Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 7 of about 118 results (0.078 seconds)

Jul 12 2005 (SC)

Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi Vs. Chhatra Devi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-12-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2497(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1642; 2006(1)BomCR466; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN135; 100(2005)CLT679(SC); 2005(3)CTC577; (2005)197CTR(SC)602; [2005(3)JCR201(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC167;

arijit pasayat, j. 1. leave granted.2. appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single judge of the patna high court in second appeal in terms of section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short the 'code'). the respondents are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff-ishraj narayan singh. the original plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of his title over the suit land and declaration of want of title of smt. ram sakhi devi, the appellant herein, the defendant no. 3 in the suit. the trial court had decreed the suit but in appeal the first appellate court reversed it. the respondents filed the second appeal before the patna high court. by the impugned judgment the high court restored the judgment and decree of the trial court and set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court.3. though many points v/ere urged in support of the appeal, the pivotal plea was that the high court could not have interfered with the judgment and decree of the first appellate court without framing a substantial question of law as enjoined by section 100 of the code. the high court can only exercise its jurisdiction under section 100 of the code in second appeal on the basis of substantial question of law framed at the time of admitting appeal. a second appeal can be heard and decided only on the basis of substantial question of law, if any. the judgment rendered by the high court in second appeal without following the aforesaid .....

Tag this Judgment!

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 13 2005 (SC)

Sanjeev Bhatnagar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-13-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2841; 2005(2)AWC1804(SC); 120(2005)DLT147(SC); [2005(3)JCR133(SC)]; JT2005(5)SC323; 2005(II)OLR(SC)405; (2005)5SCC330

r.c. lahoti, c.j.1. on 24th january 1950, the constituent assembly of india finally met to sign the constitution. the question of having a national anthem for india as a free country and a nation was under consideration. the constituent assembly had appointed a committee to make recommendations about the final selection of a national anthem.2. after deliberations it was considered desirable to leave it with the president to make a declaration in the assembly on the question of adopting a national anthem for india. in the constitution hall, on 24th january 1950, where the constituent assembly of india finally met to sign the constitution, president dr. rajendra prasad declared his decision on the matter relating to national anthem in his opening statement in the following words:'there is one matter which has been pending for discussion, namely the question of the national anthem. at one time it was thought that the matter might be brought up before the house and a decision taken by the house by way of a resolution. but it has been felt that, instead of taking a formal decision by means of a resolution, it was better if i make a statement with regard to the national anthem. accordingly i make this statement.the composition consisting of the words and music known as jana gana mana is the national anthem of india, subject to such alterations in the words as the government may authorise as occasion arises; and the song vande mataram, which has played a historic part in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 2005 (SC)

Seeman @ Veeranam Vs. State, by Inspector of Police

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-12-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2503; 2005CriLJ2618; JT2005(5)SC555; (2005)11SCC142

p.p. naolekar, j.1. three accused persons viz., seeman, neelagiri and leelavathi, were tried for committing murder of one murugan, under section 302 ipc. accused - appellant no.1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the sessions court. the other two accused persons were acquitted. the said conviction and sentence, having been confirmed by the high court, the appellant challenged the same before this court by filing this appeal. the prosecution case, in short is that the deceased murugan was the resident of village chithakkur. three years prior to the occurrence, deceased murugan and a girl named kani fell in love and eloped from the village. they were brought back by the villagers. after some time, kani was married to some other person and deceased murugan also got married to some other girl of a nearby village. on account of this incident, the accused persons had grudge to grind against the deceased, having brought bad name to the family and were awaiting an opportunity to take revenge. the deceased was advised by the well-wishers to leave the village and settle down at some other place. he settled at village kariappati. on the day of the incidence, i.e., 26.1.92 deceased came to chithakkur in search of his grandmother. at the village, he was informed that his grandmother has left the village and has gone to a place thirukkani to collect her pension. the information was given to him by pw2 - raja @ perumal. thereafter, the deceased along with raja @ .....

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!

May 11 2005 (SC)

Technip S.A. Vs. Sms Holding (Pvt.) Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-11-2005

Reported in : III(2005)BC56(SC); [2005]125CompCas545(SC); (2005)4CompLJ385(SC); 2005(4)CTC209; JT2005(5)SC506; (2005)5SCC465; [2005]60SCL249(SC)

ruma pal, j.1. there are five main protagonists in these appeals, the appellant, technip, a company incorporated in france, coflexip, also incorporated in france, the institut francais du petrol (referred to as ifp) which through its subsidiary isis, a company incorporated in france, was a shareholder in technip and coflexip, south east asia marine engineering and construction ltd. (referred to as seamec), a company incorporated and registered in india and finally the respondents who are the shareholders of seamec. seamec is a subsidiary of coflexip in the sense that coflexip through a chain of wholly owned subsidiaries controls the majority shareholding in seamec.2. the question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether technip acquired control of seamec through coflexip in april, 2000, or in july, 2001? there is no dispute that if technip controls coflexip then it also controls seamec and if there has been a change of control of seamec then technip would be bound to offer to purchase the shares of the minority shareholders in seamec in accordance with the provisions of the securities and exchange board of india (substantial acquisition of shares and takeover) regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the regulations). the importance of the date of control/acquisition is because of the price of the shares payable on such public offer. in this case the price of seamec shares in april 2000 was rs. 238 per share which was much higher than the price of rs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 2005 (SC)

National Insurance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Kanti Devi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-09-2005

Reported in : II(2005)ACC712; 2005ACJ1544; AIR2005SC2850; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)781; 2005(3)ALT35(SC); 2005(2)AWC1914(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1282; [2005(3)JCR151(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC273; 2005(II)OLR348

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. national insurance company limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single judge of the delhi high court dismissing the appeal filed by it.3. questioning the award made by the motor accident claims tribunal, karkardooma courts, delhi (in short 'mact'), the appeal was filed before the high court. by the aforesaid award the mact had held that the respondent no. 1 mrs. kanti devi (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') was entitled to compensation of rs. 2,24,800/- together with 8% interest from the date of filing of claim petition under section 166 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (in short 'the act') i.e. 30.11.1998 till realization of the award excluding certain periods (i.e. from 30.11.1998 to 1.8.2000 and 10.9.2001 to 4.2.2002). the insurer was held liable to compensate the claimant.4. background facts as projected by the claimant in the claim petition were that her son pradeep kumar lost his life on 4.10.1998 on account of vehicular accident involving tata tempo no. dl-1-b-8441 which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently by rohani prasad respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'driver'). the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident. the offending vehicle belonged to devender kumar, (respondent no. 3) (hereinafter referred to as the 'insured'). before the tribunal the driver and the owner did not appear.5. stand of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2005 (SC)

State of Kerala and ors. Vs. Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-06-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2594; JT2005(5)SC427; (2005)11SCC1; [2005]141STC358(SC)

b.p. singh, j.1. leave granted in special leave petition (c) no. 1032 of 2003.2. in these two batches of appeals, a common question arises, inter alia for consideration by this court, namely - whether the incidence of excise duty, having regard to the provision of the kerala abkari act and the relevant rules, falls upon the manufacturer/distiller such as the respondents herein and therefore includable in their turnover for the purpose of levy of turnover tax, or whether the incidence of excise duty falls on the kerala state beverages (manufacturing and marketing) corporation limited, a government company which alone is liable to pay the excise duty on indian made foreign liquor, and consequently the said component is not includable in the turnover of the respondents distillers?3. these appeals came up for hearing before a 3 judge bench of this court. after hearing the parties for sometime, by order dated october 17, 2001, it was observed-that, the point involved was an important one and it would be appropriate if the cases are heard by a larger bench. the referring bench observed thus :-'the question which arises for consideration in these cases is, whether the excise duty levied under the provisions of the kerala abkari act on indian made foreign liquor which is manufactured forms part of the turn over of the manufacturer for the purpose of levy of turn over tax under the relevant provisions of the kerala sales tax act?the liquor which is manufactured by the respondents has .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 2005 (SC)

Allahabad Jal Sansthan Vs. Daya Shankar Rai and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-03-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2372; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)705; 2005(2)ESC288; [2005(105)FLR943]; JT2005(5)SC112; (2005)IILLJ847SC; (2005)5SCC124; 2005(3)SLJ144(SC); (2005)2UPLBEC1405

s.b. sinha, j.1. whether the respondent was entitled to be granted full back wages in the facts and circumstances of this case is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 2.7.2003 passed by the high court of allahabad in civil misc. writ petition no.6597 of 2001.2. the basic fact of the matter is not much in dispute. the respondent herein was appointed purely on a temporary basis on or about 14.10.1985. the appointment letter issued to the respondent no. 1 stipulates that the said appointment could be terminated at any time without any prior notice. the services of the respondent no. 1 and others were terminated by the state in terms of an office order dated 24.1.1987. an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent no. 1 herein. before the labour court the respondent no. 1 adduced evidence, but the appellant did not. an ex parte award came to be passed by the labour court on or about 11.4.2000 reinstating the respondent no.1 with full back wages holding that the order of termination was invalid in law as although he had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year; the provisions of section 6-n of the u.p. industrial disputes act, 1947 were not complied with. the writ petition filed by the appellant herein questioning the legality of the said award came to be dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment. 3. in this appeal leave was granted confining to back wages only. 4. mr. rajesh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf .....

Tag this Judgment!


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