Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 11 of about 118 results (0.104 seconds)

Mar 11 2005 (SC)

BolIn Chetia Vs. Jogadish Bhuyan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1872; JT2005(3)SC267; (2005)6SCC81; 2005(1)LC499(SC)

orderr.c. lahoti, c.j.1. in an appeal under section 116a of the representation of the people act, 1951 merely on its being filed, should the respondent be necessarily and in routine put on notice, forgoing the application of judicial mind to the merits of appeal, at that stage? does this court not have power to summarily throw out an appeal howsoever worthless it may be? these are the questions which have arisen for decision; thanks to the submission made with vehemence by the learned counsel for appellant.2. the appellant was a candidate at the legislative assembly elections in the state of assam. he lost in the election, as also in the high court where an election petition filed by him putting in issue the election of the returned candidate has been directed to be dismissed on trial. he has filed the present appeal under section 116a of the representation of the people act, 1951 (hereinafter 'the act', for short).3. when the appeal was placed before the court, we felt inclined to hear the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission, that is, whether the appeal deserved to be admitted for bi-prate hearing. the learned counsel for the appellant resisted the move of the court and submitted that this appeal is a statutory first appeal and, therefore, it should be admitted for hearing bi-prate as of right and a notice to respondents must issue as a matter of course. in fact, the learned counsel for the appellant went on to the extent of submitting that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2005 (SC)

Charanjit Lal Mehra and ors. Vs. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2765; 2005(2)AWC1014(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN25; 2005(2)CTC235; 118(2005)DLT396(SC); [2005(3)JCR28(SC)]; JT2005(3)SC213; (2005)11SCC279

a.k. mathur, j.1. this special leave petition is tiled against an order dated august 25,2004 passed by the learned single judge of the high court of delhi at new delhi whereby learned single judge has set aside the order dated february 13,2004 passed by the trial court whereby the trial court declined to pass an order or eviction moved by the plaintiff under order xii rule 6 of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'c.p.c.') and observed that the application made at this stage is not maintainable and the suit shall be decided recording necessary evidence of the parties in order to do complete justice and dismissed the application of the plaintiff tiled under order xii rule 6, c.p.c. hence the present revision was tiled before the high court. the said revision application came to be disposed of by the learned single judge or the high court on august 25, 2004.2. in order to dispose of the present petition, brief facts may be detailed herein. respondent no. 1 tiled a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages/mesne profit against the defendant-petitioners alleging therein that the premises in question was let out to the defendant- petitioners jointly on a monthly rent of rs. 2500/- vide agreement dated september 4, 1977. the tenancy commenced with effect from october 1, 1977. the rent was increased from time to time at the rate of 10 per cent per month. for the period from september 1, 1996 to august 31, 2001 the defendant- petitioners paid rent at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2005 (SC)

Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1891; 2005(3)ALD6(SC); 2005(1)ARC887; 2005(2)AWC1023(SC); 2005(2)BLJR937; (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN137; 100(2005)CLT297(SC); 2005(2)CTC582; JT2005(3)SC278; 2005(2)KLT491

r.c. lahoti, c.j.1. in respect of a property situated in the metropolitan city of calcutta, a lease of immovable property for a fixed term commencing 1.4.1964 and expiring on 24.6.1984 evidenced by a registered deed of lease dated 17.7.1964, came into existence. the lessee entered into possession of the leased premises on 1.4.1964. on 26.9.1983, the lessor served a notice on the lessee informing the lessee that the tenancy was to expire on 24.6.1984 and, therefore, on that day the lessee must deliver vacant possession of the demised premises to the lessor. on 8.11.1983, the lessee sent a reply taking a firm stand that he would not vacate the demised premises in terms of the lease deed and the request contained in the communication dated 8.11.1983. the lessee also disputed the entitlement of the lessor to demand possession from the lessee on a plea that the title of the lessor to claim possession had itself come to an end on account of eviction by a paramount title- holder. on 16.4.1984, the present suit was filed by the lessor against the lessee seeking the following reliefs:-'a) a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to be delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff on the expiry of the term of the said lease dated july 17, 1964, i.e. on the expiry of june 24, 1984.b) perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its agents and servants from subletting, assigning or parting with possession of the said premises or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 2005 (SC)

Calcutta Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. Shrey Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-09-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1879; (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN120; 100(2005)CLT235(SC); JT2005(3)SC143; (2005)4SCC245

s.h. kapadia, j.1. the short question which arises for determination in these civil appeals by grant of special leave by calcutta municipal corporation is - whether the imposition for the process of change in the name of the owner in the assessment books of the corporation is in the nature of 'a fee' or 'tax'.2. for the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts of civil appeal no.5631 of 2000.3. premises bearing no.9a, jatindra mohan avenue, calcutta - 700 006 belonged to tapas ghosh, meenakshi sinha and gayatri chandra. by several deeds of conveyance, they sold the said premises to m/s shrey mercantile (p) ltd., m/s drishti mercantile (p) ltd. and m/s kic resources ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the developers'). the building in the premises was very old and was in a dilapidated condition. the developers decided to construct a new building after demolishing the existing old structure. the developers submitted the building plan for sanction which the corporation refused to accept without the names of the developers being brought on record by way of mutation. on 21.3.1997, the developers applied for mutation by deletion of the names of the previous owners and substitution of their names for which the corporation demanded mutation fees of rs.3 lacs under calcutta corporation (taxation) regulations, 1989. this demand was challenged by filing of writ petition in the calcutta high court.4. the calcutta municipal corporation (amendment) act, 1988 was passed by the state .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2005 (SC)

Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-04-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1929; 2005CriLJ1742; JT2005(3)SC62; (2005)9SCC315; 2005(1)LC558(SC)

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a division bench of the punjab and haryana high court affirming the conviction of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') under section 302 of the indian penal code, 1860 (in short the 'ipc') and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine imposed with default stipulation.3. the prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:on may 29, 1996 a quarrel had taken place between hans raj (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and accused ravi kumar, who was then servant of one gandharav singh over a very trivial matter. deceased reported the incident to his brother mohan lal (pw-3) and ram lubhaya. on may 30, 1996 at about 7 p.m. when the three brothers were present in the hada rori of village jadla, gandharav singh called deceased to get the dispute settled with his servant accused-ravi kumar. mohan lal and deceased followed gandharav singh to his tubewell. accused-ravi kumar and bahadur singh (pw-4) were already present there. gandharav singh placed a dhangu behind him. when the talks were going on, a quarrel between accused-ravi kumar and deceased again ensued. accused-ravi kumar picked up the dhangu placed behind gandharav singh and gave two blows on the head of deceased. deceased fell down. mohan lal (pw-3) raised an alarm. in the meantime ram lubhaya also reached there. accused-ravi kumar then made good his escape. deceased was taken to the primary .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 2005 (SC)

Govt. of A.P. and anr. Vs. J.B. Educational Society and anr. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-23-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2014; 2005(2)ALD69(SC); 2005(3)CTC555; 2005(2)ESC184; JT2005(2)SC521; 2005(2)KLT154(SC); (2005)3SCC212; (2005)2UPLBEC1647

k.g. balakrishnan, j.1. these appeals are filed by the state of andhra pradesh challenging the decision of the division bench of the high court of andhra pradesh in writ appeal nos. 1571 of 1997; 84 of 1998; and 85 of 1998. by the impugned judgment, the division bench partly confirmed the judgment of the learned single judge and held that section 20(3)(a)(i) of the andhra pradesh education act, 1982 (in short 'the a.p. act') is void and inoperative and the state government had no legislative competence to pass such a legislation as the state provision was in the field already occupied by the enactment made by the parliament, namely, all india council of technical education act, 1987 (hereinafter being referred to 'aicte act'). it was held that in view of section 10 of the aicte act with regard to establishment of technical institutions in general, the said special enactment legislated by the parliament would prevail over the a.p. act to the extent of its repugnancy.2. the writ petitioners are the private educational institutions. they wanted to establish engineering colleges in the state of andhra pradesh. they applied to the authorities under the aicte act and approval was granted to them for the academic year 1997-98 by the aicte council. these writ petitioners made applications under section 20 of the act for permission to establish the institution. the permission was rejected on the ground that the writ petitioners had been seeking permission to establish colleges in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2005 (SC)

Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalpaiguri Vs. Om Prakash Mittal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-22-2005

Reported in : (2005)194CTR(SC)97; 2005(184)ELT3(SC); [2005]273ITR326(SC); JT2005(2)SC538; (2005)3MLJ48(SC); (2005)2SCC751

arijit pasayat, j. 1. challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the income tax settlement commission, additional bench calcutta (in short the 'commission'). by the impugned order it was held that the prayer made by the commissioner of income tax, west bengal-viii, calcutta (in short 'cit') to declare the settlement order passed by the commission on 18.9.1990 to be void and for withdrawing the benefits and immunities granted to the respondent-assessee was not acceptable. the order dated 18.9.1990 was passed under section 245d(4) of the income tax act, 1961 (in short the 'act'). the application by the cit for declaration of the said order to be void was made purportedly under section 245d(6) of the act.2. the controversy in the present appeal has arisen in the following factual background:a search was conducted in the premises of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') on 8.2.1989 and 9.2.1989 and certain seizures were made. the assessee filed an application for settlement in terms of section 245c of the act on 13.1.1989. it is relevant to note that application for settlement was made was the financial year 1985-86. the settlement commission passed an order on 18.9.1990 in terms of section 245d(4). it is to be noted that in the application for settlement before the commission the assessee claimed to have received rs. 1.5 crores from seven persons on 31.3.1985 in cash. all these seven persons were claimed to be residents of sikkim and that the amounts .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2005 (SC)

Cit Vs. Om Prakash Mittal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-22-2005

Reported in : [2005]143TAXMAN373(SC)

arijit pasayat j.the challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the income-tax settlement commission, additional bench, calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the commission'). by the impugned order it was held that the prayer made by the commissioner of income tax, west bengal-viii, calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the cit'), to declare the settlement order passed by the commission on 18-9-1990, to be void and for withdrawing the benefits and immunities granted to the respondent-assessee was not acceptable. the order dated 18-9-1990, was passed under section 245d(4) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the application by the commissioner of income tax for declaration of the said order to be void was made purportedly under section 245d(6) of the act.the controversy in the present appeal has arisen in the following factual background:a search was conducted in the premises of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') on 8-2-1989 and 9-2-1989, and certain seizures were made. the assessee filed an application for settlement in terms of section 245c of the act on 13-1-1989. it is relevant to note that the application for settlement was made for the financial year 1985-86. the settlement commission passed an order on 18-9-1990 in terms of section 245b(4). it is to be noted that in the application for settlement before the commission the assessee claimed to have received rs.1.5 crores from seven persons on 31-3-1985 in cash .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2005 (SC)

Prof. Yashpal and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2026; 2005(2)ESC129; JT2005(2)SC165; (2005)5SCC420

g.p. mathur, j.1. professor yashpal, an eminent scientist and former chairman of university grants commission, has filed writ petition no.19 of 2004 under article 32 of the constitution by way of public interest litigation for declaring certain provisions of the chhattisgarh niji kshetra vishwavidyalaya (sthapana aur viniyaman) adhiniyam, 2002 as ultra vires and for quashing of the notifications issued by state of chhattisgarh in the purported exercise of power conferred by section 5 of the said adhiniyam for establishing various universities.. the other petitioner who has joined in the petition, is a resident of chhattisgarh and is concerned with the quality of education in his state. the respondent no.1 to the petition is the state of chhattisgarh, respondent no.2 is the university grants commission and respondent nos.3 to 94 are the private universities which have been established by the state of chhattisgarh under the aforesaid adhiniyam.2. the chhattisgarh legislature enacted the chhattisgarh niji kshetra vishwavidyalaya (sthapana aur viniyaman) adhiniyam, 2002 (for short 'the act') which was published in the gazette on 4.2.2002 to establish self- financed private universities for higher education. under section 5 of the act the state has been empowered to incorporate and establish a university by issuing a notification in the gazette and section 6 permits such university to affiliate any college or other institution or to set up more than one campus with the prior .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 2005 (SC)

Zee Telefilms Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-02-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2677; (2005)4CompLJ283(SC); JT2005(2)SC8; (2005)4SCC649

n. santosh hegde, j. 1. i have had the benefit of reading the judgment of sinha, j. i regret i cannot persuade myself to agree with the conclusions recorded in the said judgment hence this separate opinion. the judgment of sinha, j. has elaborately, dealt with the facts, relevant rules and bye-laws of the board of control for cricket in india (the board). hence, i consider it not necessary for me to reproduce the same including the lengthy arguments advanced on behalf of the parties except to make reference to the same to the extent necessary in the course of this judgment.2. mr. k.k. venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the board has raised the preliminary issue in regard to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that under article 32, a petition is not maintainable against the board since the same is not 'state' within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution of india. it is this issue which is being considered in this judgment.3. in support of his argument mr. k.k. venugopal has contended the board is not created by any statute and is only registered under the societies registration act 1860 and that it is an autonomous body, administration of which is not controlled by any other authority including union of india, (u.o.i.) the first respondent herein. he further submitted that it also does not take any financial assistance from the government nor is it subjected to any financial control by the government or its accounts are subject to the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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