Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 3 of about 118 results (0.097 seconds)

Oct 06 2005 (SC)

D. Ganesh Rao Patnaik and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-06-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC4321; 2006(1)BLJR9; [2005(107)FLR868]; [2006(2)JCR91(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC261; 2005(8)SCALE180; (2005)8SCC454; 2006(1)SLJ431(SC)

g.p. mathur, j.1. this appeal, by special leave, has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 1st april, 2003 of the high court of jharkhand by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants was dismissed and the issue raised is that of seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees in the bihar superior judicial service, who are currently serving in the state of jharkhand.2. the bihar superior judicial service rules, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') provide for appointment to the post of additional district and sessions judge by two sources, namely, by direct recruitment from amongst members of the bar and by promotion from amongst members of the bihar civil service (judicial branch), and they further provide that one-third posts in the cadre of service shall be filled in by direct recruitment and two-third shall be filled in by promotion. it appears that direct recruitment to bihar superior judicial service was not regularly made and often the posts of additional district and sessions judges were filled in by promotion. after the year 1979 an advertisement was issued in the year 1985 inviting applications for making appointment to the posts of additional district and sessions judges by direct recruitment. even after the said advertisement had been issued, no action was taken for making the selection for a considerable period of time. one k.p. verma then filed a writ petition in patna high court praying that a writ of mandamus be issued .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 2005 (SC)

K. Channegowda and ors. Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and or ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-06-2005

Reported in : [2006(109)FLR31]; JT2005(12)SC390; (2005)12SCC688; 2006(2)SLJ68(SC)

b.p. singh, j.special leave granted in all the matters.in this batch of appeals the common judgment and order of the high court of karnataka at bangalore dated october 11, 2002 has been assailed. the matter relates to the conduct of competitive examination by karnataka public service commission for recruitment to the post of gazetted probationers (group 'a' and 'b' posts). some of the unsuccessful candidates approached karnataka administrative tribunal with a grievance that the competitive examination conducted by the karnataka public service commission was not fair and impartial. the manner in which the examination was conducted and the evaluation of the answer scripts by the examiners were suspect. in particular allegations were made about the favours shown to one k. rameshwarappa, the appellant in civil appeal arising out of slp (c) no. 24322 of 2003 and two of his relatives who had secured high positions and were ultimately selected.the karnataka administrative tribunal by its judgment and order dated february 6, 2002 allowed the applications filed before it, inasmuch as it found certain irregularities committed in the conduct of the competitive examination, and in particular favours shown to the aforesaid rameshwarappa and some of his relatives. the tribunal ultimately directed the karnataka public service commission to get all the answer scripts evaluated afresh after appointment of fresh examiners in accordance with the procedure contained in the order. it also gave .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2005 (SC)

Rajasthan Financial Corporation and anr. Vs. the Official Liquidator a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-05-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC755; IV(2005)BC551(SC); 2006(1)BomCR531; [2005]128CompCas387(SC); (2005)6CompLJ129(SC); JT2005(12)SC156; (2005)4MLJ184(SC); (2006)142PLR404; 2005(8)SCALE255; (2005)8SCC190

p.k. balasubramanyan, j.1. appellant no. 1, the rajasthan financial corporation, is a corporation constituted under section 3 of the state financial corporations act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the sfc act'). appellant no. 2, the rajasthan state industrial development and investment corporation limited, is a deemed financial institution by virtue of exercise of power by the central government under section 46 of the sfc act. the appellants are the secured creditors of m/s vikas woolen mills ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, 'the company-in- liquidation'). by an order dated 14.6.1994, the company judge of the high court of bombay ordered the company-in-liquidation to be wound up. the official liquidator was directed to take charge of the assets of the company-in-liquidation. on 18.4.1995, the official liquidator applied for directions to the company court. he sought permission to get the property valued by a valuer from the panel of valuers of the official liquidator, and to sell the properties by public auction. he sought the issue of a direction to the appellants, the secured creditors, to advance rs. 25,000/- each to the official liquidator to meet the expenses for selling the assets of the company-in-liquidation on condition that the amounts would be reimbursed to the appellants on priority basis from the sale proceeds. the information about the filing of this application was conveyed by the official liquidator to the appellants by communication dated 21.4.1995. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2005 (SC)

Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-05-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC59; JT2005(12)SC442; 2006MPLJ1(SC); 2005(8)SCALE338; (2005)12SCC778

p.p. naolekar, j.1. leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 2. in all the above appeals, a common question of law arises for determination and therefore they are heard together and are decided by the common judgment. 3. all these appeals have been preferred by the tenants against whom a decree for eviction from their tenanted premises were passed by the controller and confirmed by the punjab and haryana high court. in three appeals, namely, s.l.p. (c) no. 17622/2003 - mohinder singh v. git singh, slp (c) 19540/2003 - laxmi kant v. surjit singh channa and slp (c) 4566/2004 shangara singh v. malkiat singh leave to contest were granted by the controllers and after trial, decrees for ejectment were passed against the tenants. in other appeals, leave to contest the landlords' applications' for ejectment were rejected at the initial stage by the controllers. 4. certain provisions of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the act of 1949') which have been inserted by punjab act no. 9 of 2001 dated 31.5.2001 have been elaborately discussed by the high court in the matter of baldev singh bajwa v. monish saini and therefore we will refer to the facts of that case for consideration and interpretation of the sections inserted in the act of 1949 by act no. 9 of 2001 and shall elaborate and discuss the factual aspects necessary, in regard to the other appeals in the latter part of the judgment. 5. the facts, in brief, in the matter of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2005 (SC)

Shankuntla Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-03-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC637; 2005(6)ALT78(SC); 101(2006)CLT336(SC); JT2005(9)SC217; 2006(I)OLR(SC)120; (2005)8SCC437

order1. we have heard mr. madan mohan rai who states that he is the husband of the petitioner herein. pursuant to the order dated 25.8.2005 mrs. k. sarada devi, advocate has been appointed as legal aid counsel for the petitioner. she has also been heard by us. 2. we have also perused the contents of the writ petition and the documents annexed therewith. we are satisfied that the case does not call for consideration in exercise of our jurisdiction under article 32 of the constitution of india. 3. we are constrained to observe that a number of cases are being filed in this court wherein the petitioners claim themselves to be freedom fighters and hence entitled to pension under a scheme framed by the central government. in most of these cases, the state governments have found the petitioners' not entitled to the grant of such pension and, therefore, their cases have not been recommended by the state governments to the central government. by filing petitions under articles 32 of the constitution before this court the state governments are being noticed to appear and showcause here and also to produce the relevant documents. we feel that such matters, wherever the petitioners have a genuine grievance, can better be dealt with by the high court. filing of such petitions in this court directly by invoking article 32 of the constitution has to be discouraged. 4. the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition in the high court, if so .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2005 (SC)

G. Srinivas Goud Vs. State of A.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-03-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3647; 2005CriLJ4367; JT2005(12)SC215; 2005(8)SCALE34; (2005)8SCC183; 2005(2)LC1509(SC)

..... and proceeded to the place in question along with two constables. on his way he took two persons along, one of them being a police constable to act as a mediators/independent persons. the memo of search proceeding is exhibit p.1. after reaching the spot he prepared a panchnama. exhibit p.2 which is signed by the accused persons, two ..... our view, there is no substance in the argument. p.w. 5 is a reserve policeman and there is no bar in law for a policeman to act as a mediator/paunch witness. it should be kept in view that this was a raid which was conducted by excise officials and not by the police.6. the main thrust of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2005 (SC)

Gopal Zarda Udyog Etc. Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Del ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-30-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC4243; 2005(102)ECC513; 2005(188)ELT251(SC); JT2005(12)SC119; 2005(8)SCALE26; (2005)8SCC157

..... in the manufacture of chewing tobacco (final product) falling under sub-heading 2404.40 of tariff act, 1985. in the manufacture of the final product, they were using an inter-mediate product known as 'additive mixture'. an intelligence was collected by the officers of the preventive wing of the commissionerate to the effect that the appellants were manufacturing the said 'additive .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2005 (SC)

Ram Bhual Vs. Ambika Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-29-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC4233; 2005(4)AWC3786(SC); JT2005(12)SC49; 2005(7)SCALE669; (2005)12SCC121

p.k. balasubramanyan, j.1. in the elections to the uttar pradesh legislative assembly held on 21.02.2002, the appellant herein was declared elected from 166, kauriram assembly constituency (general). the election of the appellant was challenged by the respondent, the defeated candidate, by election petition no. 5 of 2002 filed in the high court of allahabad under section 80 read with section 81 of the representation of the people act, 1951. the challenge to the election was rested on section 100 (1) (c) of the act. the plea was that the returning officer, while scrutinizing the nominations, had wrongly rejected the nomination of an independent candidate sita ram examined as p.w. 2. the appellant resisted the election petition by questioning the right of the election petitioner to file the election petition based on the rejection of the nomination of another candidate, who had not come forward to challenge that rejection. the high court, based on the decision of this court in somnath rath v. bikram k. arukh and ors. : air1999sc3417, took the view that the wrongful rejection of the nomination of any candidate can be taken as a ground for challenging an election in an election petition by the defeated candidate and hence the election petition was maintainable. it then proceeded to consider whether the nomination paper of sita ram, p.w. 2 was improperly rejected. having come to the conclusion, on the pleadings and the evidence in the case, that the nomination of sita ram was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2005 (SC)

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Kanda Gopaludu

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-27-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3616; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)279; JT2006(2)SC412; (2005)13SCC116

h.k. sema, j.1. the respondent was convicted by the trial court under section 302 ipc. the trial court relying upon the extra-judicial confession made before pw.1, pw.2 and pw.3 found the respondent guilty. the trial court also relied upon the evidence of pw.9, the investigating officer corroborated by the evidence of pw.5, doctor. on appeal being preferred by the accused, the high court acquitted the accused respondent herein.this appeal is preferred by the state by special leave.2. the high court recorded the acquittal on the ground that pw.1 and pw.2 before whom the accused made extra-judicial confession are strangers and there is no reason for the respondent to make the extra-judicial confession before pw.1, pw.2 and pw.3. the high court also found that the statements of pws. 1 and 2 were full of contradiction and artificial. on this ground the accused was acquitted, however, the high court has not assigned any reason with regard to the alleged contradiction between the statements of pw.1 and pw.2 and the acquittal is not supported at all. it is now well established principle of law that the judicial decision is based on reasons. we have been taken through the evidence of pws.1, 2 and 3 before whom the accused made extra-judicial confession. it is now established principle of law that extra-judicial confession is admissible if it inspired confidence ' and made voluntarily. the high court reasoning that the accused has made a confession statement before a stranger is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2005 (SC)

State Through C.B.i. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-26-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3490; 2005(3)BLJR2084; 2005CriLJ4149; 123(2005)DLT362(SC); 2005(85)DRJ227; JT2005(8)SC517; 2005(7)SCALE489; (2005)8SCC21

ashok bhan, j.1. leave granted.2. the state of uttar pradesh through cbi aggrieved by the orders dated 29th april, 2004 and 8th july, 2004 passed by a single judge of allahabad high court (lucknow bench) in crl. misc. case no. 1402(b)/2004 and no. 1954(b)/2004 releasing the accused amarmani tripathi (accused no. 5) and madhumani tripathi (accused no. 40 on bail have filed these appeals.3. on 9th may, 2003 madhumita shukla was shot dead in her house located in paper mill colony by two persons who were later on identified as santosh kumar rai and prakash chandra pandey. investigation in the case revealed that madhumita shukla was killed pursuant to a conspiracy involving amarmani tripathi and his wife smt. madhumani tripathi, nidhi shukla lodged a report in regard to the blind murder of her sister madhumita shukla on 9.5.2003 in the mahanagar police station, lucknow. the case was transferred to crime branch, cid on 17.5.2003. on a request made by the state on 17.6.2003, the cbi took over the investigation.4. the case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:amarmani tripathi, a minister in the u.p. government, at the relevant time, was having an affair with deceased madhumita shukla, a young poetess. this led to madhumita's pregnancy thrice. on the first twooccasions, the pregnancy was aborted at the instance of amarmani. on the third occasion, inspite of pressure and persuasion by amarmani, madhumita refused to abort the pregnancy. the post-mortem revealed a six month old .....

Tag this Judgment!


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