does not become "pending" until an actual application for habeas relief is filed in federal court. respondent's application is subject to aedpa's amendments because it was not filed until after aedpa's effective date. pp. 205-210. (a) because of aedpa's heavy emphasis on the standards governing the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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