Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 6 of about 118 results (0.081 seconds)

Aug 04 2005 (SC)

State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-04-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3820; 2005CriLJ3950; 122(2005)DLT194(SC); (2005)11SCC600

p. venkatarama reddi, j.1. the genesis of this case lies in a macabre incident that took place close to the noon time on 13th december, 2001 in which five heavily armed persons practically stormed the parliament house complex and inflicted heavy casualties on the security men on duty. this unprecedented event bewildered the entire nation and sent shock waves across the globe. in the gun battle that lasted for 30 minutes or so, these five terrorists who tried to gain entry into the parliament when it was in session, were killed. nine persons including eight security personnel and one gardener succumbed to the bullets of the terrorists and 16 persons including 13 security men received injuries. the five terrorists were ultimately killed and their abortive attempt to lay a seize of the parliament house thus came to an end, triggering off extensive and effective investigations spread over a short span of 17 days which revealed the possible involvement of the four accused persons who are either appellants or respondents herein and some other proclaimed offenders said to be the leaders of the banned militant organization known as 'jaish-e-mohammed'. after the conclusion of investigation, the investigating agency filed the report under section 173 cr.p.c. against the four accused persons on 14.5.2002. charges were framed under various sections of indian penal code (for short 'ipc'), the prevention of terrorism act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'pota') and the explosive .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 2005 (SC)

Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-02-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3353; 2005(5)ALD1(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)876; 2005(3)ARBLR81(SC); 2005(3)AWC2996(SC); 2005(3)BLJR1934; 2005(6)BomCR839; (2006)2GLR1312; JT2005(6)SC486; 2005(6)KarLJ5

..... suit or in any other suit or proceedings.(vii) such other categories of persons as may be notified by the high court.rule 6 : venue for conducting mediation :the mediator shall conduct the mediation at one or other of the following places:(i) venue of the lok adalat or permanent lok adalat.(ii) any place identified by the district judge within the ..... commit to participate in the proceedings in good faith with the intention to settle the dispute, if possible.rule 20 : confidentiality, disclosure and inadmissibility of information:(1) when a mediator receives confidential information concerning the dispute from any party, he shall disclose the substance of that information to the other party, if permitted in writing by the first party.(2 ..... directed to examine it and if agreed, it shall request the planning commission and finance commission to make specific financial allocation for the judiciary for including the expenses involved for mediation/conciliation under section 89 of the code. in case, central government has any reservations, the same shall be placed before the court within four months. in such event, the ..... , the court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for--(a) arbitration;(b) conciliation;(c) judicial settlement including settlement through lok adalat; or(d) mediation.(2) where a dispute has been referred--(a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply as if the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 2005 (SC)

Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-02-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3073; 2005(192)ELT33(SC); JT2005(6)SC560; (2005)6SCC292; [2005]142STC76(SC)

ruma pal, j.1. the issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax under the andhra pradesh general sales tax act 1957 as notified by g.o.m.s. no. 117 dated 17th march, 1993 (referred to in brief as the '1993 g.o.').2. the 1993 g.o. was issued by the government of andhra pradesh, industries and commerce department to effectuate the liberalized state incentive scheme for setting up new industries as introduced by the government in 1989. the package of incentives already granted by the state government was reviewed whereafter the state government decided to introduce certain modifications in order to accelerate industrial development in the state. the incentives were granted on the basis of districts according to their grouping under areas i, ii and iii. we are concerned with district medak, falling within area ii.3. apart from an investment subsidy, rebate on electricity charges and a deferment/tax holiday on sales tax for specified periods on products manufactured in the new industrial units were granted in clauses 5(c) and 5(b) respectively of the 1993 g.o. medium and large scale industries were given sales tax deferment, whereas tiny and small scale industries were given a sales tax (holiday) exemption. the appellant falls within the latter category. in terms of the 1993 g.o. units like the appellant's were given a 5 years sales tax holiday subject to a ceiling of hundred percent of fixed capital costs or rs. 35 lakhs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 2005 (SC)

ishwar Dutt Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-02-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3165; 2005(4)AWC3202(SC); 101(2006)CLT29(SC); [2005(4)JCR142(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC540; RLW2005(3)SC439; (2005)7SCC190

ashok bhan, j.1. claimants/appellants aggrieved against the common/similar judgments and orders dated 20.12.1999 passed by the high court of himachal pradesh dismissing their claim for interest @ 12% granted by an earlier order of the division bench of the same high court in c.w.p. no. 510/85 dated 9.9.1985 on equitable consideration for depriving them of their lands without taking proceedings under the land acquisition act and payment of compensation have come up in these batch of appeals.2. facts being common and similar it would be sufficient to refer to the facts of ca no. 443 of 2001 for the purposes of deciding the controversy involved in these appeals.3. some areas of himachal pradesh before re-organisation of the state of punjab on 1.11.1966 formed part of the erstwhile state of punjab. public works department, government of punjab in the year 1966 took up the construction of solan-jawanji-dharja road. after the re-organisation of the states on 1.11.1966 the pwd department of h.p. took over the construction. the road was finally commissioned in the year 1968. possession of the land owned by the appellants comprising of khasra no. 102/1 situated in village bagur, tehsil and district solan, along with the lands of large number of villages that came under the said road construction plan was taken over in the year 1968. though the possession of the land was taken over from the land-owners in december, 1968 no steps were taken to formally acquire the land by issuing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 2005 (SC)

State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Ram Bachan Tripathi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-02-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3212; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)858; [2005(106)FLR1214]; JT2005(10)SC341; (2005)IIILLJ731SC; 2006(1)SLJ71(SC)

arijit pasayat, j.1. the state of uttar pradesh is in appeal against the judgment rendered by a division bench of the allahabad high court holding that the order of termination dated 14.10.1992 terminating services of the respondent w.e.f. 10.5.1988 was illegal, as held by state public service tribunal, lucknow, u.p. (in short 'the tribunal'). tribunal's view was that the order of termination was bad in law, the respondent was to be reinstated in service without all consequential benefits of pay, allowance etc., as per the prevailing rules. liberty, however, was given to the state and its functionaries to initiate departmental proceedings for the alleged misconduct of respondent-employee.2. background facts which need to be noted in brief are as under:the respondent-employee who was selected by the uttar pradesh public service commission (in short 'the commission') for appointment to the post of medical officer was posted in the district of basti. on 29.2.1988 the chief medical officer, basti directed the respondent-employee to join the primary health center at deno kuiya, district basti. he submitted the joining report on 29.2.1988. subsequently, he was transferred to district gorakhpur and the respondent-employee submitted his joining report on 15.7.1988. according to the appellant-state the respondent-employee was asked to take over charge on 15.7.1988(fn) and he was to join at mirzapur gorakhpur, the respondent-employee did not take over the charge at the said place and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2005 (SC)

Phool Pata and anr. Vs. Vishwanath Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-01-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3079; 2005(6)ALD97(SC); 2005(4)AWC3199(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN1; 100(2005)CLT331(SC); 2005(4)CTC573; (2005)197CTR(SC)598; JT2005(6)SC483; (2005)4MLJ123(SC); (2005

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by learned single judge of the allahabad high court, lucknow bench in a second appeal under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short 'cpc'). the plaintiffs- respondents herein had filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 30.7.1977 as well as for cancellation of sale deed dated 14.5.1980. according to the plaintiffs a sum of rs.2,500/- had been paid as advance money and the consideration for sale was fixed at rs. 10,000/-. thus the balance amount of rs. 7,500/- was to be paid at the time of execution of sale-deed. the suit was contested by the present appellant-defendant no. 3. the present appellant along with defendant no.1 (respondent no. 4) contended that the permission to sell the land had been obtained from the settlement officer (consolidation) during the year 1980. when the plaintiffs were requested to purchase the land, they did not agree to get the sale deed executed. thereafter defendant no.1-jogendra singh executed the sale deed in favour of the present appellant and respondent no.5.3. the trial court decreed the suit and directed for specific compliance of the agreement to sale, in dispute, dated 30.7.1977 and cancellation of sale deed dated 14.5.1980 along with other reliefs. the matter was carried in appeal before the learned additional district judge, gonda who allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court and directed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 2005 (SC)

Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-i Vs. Bisleri International Pri ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-27-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3977; 2005(101)ECC433; 2005(186)ELT257(SC); JT2005(6)SC439; (2005)6SCC58

s.h. kapadia, j.1. a short question which arises for determination in these appeals filed by the department under section 35-l (b) of the central excise act, 1944 (for short 'the said act') is whether the assessee had undervalued the aerated water by excluding two items, namely, the amounts received under credit notes as price support incentive and rent on containers (roc) from the assessable value?2. for the sake of convenience, we mention hereinbelow the facts in civil appeal no. 772 of 2001, in the case of commissioner of central excise, meerut-i v. bisleri international private limited(formerly known as m/s coolade beverages ltd.).3. m/s. coolade beverages ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') were manufacturers of aerated waters. the manufacturing activity of the assessee basically consisted of bottling. the assessee obtained the concentrate (raw-material) for aerated water from a subsidiary of coca cola corporation. the name of that subsidiary was m/s britco food company ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'm/s britco'). the assessee sold the bottled aerated water to the wholesale dealers.4. the department found that the assessee used to collect from some wholesale dealers roc @ rs. 7.50 per crate. the department further found that the assessee used to receive price support incentives in the form of credit notes from m/s britco. accordingly, the department issued show-cause notice contending that the cost of roc and the value of price support incentive were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2005 (SC)

State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Sukhwinder Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-14-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2960; JT2005(6)SC170; (2005)141PLR402; (2005)5SCC569; 2005(3)SLJ186(SC)

g.p. mathur, j. 1. this appeal, by special leave, has been preferred by the state of punjab and others challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2001 of the high court of punjab and haryana by which the second appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and the decree passed by the courts below decreeing the respondent's suit was affirmed.2. the respondent sukhwinder singh joined on 4.8.1989 as a police constable and was allotted number 644 in district amritsar in the state of punjab. he was sent for training at police recruit training college jahan khelan. he absented from duty w.e.f. 22.2.1990 without making any application for grant of leave or seeking permission for his absence. the senior superintendent of police, amritsar, passed the following order on 16.3.1990:-'constable sukhwinder singh no. 644/asr of this district is discharged from service w.e.f. 16.3.1990 under punjab police rules 12.21 as he is not likely to become an efficient police officer.'the respondent sukhwinder singh filed a civil suit in the court of sub-judge, amritsar, seeking a declaration that the order dated 16.3.1990, passed by the senior superintendent of police, amritsar, discharging him from service, was illegal and inoperative in law as it was passed by way of punishment, without holding any enquiry and without giving him any opportunity of hearing. the appellants herein contested the suit on various grounds and the main plea taken therein was that the respondent had to put in less .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 2005 (SC)

K. Vidya Sagar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-12-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2911; [2005(3)JCR219(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC20; (2005)5SCC581

g.p. mathur, j.1. this petition under article 32 of the constitution has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or other directions be issued to:-'a) conduct an inquiry by any hon'ble judge of the hon'ble high court or an independent and impartial authority regarding the fir 521 dt. 9.7.98 lodged at sector 20 p.s. noida and the harassment caused to the petitioner for the last six years and grant compensation to the petitioner for rehabilitation at delhi.b) grant compensation to the petitioner for a further period of two years for restoration of his earlier practice and for settling in delhi with his family.c) conduct an inquiry into the loss caused to y. pitchaiah the client of the petitioner whose original record was stolen by the accused after he fought the litigation for 15 years in the courts below.d) conduct an inquiry by any hon'ble judge of the hon'ble high court or an independent and impartial authority regarding six years of delay in prosecuting the accused especially with reference to the proceedings in crl. revision no. 33/2002 at dehradun in the state of uttaranchal.e) direct the special magistrate, c.b.i. cases, karkardooma, delhi, to file status report for every 3 months.f) pass any other writ/order/direction as this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.2. the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that smt. tara bhatt (respondent no. 4) gave on rent the ground floor of flat .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 2005 (SC)

Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. and anr. Vs. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-12-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2968; 2005(191)ELT20(SC); JT2005(6)SC28; (2005)11SCC149; [2005]141STC406(SC)

ruma pal, j.1. the issue in these appeals is the extent of the entitlement of the respondent to the benefit of exemption from payment of trade tax granted under a notification dated 27th july, 1991 issued under section 4a of the u.p. trade tax act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act')2. the respondent manufactures and sells ceramic files in its factory at sikandarabad, district bulandshahr in the state of uttar pradesh since 1988 having received an industrial licence from the government of india to do so. the annual production capacity of the- respondent was 12000 tpa (tonnes per annum). the total investment made in the unit upto 12th august, 1988 was rs. 16,21,54,452/- and the first sale was effected on 16th august, 1988.3. a notification issued on 26th december, 1985 (referred to as the 1985 notification) under section 4-a of the act granted a six-years' tax exemption in respect of new units having an investment in excess of 3 lakhs starting production on or after the first date of october, 1982 but not later than the first day of march, 1990. admittedly the respondents unit fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the notification and, since its investments exceeded rs. 3 lakhs, it was granted exemption for six years which was reckoned from the date of first sate i.e. from 16th august, 1988 to 15th august, 1994.4. during the period 1st april, 1990 to 15th august, 1990 the capacity of the respondent's unit was increased from 12000 to 26000 tonnes per annum. a further .....

Tag this Judgment!


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