Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 12 of about 118 results (0.084 seconds)

Jan 12 2005 (SC)

Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-12-2005

Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)594; 2005CriLJ929; JT2005(11)SC209; (2005)2SCC409; 2005(1)LC446(SC)

h.k. sema, j.1. all these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 19th march, 2001 passed by the designated court no.3 at ahmedabad in terrorist case no.2 of 1997, terrorist case no. 33 of 1994 and terrorist case no. 16 of 1995. the two-judge bench before whom these appeals were posted for hearing referred the matters to a three-judge bench by an order dated 24.9.2002. the said order reads as under:-'the issue involved concerns the admissibility of a confession in terms of section 15 of the terrorist and disruptive activities (prevention) act, 1987 ( in short 'tada act'). consequently, therefore, the other provisions as contained in sections 12 and 18 have to be read in order to assess the legislative intent therein.this court in state v. nalini : 1999crilj3124 stated the law to be as below:-'80. section 12 of tada enables the designated court to jointly try, at the same trial, any offence under tada together with any other offence 'with which the accused may be charged' as per the code of criminal procedure. sub-section (2) thereof empowers the designated court to convict the accused, in such a trial, of any offence 'under any other law' if it is found by such designated court in such trial that the accused is found guilty of such offence. if the accused is acquitted of the offences under tada in such a trial, but convicted of the offence under any other law, it does not mean that there was only a trial for such other offence under any other law.81.section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 2005 (SC)

Pu Myllai Hlychho and ors. Vs. State of Mizoram and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-11-2005

Reported in : JT2005(1)SC263; (2005)2SCC92

k.g. balakrishnan, j.1. the provisions of the sixth schedule to the constitution have evolved a separate scheme for the administration of the tribal areas in assam, meghalaya, mizoram and tripura through the institution of district councils or regional councils. these councils are vested with legislative power on specified subjects, allotted sources of taxation and given powers to set up and administer their system of justice and maintain administrative and welfare services in respect of land, revenue, forests, education, public health etc.2. the mara autonomous district council, hereinafter to be referred as 'madc' has thus been constituted as per the provisions of paragraph 2(1) read with paragraph 20 of the sixth schedule to the constitution of india. the madc consists of 19 elected members and the election is through adult franchise and 4 members are nominated by the governor of mizoram by virtue of the powers conferred on him under paragraph 2(1) read with paragraph 20bb of the sixth schedule to the constitution. the term of the elected members is for a period of five years from the date appointed for the first meeting of the council after the general election to the council and the four nominated members would hold office at the pleasure of the governor. the first sitting of the council after the general election was held on 9.2.2000 and on 8.8.2000 four members, namely, mrs. lalbiakluangi sailo; mr. myllai hiychho, mr. c. lawbei and mr. s. lalremthanga were nominated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 2005 (SC)

Jamshed N. Guzdar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC862; 2005(3)BomCR139; JT2005(1)SC370; 2005(2)MhLj392; 2005(1)MPHT497; 2005MPLJ181(SC); (2005)2SCC591; 2005(2)LC812(SC)

shivaraj v. patil, j.1. the constitutional validity of the bombay city civil court and bombay court of small causes (enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction & amendment) act, 1986 (maharashtra act no. xv of 1987) (for short 'the 1987 act), which received assent of the president on 4.5.1987, maharashtra high court (hearing of writ petitions by division bench and abolition of letters patent appeals) act, 1986 (maharashtra act xvii of 1986) (for short 'the 1986 act'), which received the assent of the president on 28.2.1986, and the correctness of the full bench decision of the high court of madhya pradesh striking down the provisions of the madhya pradesh uchcha nyayalaya (letters patent appeals samapti) adhiniyam, 1981 (for short 'the adhiniyam) abolishing letters patent appeals as invalid are under challenge in these matters.civil appeal no. 2452/19922. this appeal is directed against the order of the division bench of the high court of maharashtra made in writ petition no. 738 of 1992. the appellant herein filed writ petition by way of public interest litigation questioning the constitutional validity of the 1987 act. in addition to challenging the constitutional validity of the aforementioned act, he also sought for declaration that the notification dated 20th august, 1991 issued by the state of maharashtra as illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the constitution of india. the high court, after dealing with the rival contentions, dismissed the writ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2005 (SC)

Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Vs. P. Shanmugam ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-10-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC770; 2005(2)ALD87(SC); 2005(2)ALT45(SC); 2005(2)AWC1869(SC); 2005(1)BLJR295; (2005)2CALLT25(SC); [2005(2)JCR88(SC)]; JT2005(1)SC201; (2005)9SCC232

b.n. srikrishna, j.1. one ponnu iyer alias viruddeswara sivacharya had purchased large extent of land and properties. one of such properties was door no.278, west car street, tirunelveli. in 1960 the second respondent who was madathipathi of 'meda madam' and the kartha of family filed o.a. no.74/60 before the deputy commissioner of the hindu religious and charitable endowment under section 63(a) of the hindu religious and charitable endowment act, to declare the property mentioned above as his personal property and not belonging to a religious institution. this application was rejected by the deputy commissioner. an appeal carried by the second respondent to the commissioner was also rejected. in 1969 the second respondent filed a statutory suit being os no.133/69 before the sub-judge, tirunelveli seeking a declaration that the property was his private property. this suit was also dismissed by the sub-judge holding that the property belonged to the 'meda madam' a religious institution. the appeal carried to the high court vide a.s.no.640/1971 was also dismissed. the second respondent thereafter continued to maintain records as directed by the concerned authorities and submitted to the jurisdiction of the hindu religious and charitable endowment act with respect to all the properties belonging to the meda madam. 2. in the year 1978, after the first respondent attained the age of majority he filed a suit for declaration that the properties described in schedule a,b and c of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2005 (SC)

iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Inc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-05-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC514; 2005(2)ALD34(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)191; 2005(2)ALT32(SC); 2005(2)AWC1872(SC); 2005(3)BomCR781; (2005)107BOMLR967; (2005)2CALLT59(SC); 2005(1)CTC304; 118(2005)D

b.n. srikrishna, j.1. leave granted.2. this appeal impugns the judgment of the division bench of the high court of judicature at bombay in a letters patent appeal holding that the amended provision of order viii rule 1 of the code of civil procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'cpc') would not apply to the suits on the original side of the high court and that such suits would continue to be governed by the high court original side rules.facts:3. the appellant company filed suit no. 3092 of 2002 on 16.9.2002 on the original side of the high court of judicature at bombay claiming about rs. 1000 crores on the ground that it had suffered loss and/or damages on account of an alleged fraud on the part of the respondent, a foreign corporation incorporated in the united states of america. the appellant also obtained an ex parte order against the respondent in the nature of an attachment before judgment of receivables in india. on 17.9.2002, the first respondent claims to have dispatched the plaint and all connected papers by courier along with a covering letter of the same date. according to the appellant, the sheriff of bombay was requested to transmit the writ of summons along with the plaint and the other proceedings by regd. a.d. post or by air mail to the respondent, and the sheriff had done it. on 1.10.2002 the respondent filed a detailed affidavit along with an application to vacate the ex parte ad interim order made on 16.9.2002, as a result of which the ex parte .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2005 (SC)

Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resources Polic ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-05-2005

Reported in : (2005)3CompLJ193(SC); 2005(1)CTC609; 2005(192)ELT8(SC); [2005(2)JCR294(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC135; (2005)13SCC186

y.k. sabharwal, j.1. considering the alarming situation created by dumping of hazardous waste, its generation and serious and irreversible damage as a result thereof to the environment, flora and fauna, and also having regard to the magnitude of the problem as a result of failure of the authorities to appreciate the gravity of situation and the need for prompt measures being taken to prevent serious and adverse consequences, a high powered committee (hpc) was constituted by this court with prof.m.g.k. menon as its chairman, in terms of order dated 30th october, 1997. the committee comprised of experts from different disciplines and fields and was required to examine all matters in depth relating to hazardous waste.2. on consideration of the detailed reports submitted by the hpc various directions have been issued by this court from time to time. presently, we are concerned with the presence of hazardous waste oil in 133 containers lying at nhava sheva port as noticed by hpc. on the directions of this court, the oil contained in the said 133 containers was sent for laboratory test to determine whether same is hazardous waste oil or not. it has been found to be hazardous waste.3. on consideration of report of hpc, the result of laboratory test and entire material on record, this court came to the prima facie conclusion that importers illegally imported waste oil in 133 containers in the garb of lubricating oil. in terms of the order dated 25th september, 2003, notices were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2005 (SC)

Pallavi Refractories and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Singareni Collieries Co. L ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-04-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC744; 2005(1)AWC673(SC); [2005(2)JCR289(SC)]; JT2005(1)SC107; (2005)2SCC227

ashok bhan, j.1. leave granted in slp (c) no. 2783 of 1999.2. these appeals by grant of special leave have been filed by the writ petitioners - the appellants herein, against the common order passed by the high court of andhra pradesh in a group of writ petitions. the high court in the impugned judgment has upheld clause 10 of the price notification no. 3/96-97 dated 14.3.1997 issued by m/s. singareni collieries co. ltd. (hereinafter, for short 'the respondent').3. appellants are proprietors of various coal based small-scale industries who draw 'c' and 'd' grade coal from the respondent. respondent is a state owned company in which 51% shares are held by the state of andhra pradesh and 49% shares are held by the government of india.4. government of india has identified 7 core/priority sector industries. they are: 1) exports, 2) power utilities, 3) defence, 4) railways (loco), 5) fertilizers, 6) steel including sponge iron and pig iron and 7) other metallurgical industries who use coal/coke for their own use. core/priority sector industries alone consume about 90-95% of the coal produced and left over 5% plus are supplied to the non-core/unlinked sector industries to which the appellants belong.5. the government of india has been fixing the grades and prices of the coal produced in india in pursuance of clauses 3 and 4 of the colliery control order, 1945 as continued in force by section 16 of the essential commodities act, 1955. it appears that the company had accumulated .....

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 //