Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 2 of about 118 results (0.097 seconds)

Jul 11 2005 (SC)

N.V. Srinivasa Murthy and ors. Vs. Mariyamma (Dead) by Proposed Lrs. a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2897; 2005(5)ALD113(SC); 2005(3)AWC2541(SC); 2005(3)CTC545; JT2005(6)SC1; 2005(5)KarLJ17; 2005(II)OLR(SC)425; (2005)5SCC548; 2005(2)LC898(SC)

d.m. dharmadhikari, j. 1. in these appeals preferred by the plaintiffs the only question involved is whether the trial court and the high court were right in holding that the plaint under order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure was liable to rejection. the high court by the impugned order passed in misc. second appeal reversed the order of the first appellate court and upheld that of the trial court.2. learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in this appeal contends that if the plaint allegations containing all facts are read in proper perspective, 'cause of action' has clearly been pleaded and the high court grossly erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action.3. with the assistance and on the comments and counter comments of the parties, we have carefully gone through the contents of the plaint. we find that the plaint has been very cleverly drafted with a view to get over the bar of limitation and payment of ad valorem court fee. according to us, the plaint was rightly held to be liable to rejection if not on the alleged ground of non-disclosure of any cause of action but on the ground covered by clause (d) of rule 11 of order vii of code of civil procedure namely that 'the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be clearly barred by law'.4. as per the plaint allegations of the plaintiffs, their late father had incurred some debts and had therefore borrowed a sum of rs. 2000/- from the predecessor in title .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 2005 (SC)

Shanti Prasad Devi and anr. Vs. Shankar Mahto and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2905; 2005(4)ALD116(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)848; 2005(3)AWC2537(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1608; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN119; 2005(3)CTC550; JT2005(6)SC6; 2005(II)OLR(SC)431; (2005)5

..... before the expiry of original period of lease and second, fixation of terms and conditions for the renewed period of lease by mutual consent and in absence thereof through the mediation of local mukhia or panchas of the village. the aforesaid renewal clauses (7) & (9) in the agreement of lease clearly fell within the expression 'agreement to the contrary' used in ..... . the renewal as provided in the original contract was required to be obtained by following a specified procedure i.e. on mutually agreed terms or in the alternative through the mediation of mukhias and panchas. in the instant case, there is a renewal clause in the contract prescribing a particular period and mode of renewal which was 'an agreement to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 2005 (SC)

Kedar Nath Dubey (D) by Lrs. and ors. Vs. Sheo NaraIn Dubey (D) by Lrs ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-12-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1800(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN39; JT2005(5)SC467; (2005)10SCC621

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. challenge in this appeal is to the decision by a learned single judge of the allahabad high court holding that the auction sale on 18.8.1989 and confirmation thereof was illegal. kedar nath dubey, the predecessor of the appellant was the successful bidder. objection filed by sheo narain dubey, the predecessor of non-official respondents was rejected by order dated 18.8.1989.3. a brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.4. the writ petitioner, sheo narain dubey, the predecessor of non-official respondents had taken a loan for purchasing pumping set from u.p. state sahkari agricultural avam gram vikas bank limited, salenpur, deoria. as the said loan was not repaid within the stipulated time, proceedings were initiated for recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue under the uttar pradesh zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1950 (in short 'the act'). land belonging to the writ petitioner was auctioned on 18.8.1989. bid of kedar nath dubey, the predecessor of the present appellant was accepted. sheo narain dubey filed objection under rule 285(1) of the uttar pradesh zamindari abolition and land reforms rules, 1953 (in short 'the rules'). the stand taken was that there was material irregularity in the service of notice as well as in conducting the sale and thereby rule 285(a) of the rules had been violated. the said objection was rejected and the sale was confirmed. the writ petition was filed in 1991. mutation proceedings .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2005 (SC)

Amit Kumar Shaw and anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-13-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2209; 2005(4)ALD98(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)458; 2005(2)AWC1348(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1273; 2005(5)BomCR690; (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN83; 2005(4)CTC47; JT2005(5)SC20; 2005(2)KLT80; (2005)11SCC403

ar. lakshmanan, j. 1. leave granted.2. these two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2004 passed by the high court at calcutta in c.a.n. no. 2642 of 2004 in s.a.no. 631 of 1993 and in c.a.n. no. 2643 of 2004 in s.a.no. 632 of 1993 whereby the high court dismissed the applications filed by the appellants for substitution of their names, namely, amit kumar shaw and anand kumar shaw as contesting respondents in place and stead of birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey, both since deceased and represented by their legal heirs in their place. according to the appellants, the respondents above named had sold the suit property to the appellants, who are the only persons interested in the said suit property.3. the service of notice is complete in both the matters but no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.4. the short facts are as follows:the property in question originally belonged to khetra mohan das and subsequently by way of lease and transfer; the said property ultimately came in the hands of birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey. there were troubles in between the original owner and the said birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey and as a result of that, the suit was filed. one fakir mohammad claimed his right, title and interest in respect of the property in question by way of adverse possession. ultimately, both the appeals being title appeal no. 400 of 1989 and title appeal no. 7 of 1990 were allowed by a common judgment and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2005 (SC)

Sona Bala Bora and ors. Vs. Jyotirindra Bhatacharjee

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-11-2005

Reported in : 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)1128; 2005(2)AWC1593(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN114; 100(2005)CLT147(SC); 2005(1)CTLJ345(SC); JT2005(4)SC418; (2005)4SCC501; 2005(1)LC626(SC)

ruma pal, j1. leave granted.2. the first appellant is the widow of bhogirath bora. the appellants 2-4 are their children. they reside in a bungalow which is situated in an area of .176 acres of land at shillong. there are two other bungalows on the same plot which are tenanted. the respondent claims to have purchased the three bungalows and the land from bhogirath in 1977 for a consideration of rs. 69,000/-.3. in 1978, the respondent filed a title suit against, inter alia the appellants and bhogirath, (who was named as a proforma defendant) claiming a declaration that he was the absolute and exclusive owner of the land and buildings, for a decree for vacant possession by evicting the appellants and the tenants therefrom, for mesne profits, interest thereon and costs.4. the appellants also, filed a suit against the respondent and bhogirath claiming a declaration that bhogirath did not have the absolute right to transfer the property to the respondent, that the sale made to the respondent was void and should be set aside, for a declaration that bhogirath was bound by the terms of a compromise petition dated 10th june, 1977 filed in ct. case no. 3/1977 and that the appellants had a preferential right and a right of preemption to purchase the other two houses on the land.5. it is an admitted position that in 1977, bhogirath had filed a complaint (case no. 3/1977) against some of the appellants before the magistrate under section 107 of the code of criminal procedure. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2005 (SC)

Yamuna Nagar Improvement Trust Vs. Khariati Lal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2245; 2005(3)AWC2353(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN148; JT2005(4)SC261; (2005)10SCC30; 2005(1)LC617(SC)

c.k. thakker, j1. leave granted.2. these appeals are filed by yamuna nagar improvement trust challenging the legality of judgment and decree passed by civil judge (senior division), jagadhri, dated january 28, 1999, confirmed by the additional district judge, jagadhri on november 24, 2000 and also confirmed by the high court of punjab and haryana on august 14, 2003.3. to appreciate the controversy in the appeals, relevant facts of both the cases may be stated in brief.4. in the first matter, a suit was filed by kharaiti lal, s/o deewan chand, for permanent injunction restraining yamuna nagar improvement trust ('trust' for short) from interfering with actual and physical possession over the residential house owned by the plaintiff by demolishing the construction made by him. the case of the plaintiff was that he along with his brother mulakh raj purchased the property bearing khasra no. 173 min, mauza gobindpuri now sham nagar, near bus stand, model town, yamuna nagar, from one mangal, s/o nihala vide registered sale deed dated march 9, 1962 for valuable consideration. it was his case that in pursuance of the sale deed, physical and actual possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff and his brother by mulakh raj. thereafter the plaintiff constructed a residential house wherein he was residing alongwith his family members. according to the plaintiff, he was paying house tax to the municipal committee, yamuna nagar. water and electric connection was also given to him .....

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!

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!

Oct 28 2005 (SC)

Bishna @ Bhiswadeb Mahato and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-28-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC302; (2006)3CALLT9(SC); JT2005(9)SC290; (2005)12SCC657

s.b. sinha, j.1. bhadsa is a small village situate at a distance of 12 kms. from the district headquarters known as purulia in the state of west bengal. on 1.12.1982, prankrishna, deceased and chepulal (pw-14) heard some sounds coming from the side of their shivatara land situate in the said village. they informed their brother nepal mahato (pw-25) about the same. they also informed haradhan mahato (pw-2) and who in turn informed subhas mahato (pw-13). when the three brothers were proceeding towards their land, sambhu mahato (pw-1) met them on the road. when they reached near the land in question, being plot no. 550, they found some persons were engaged in cutting of paddy therefrom. nilkantha, bhiswa alias bishna, manmatha alias mathan, kalipada, bulu, patal, lalbas, haralal, ramanath, majhi, chinbas alias srinibash (accused nos.1 to 11 respectively) were standing on the ail (ridge on the agricultural land). the accused persons were variously armed. they were asked not to cut paddy but did not pay any heed thereto. altercations started. all of a sudden, bulu (appellant no. 3) threw an arrow which struck nepal mahato (pw-25). they also exhorted shouting 'marsaladiga'. the complainant party retreated to some extent. they were chased near the bed of tank called 'upper bundh'. nepal mahato (pw-25) was surrounded by the accused. he was hit on his left leg with tabla by mathan whereas haralal hit him with a tabla on his back. bhiswa (appellant no. 1) assaulted on his head with a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 2005 (SC)

Triloki Nath and ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-28-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC321; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)1; JT2005(9)SC370; (2005)13SCC323

..... 'may be that the lathi used by khuddey hit triloki'. merely a suggestion was given to pw-3 on behalf of the appellants that triloki nath and sahdev tried to mediate between the two groups and after they started beating triloki nath and sahdev with lathi and in the melee triloki nath and sahdev in turn assaulted others, but the same .....

Tag this Judgment!


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