Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 10 of about 118 results (0.077 seconds)

Mar 29 2005 (SC)

Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chand Mal Baradia and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-29-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2161; 2005(3)ALD93(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)640; 2005(1)ARBLR623(SC); 2005(2)AWC1420(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN123; [2005]124CompCas811(SC); (2005)4CompLJ549(SC); JT2005

g.p. mathur, j.1. this appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.5.2002 of calcutta high court by which the application moved by the first respondent under order 39 rule 1 and 2 and section 151 cpc was allowed and hindustan chambers of commerce, mumbai (second respondent) was restrained from proceeding in arbitration case nos. a/186 and a/187 subject to deposit of rs. 2 lakhs by the first respondent with the registrar general within two days of receipt of the certified copy of the order.2. the first respondent chand mal baradia filed title suit no. 993 of 1999 in the city civil court at calcutta for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with the arbitration proceedings, which had been initiated by the appellant shree subhlaxmi fabrics pvt. ltd. the case of the plaintiff (first respondent) in brief is that he was carrying on business under the name and style of m/s. chand mal prakash chand and co. at calcutta; that shree subhalaxmi fabrics pvt. ltd., mumbai (defendant no. 1), which is a company registered under the companies act and sells cloth through its agent m/s. naresh enterprises, which has its office at calcutta, under the terms and conditions as dictated by defendant no. 1; that the plaintiff was getting supplies against the orders placed by him at calcutta through the agent of defendant no. 1; that all such supplies were made by the agent to the plaintiff at calcutta at his premises no. 160, jamunalal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2005 (SC)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-29-2005

Reported in : 2005ACJ1131; AIR2005SC2157; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)486; 2005(3)AWC2221(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1148; (2005)3GLR2343; [2005(3)JCR65(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC264; 2005(3)KLT227(SC); (2005)3MLJ118; (2005)10SCC720

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. new india assurance co. ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a division bench of the kerala high court holding that the appellant was liable to pay compensation to the respondent no. 1 for the injuries sustained by him in an automobile accident. the accident took place on 14.12.1997 at about 3.10 a.m. it was claimed by the claimant that he sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (motor cycle bearing registration no. kl-7q/9101) driven by the respondent no. 2. the claimant's stand was that he was travelling as a pillion rider. total compensation of rs. 9,00,000 was claimed. after considering the evidence on record, the motor accidents claims tribunal, perumbavoor (in short the 'mact') awarded rs. 4,68,825 with 9% interest from the date of application till payment. the figure was arrived at in the following manner:-1. rs. 2,88,000/- for loss of earning;2. rs. 2,600/- towards transport to hospital;3. rs. 4,000/- for extra nourishment expenses;4. rs. 250/- for damage to clothing;5. rs. 1,18,975/- for medical expenses;6. rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering;7. rs. 40,000/- towards compensation for continuingor permanent disability.--------------------total rs. 4,68,825/---------------------3. in appeal filed by the insurer-appellant the amount granted for permanent disability was deleted.4. in support of the appeal, learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2005 (SC)

Smt. Claude-lila Parulekar Vs. Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-18-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC4074; II(2005)BC542(SC); 2006(3)BomCR429; [2005]124CompCas685(SC); (2005)4CompLJ193(SC); 2006(1)CTLJ465(SC); JT2005(3)SC523; (2005)11SCC73; [2005]59SCL414(SC); 200

ruma pal, j.1. in 1933 dr. n. b. parulekar and his wife shanta, started a newspaper called sakal. in 1948, dr. parulekar and shanta promoted a company known as m/s. sakal papers pvt. limited, which is the respondent no. 1 and is referred to hereafter as 'the company'. dr. parulekar died in 1973. shanta died during the pendency of the appeal before this court. the appeal which is now being prosecuted by the daughter of dr. parulekar and shanta, arises out of proceedings initiated by shanta and the appellant under section 155 (as it stood in 1986) of the companies act, 1956 (referred to hereafter as 'the act') in the bombay high court.2. the appellant was brought on record as shanta's only legal heir and representative. as shanta was alive during the proceedings before the high court, to avoid unnecessary verbiage, the appellant and shanta are referred to hereafter as 'the appellants'.3. one of the matters in dispute in this appeal relates to the transfer of 3417 shares in the company belonging to the estate of late dr. parulekar by three of the four executors of the will of dr. parulekar. the executors named in the will were shanta, the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 4. there is also a challenge to the transfer of 93 shares by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the company. the basis of the claim of the appellant and shanta with regard to the 3417 and 93 shares was the failure to allow the appellants to exercise their undisputed right of preemption .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 2005 (SC)

Mediquip Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Proxima Medical System Gmbh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-17-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC4175; II(2005)BC366(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN56; [2005]124CompCas473(SC); (2005)4CompLJ6(SC); 2005(2)CTC392; JT2005(3)SC380; (2005)7SCC42; [2005]59SCL255(SC); 2005(

ar. lakshmanan, j.1. leave granted.2. this appeal is directed against the order passed by the division bench of the high court at calcutta in appeal from an order passed under its original civil jurisdiction being apot no. 786 of 2002. the division bench of the high court at calcutta dismissed the appeal of the appellant as well as the application for stay.3. the short facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are as follows:the appellant-company is engaged in business of import of medical equipment and service thereof in general and ultra-sound scanners, in particular. the respondent-proximalmedical system, gmbh, issued legal notice to the appellant-company under section 434 of the companies act mentioning that the appellant-company is liable to pay the respondent a sum of us $ 5000 and us $ 11000 aggregating to us $ 16000. the appellant replied to the said notice and denied the liability to pay the amounts to the respondent. the respondent-company filed a winding up petition being c.p. no. 316 of 2001 against the appellant-company, inter alia, praying that the company be wound up by the order of the court and official liquidator of the court be appointed as liquidator of the company to take charge of its assets. it was alleged therein that despite notice, the company failed and/or neglected to refund us $ 5000 and us $ 11000 which was allegedly remitted by the respondent-company as partial bid security in respect of two global tenders. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2005 (SC)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-16-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1832; 2005(1)ARBLR409(SC); 2005(2)AWC1416(SC); (2005)4CompLJ16(SC); [2005(3)JCR53(SC)]; JT2005(3)SC426; (2005)4SCC239; 2005(1)LC547(SC)

p.p. naolekar, j.1. leave granted.2. the southern railway entered into a contract with respondent no. 1 for gauge conversion from madras beach to trichchirappalli villupuram section - construction of a bridge being agreement no. 136/cn/95 dated 29.9.95. on behalf of the southern railway, the contract was signed by the then chief project manager, presently, the chief engineer. disputes arose touching the claims arising out of the execution of works under the contract and in exercise of the power conferred by the arbitration clause contained in the contract, the general manager, southern railway appointed an arbitrator as also a presiding arbitrator, while respondent no. 1 nominated its arbitrator. the arbitral tribunal so constituted gave its award on 10/11.03.2001 and signed the same. a copy of the award was delivered in the office of the general manager, southern railway on 12.3.2001. the receipt seems to have been acknowledged by someone in the office, probably the inwards clerk. the chief engineer received the copy of the award from the tribunal on 19.3.2001. 3. on 10.7.2001, the chief engineer presented an application for setting aside the arbitral award under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the act' for short). an application seeking condonation of delay under sub-section (3) of section 34 was also filed. the delay sought to be condoned was of 27 days only based on an assumption that the copy of the award was received on 19.3.2001. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2005 (SC)

Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union Vs. Management of Birla Cotton Spinning and W ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-16-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1782; 2005(2)AWC1075(SC); [2005(105)FLR416]; [2005(3)JCR38(SC)]; 2005(2)KLT978(SC); (2005)IILLJ271SC; (2005)13SCC777; 2005(2)SLJ338(SC)

b.p. singh, j.1. the appellant kapra mazdoor ekta union has preferred this appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and order of the high court of delhi at new delhi in civil writ petition no. 2084 of 1990 dated august 31, 2001 whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent-management of m/s. birla cotton spinning and weaving mills limited was allowed and the order dated february 19, 1990 passed by the presiding officer. industrial tribunal no. ii, delhi was quashed. by the said order the industrial tribunal had in effect recalled its award of june 12, 1987 and framed an additional issue to be tried by the tribunal. the high court held that the award dated june 12, 1987 had effectively terminated the industrial dispute referred to the tribunal by the appropriate government on december 13, 1982.2. with a view to appreciate the submissions urged before us it would be necessary to notice the factual background in which these questions have arisen.3. the appellant-union is one of the eight unions representing the workers employed in the respondent-company. in the year 1982 on account of closure of some looms of the weaving section of the mill disputes arose between the workmen and the management of the respondent-company. the appropriate government in exercise of its powers conferred by section 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the industrial disputes act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') referred the said disputes to the industrial tribunal, delhi vide .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2005 (SC)

The State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Purvi Communication Pvt. Ltd. an ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-16-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1849; (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN162; 2005(2)CTC300; JT2005(3)SC339; (2005)3SCC711; [2005]140STC154(SC)

ar. lakshmanan, j.1. the state of west bengal - department of finance, calcutta and two others are the appellants in this appeal. leave was granted by this court on 30.03.2001 and pending disposal of the appeal, stay of operation of the judgment and order under challenge was passed.2. the above appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 04.08.2000 passed by the high court at calcutta in w.p.t.t. no. 338 of 2000 whereby the high court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 and declared clause (ii) of sub-section (4a) of section 4a of the west bengal entertainment-cum-amusement tax act, 1982 (as amended by the west bengal finance act, 1998) is ultra vires to the constitution.3. respondent no.1 carries on business as a multi system operator (hereinafter referred to as 'mso') and is engaged in receiving and providing tv signals to individual cable operators of various localities. the respondents are receiving communication signals known as tv signals broadcast by various satellite channels and are distributing the same to the sub-cable operators. the process involved in the business consists of establishment of state of the art control rooms and spreading the cable network. the said network signals are being given to various sub-cable operators with whom the respondents have franchise agreement. according to the respondents, there is a significant and qualitative difference between the functions performed by them and the activities of sub- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2005 (SC)

State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Loknath Ray and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-15-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)ESC240; [2005(105)FLR348]; JT2005(Suppl3)SC464; (2005)10SCC678; 2005(2)SLJ306(SC); (2005)2UPLBEC1542

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. the factual background can be adumbrated concisely as follows:the respondent no. 1 filed a writ application before the orissa high court claiming that he was appointed as 'fourth peon' by the management of the concerned institution i.e. samanta singhar high school in district of jaipur, orissa (respondent no. 2) which is an 'aided educational institution' as defined under the orissa education act, 1969 (in short the 'act') and orissa education (recruitment and conditions of service of teachers and members of the staff of aided educational institutions) rules, 1974 (in short 'recruitment rules'). it is not in dispute that if an institution is an aided educational institution, same is governed by the act and rules framed thereunder. the recruitment rules are framed under the act. as the functionaries of the state did not approve the appointment of respondent no. 1 holding the same to be beyond the prescribed yardstick, writ application was filed for direction to the concerned authorities to accord approval to the appointment.3. the high court by the impugned judgment came to hold that the functionaries of the state were not justified in refusing to accord approval. stand of the state government was that circular dated 8.7.1981 contained yardstick for fixation of standard staff for the non-government secondary schools in supersession of earlier circulars. under the 'category of staff' the number of peons which can be appointed was clearly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 2005 (SC)

State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-14-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1868; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)505; 2005(2)AWC1009(SC); 2005(1)BLJR823; (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN155; 100(2005)CLT357(SC); 2005(2)CTC828; JT2005(3)SC220; 2005(2)KLT126(SC); (2005

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. appellant-state calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single judge of the punjab and haryana high court dismissing the second appeal filed by it under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short the 'code') holding that no question of law was involved.3. the background facts are as under:the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') was appointed as a patwari on 5.2.1958. at the time of appointment he disclosed his date of birth to be 1.10.1934. complaints were received and preliminary enquiry was conducted and it was held that his actual date of birth is 25.11.1931. a suit was filed by the respondent for declaration to the effect that his date of birth as recorded in service book i.e. 1.10.1934 is the correct date of birth and plaintiff is entitled to all benefits and privileges which would have accrued to him had he continued on that basis till the date of superannuation i.e. 30.9.1992 and for setting aside the punishment awarded for allegedly manipulating records and disclosing wrong date of birth.4. following issues were framed by the trial court:'1. whether the high court was justified in observing that no substantial question of law arises in the second appeal, whereas the substantial question of law was/is whether interpretation of the expression 'government' in rule 2.5 note 1 of punjab civil service rules is not competent/appointing authority, who is the deputy commissioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2005 (SC)

iqbal Singh Marwah and anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2119; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)717; 2005CriLJ2161; 118(2005)DLT329(SC); JT2005(3)SC195; 2005(3)MhLj530; 2005(II)OLR(SC)102; (2005)4SCC370; 2005(1)LC675(SC)

g.p. mathur, j.1. leave granted in special leave petition (crl) no.4111 of 2000.2. in view of conflict of opinion between two decisions of this court each rendered by a bench of three learned judges in surjit singh v. balbir singh : 1996crilj2304 and sachida nand singh v. state of bihar 1998 (2) scc 493, regarding interpretation of section 195(1)(b)(ii) of code of criminal procedure 1973 (for short 'cr.p.c.'), this appeal has been placed before the present bench.3. the facts of the case may be noticed in brief. the appellant nos.1 and 2 are real brothers of mukhtar singh marwah, while respondent nos.1 and 2 are his widow and son respectively. mukhtar singh marwah died on 3.6.1993. the appellant no.1 filed probate case no.363 of 1993 in the court of district judge, delhi, for being granted probate of the will allegedly executed by mukhtar singh marwah on 20.1.1993. the petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that the will was forged. on their application the appellant no.1 filed the original will in the court of district judge on 10.2.1994. thereafter, the respondents moved an application under section 340 cr.p.c. requesting the court to file a criminal complaint against appellant no.1 as the will set up by him was forged. a reply to the said application was filed on 27.7.1994 but the application has not been disposed of so far. thereafter, the respondents filed a criminal complaint in may 1996 in the court of chief metropolitan magistrate, new delhi, for .....

Tag this Judgment!


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