Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 5 of about 118 results (0.190 seconds)

Aug 25 2005 (SC)

Pundlik Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-25-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3746; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)1082; 2006(1)BomCR405; JT2005(8)SC1; 2005(4)MhLj254; (2005)7SCC181; 2005(2)LC1324(SC)

c.k. thakker, j.1. leave granted.the present appeal arises out of an order dated july 13, 2005 passed by the high court of bombay in writ petition no. 4291 of 2005. by the said order, the high court was pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the appellant herein.2. to appreciate the controversy raised in the present appeal, relevant facts in brief may be stated.there is a specified society, namely, aurangabad zilla sahakari doodh utpadak sangh ltd., aurangabad, respondent no. 6 herein ('sangh' for short), registered under the maharashtra co-operative societies act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the managing committee of the sangh consists of several members and the appellant as also respondent no. 7 are elected members of the committee. on april 5, 2005, the process for election of respondent no. 3 -maharashtra rajya sahakari doodh maha sangh marvadit, mumbai ('maha sangh' for short) started. the maha sangh directed the sangh to send the name of its delegate on or before april 16, 2005. on april 7, 2005, the sangh called a meeting of the managing committee by issuing an agenda. the meeting was scheduled to be held on april 15, 2005. the agenda contained only one subject regarding discussion of letter dated april 5, 2005 received from the maha sangh. in the said meeting a unanimous decision was taken to send the name of respondent no. 7 as the delegate of the sangh. on may 19, 2005, the maha sangh sent a telegram to the sangh directing it to send the name of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 2005 (SC)

State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Ram and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-25-2005

Reported in : III(2005)ACC717; 2005ACJ2084; AIR2005SC3280; 2005(5)ALD85(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)1090; 2005(4)AWC3868E(SC); 2006(1)BomCR338; IV(2005)CPJ14(SC); 2005(4)CTC627; JT2005(7)SC606;

r.c. lahoti, c.j.1. the plaintiffs-respondents, respectively husband and wife, filed a suit against the state of punjab, the appellant before us and a lady surgeon who was in the state government's employment at the relevant time, for recovery of damages to the tune of rs. 3,00,000/- on account of a female child having been born to them in spite of the wife-respondent no. 2 having undergone a tubectomy operation performed by the lady surgeon. according to the plaintiffs-respondents, they already had a son and two daughters from the wed-lock lasting over 17 years. in response to a publicity campaign carried out by the family welfare department of the appellant-state, respondent no. 2 with the consent of respondent no. 1, underwent a sterilization operation on 1.8.1984. a certificate in this regard bearing mark of identification no. 505, duly signed by the lady surgeon who performed the said surgery, was issued to her. she was given a cash award of rs. 150/- as an incentive for the operation. on 4.10.1991, respondent no. 2 gave birth to a female child. after serving a notice under section 80 of the code of civil procedure, a suit for recovery of damages was filed on 15.5.92 attributing the birth of the child to carelessness and negligence of the lady surgeon. the plaint alleged inter alia that the respondents considered abortion to be a sin and that is why after knowing of the conception they did not opt for abortion.2. the state was impleaded as defendant no. 1 and the lady .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 2005 (SC)

impression Prints Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-1

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-24-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3980; 2005(102)ECC1; 2005(187)ELT170(SC); JT2005(7)SC585; (2005)7SCC497

s.n. variava, j. 1. this appeal is against the judgment dated 27th december, 1999 by the customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal (for short cegat), new delhi.briefly stated the facts are as follows:the appellants are manufacturers, amongst others, of items like bed sheets, bed covers and pillow cases. in this appeal, we are concerned with the question as to whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of notification no. 65/87-ce dated 1st march, 1987 in respect of bed sheets, bed covers and pillow cases. these items fall under tariff item 6301 which consists of 'made up textile articles'. under the notification, these articles have a 'nil' rate of duty 'if made without the aid of power'. the appellants had not taken out any license and were not paying duty. they were issued a show-cause- notice as to why duty be not levied on these items and why penalty be not imposed. the appellants claimed that under the abovementioned notification these items bore a 'nil' rate of duty and that they were therefore not liable to pay duty. their case was not accepted on the ground that in the process of manufacturing printed bed sheets, bed covers and pillow cases they mixed colour with the help of colour mixing machine which was operated with the aid of power. the appellants were therefore called upon to pay duty. penalty was also imposed on them. the appeal of the appellants has been dismissed by the cegat by the impugned judgment.mr. bagaria points out that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 2005 (SC)

G. Reghunathan Vs. K.V. Varghese

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-23-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3680; 2005(4)KLT147(SC); (2005)7SCC317

p.k. balasubramanyan, j.1. leave granted.2. the tenant is before us. he is the tenant of a building governed by the kerala buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1965 (hereinafter called 'the act'). he took on rent a room in the building belonging to the respondent-landlord. he executed an unregistered, insufficiently stamped rent deed on 5.9.1988 which was accepted by the landlord. he entered into possession thereunder. the lease was taken for the purpose of conducting a gold and silver jewellery shop. as per the rent deed, the term of the lease was 15 years. the rent payable was rs. 750/- a month. a sum of rs. 85,000/- was given to the landlord as security. that amount was to be returned to the tenant when he vacated the room. the monthly rent of rs. 750/- was to be paid by the 5th of the succeeding month. the tenant was given the right to install electrical fittings and to take water and telephone connections. he had the right to install all necessary instruments or equipments in the room for the purpose of gold and silver business.3. disputes seem to have arisen immediately thereafter. the tenant did not tender the rent that fell due on 5.10.1988. he removed a door and three windows from the walls of the room and closed up those openings. he cut-off the rafters in the front to a length of two feet. he lowered the level of the floor by one foot. he erected two pillars touching the walls and fixed a rolling shutter in front of the shop. these were done without the written .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 2005 (SC)

Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Arun Dakshy

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-23-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3483; 2005(4)AWC3661(SC); 2005(3)BLJR1838; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN77; IV(2005)CPJ12(SC); [2005(4)JCR54(SC)]; JT2005(12)SC19; (2005)7SCC103

h.k. sema, j1. this appeal preferred by the bihar state housing board is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.10.2001 passed by the national consumer disputes redressal commission (hereinafter the commission) passed in revision petition no. 2099 of 1999 affirming the orders passed by the state consumer dispute redressal commission and district consumer forum awarding interest @ 18%.2. despite receipt of the notice, none entered appearance on behalf of the sole respondent.3. briefly stated the facts are as follows:-on 27.7.1989, the respondent deposited an amount of rs. 15,000/- for allotment of mig house in barari housing colony in bhagalpur, bihar, under the bihar state housing board (management and disposal of housing estate) regulation 1983 (hereinafter the regulation). under the regulation, the allotment of plots/house/flat is to be made by draw of lottery. the respondent was unsuccessful in the draw of lottery and so he could not be allotted a house under the mig category. on 28.7.1993, the respondent issued legal notice to the appellant for refund of an amount of rs. 15,000/-. the aforesaid notice was replied by a letter dated 6.10.1993 by the appellant, directing the respondent to submit original pay-in-slip for the purpose of refund. on 15.11.1994, the respondent submitted the original pay-in-slip. thereafter, the appellant refunded rs. 15,000/- to the respondent vide cheque no. 223231 dated 6.12.1995. on 26.3.1996, the respondent filed a complaint before .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 2005 (SC)

State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. R.S. Bhonde and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-17-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3740; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)1001; 2005(6)BomCR826; [2005(106)FLR1212]; JT2005(7)SC400; (2005)IIILLJ517SC; 2005(4)MhLj1190; (2005)6SCC751; 2005(2)LC1231(SC)

arijit pasayat, j.1. state of maharashtra and the punjabrao krishi vidyapeeth (hereinafter referred to as the 'university') question legality of the judgment rendered by a division bench of the bombay high court, nagpur bench. by the impugned judgment the high court directed that there was no necessity for obtaining approval of the state government for the purpose of treating the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'employees') as the permanent employees w.e.f. 7.11.1983 and that they are entitled to all benefits from that date as permanent employees.2. background facts in a nutshell are as follows:the respondents and several others, who according to the appellants were engaged on seasonal basis, approached the industrial court, maharashtra, nagpur bench, nagpur by filing complaint purportedly under section 28 read with item 6 of schedule iv of the maharashtra recognition of trade unions and prevention of unfair labour practices act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'). the case of the complainants was that they were continuously working with the present appellant no. 2-university in the college of agriculture, nagpur without any break in service as daily-wagers. the nature of duties performed by them is of permanent nature. even though they were being continued as temporary employees, they attended work of permanent nature. according to them this practice was being followed to deprive them from getting benefits which a permanent workman is entitled and this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 2005 (SC)

Shin-etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-12-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3766; 2005(3)ARBLR1(SC); 2005(4)AWC3851(SC); [2005]127CompCas97(SC); 2005(4)CTC297; JT2005(7)SC426; (2005)4MLJ84(SC); (2005)7SCC234; 2005(2)LC1277(SC)

b.n. srikrishna, j.1. leave granted.2. i have had the benefit of carefully considering the erudite judgment delivered by my esteemed and learned brother sabharwal. regretfully, i find myself in the unenviable position of having to disagree with the views expressed therein.the judgment of brother sabharwal fully sets out the facts in the civil appeal arising out of special leave petition (civil) no. 3160/05 as well as the issue which arises for determination. the core issue in this case is: whether the finding of the court made under section 45 of the indian arbitration and conciliation act 1996 ('the act') that the arbitration agreement, falling within the definition of section 44 of the act, is or is not 'null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed' should be a final expression of the view of the court or should it be a prima facie view formed without a full-fledged trial?ambiguity in the wording of section 453. the contrast in language between section 8 and 45 of the act has been rightly noticed by my learned brother. section 8, which leaves no discretion in the court in the matter of referring parties to arbitration, does not apply to the present case, as we are concerned with part ii of the act. on the other hand, section 45 which is directly applicable to the present case, empowers the court to refuse a reference to arbitration if it 'finds' that the arbitration agreement is 'null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed'.4. this court in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2005 (SC)

Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Zora Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2006SC182; 2005(4)AWC3860M(SC); 2005(3)BLJR1820; III(2005)CPJ35(SC); [2005(4)JCR149(SC)]; JT2005(7)SC258; (2006)2MLJ178(SC); RLW2005(4)SC2223; (2005)6SCC776

s.b. sinha, j.1. leave granted in s.l.ps.2. punjab state electricity board (for short 'the board') is a statutory authority created in terms of section 5 of the electricity (supply) act, 1948 inter alia for the purpose of rationalization of the production and supply of electricity to the consumers. supply and distribution of electricity indisputably are public utility services. the respondents herein are agriculturists.3. section 22 of the indian electricity act, 1910 imposes a statutory obligation on the licensee to supply the electrical energy in the following term :'where energy is supplied by a licensee, every person within the area of supply shall, except in so far as is otherwise provided by the terms and conditions of the licence be entitled, on application, to a supply on the same terms as those on which any other person in the same area is entitled in similar circumstances to a corresponding supply.'4. electrical undertakings acquire the character of public utilities by reason of their virtually monopolistic position and their profession to serve the public. the state in exercise of its legislative power had a right to compel the licensees to render service efficiently, promptly and impartially to the members of the public, as has been done by enacting section 22 of the said act. even in common law such public utilities having obtained a licence under a statute are under an automatic obligation by reason of the fact that the property of a public utility is dedicated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 2005 (SC)

Bal Patil and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-08-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3172; 2005(5)ALD123(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)973; 2005(3)AWC2796(SC); 2005(6)BomCR769; [2005(4)JCR60(SC)]; JT2005(7)SC185; (2006)2MLJ186(SC); (2005)6SCC690; 2005(2)LC1

..... . there were also apprehensions expressed by many prominent muslim leaders that there might be interference with and discouragement to their cultural, religious and educational rights. abdul kalam azad acted as mediator in negotiations between the national leaders of the times namely late nehru and patel on one side and late jinnah and liaqat ali on the other. nehru and patel insisted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 2005 (SC)

Kishun @ Ram Kishun (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Bihari (D) by Lrs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-05-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3799; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)936; 2005(6)ALT2(SC); 2005(3)AWC2783(SC); 2005(6)BomCR913; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN10; [2005(4)JCR87(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC614; 2005(4)MhLj1; 2005MPLJ1

p.k. balasubramanyan, j.leave granted.1. one ram charan had two sons, ram kishun called kishun and ram prasad called behari. on 22.09.1966, ram charan gifted a piece of agricultural land to his son kishun by way of a deed of gift. thereupon, behari filed a suit for cancellation of that gift impleading kishun as defendant no. 1 and his father ram charan, as defendant no. 2. he contended that the property was joint family property and hence could not be gifted by the father ram charan and that in any event the deed of gift was got executed by kishun, by practicing fraud. kishun and ram charan filed written statement denying the claim of behari.2. pursuant to the deed of gift in his favour, kishun had approached the tehsildar for effecting mutation. it is claimed by behari that before the tehsildar, a compromise was entered into and an application for recording the compromise was moved. under the compromise, according to behari, the parties agreed that the property would be taken half and half by the two brothers. since this compromise set up by behari was not accepted by kishun and ram charan, the tehsildar did not pass any final order either in respect of the compromise or in respect of the dispute.3. in the suit, behari filed an application under order xxiii rule 3 of the code of civil procedure (for short 'the code') asserting that there was a compromise of the dispute between the parties and that the same may be accepted and the seal of approval affixed thereon by the court .....

Tag this Judgment!


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