Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 8 of about 118 results (0.096 seconds)

May 03 2005 (SC)

Pramod Kumar Jaiswal and ors. Vs. Bibi Husn Bano and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-03-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2857; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)784; 2005(2)AWC1697(SC); 2005(3)BLJR1976; 2006(2)BomCR855; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN58; 2005(2)CTC809; [2005(3)JCR153(SC)]; JT2005(5)SC79; (2006)2M

p.k. balasubramanyan, j.1. a building, as defined in the bihar buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), was taken on rent from one quasim, the predecessor of the respondents, by ram babu jaiswal, the predecessor of the appellants, some time in the year 1958. rent was enhanced and a fresh rent deed was executed on 7.4.1970. that tenancy continued. quasim, the landlord died. his rights devolved on his heirs. it is the case of the appellants that they have taken assignment of the rights of certain heirs, being co-owner landlords, on 29.12.1988. the respondents in this appeal, the heirs of quasim, filed house control case no.33 of 1993 under the act, for fixation of fair rent. by order dated 22.3.1994 the house controller fixed the fair rent at rs.4,950/- per month. the plea based on assignment of the reversion by some of the legal representatives of quasim, the landlord, and the consequential extinguishment of the lease was rejected. an appeal preferred by the appellants against the order fixing the fair rent as h.c. appeal no.3/94-95 was also dismissed. it is the case of the appellants that they have filed a revision under the act against the order fixing fair rent and the same is pending.2. on 13.8.1997, the respondents herein filed a suit, t.s. (eviction) no.80/97, seeking eviction of the appellants on grounds of non payment of rent and the bona fide need of the landlords for their own occupation. on 13.9.1998, an application .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2005 (SC)

Shri Banarsi Dass Vs. Mrs. Teeku Dutta and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-27-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)ALD78(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)601; 2005(4)ALT7(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1122; 2005(5)BomCR778; (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN174; 100(2005)CLT73(SC); 2005(3)CTC227; [2005(3)JCR189(SC)]; JT

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. the core question involved in this appeal is whether a direction for deoxyribonucleic acid test (commonly known as dna test) can be given in a proceeding for issuance of succession certificate under the indian succession act, 1925 (in short the 'act').3.challenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned single judge of the delhi high court setting aside the order of learned administrative civil judge, delhi dated 20.12.1999 whereby he had allowed an application under section 151 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short the 'cpc') filed by the appellant seeking dna test of the respondent no.1-smt. teeku dutta and sh. ram saran dass sharma, (who is not a party in this appeal). respondent no.1 has filed case no.86 of 1944 for grant of succession certificate under section 372 of the act.4. background facts in a nutshell are as follows:5. the respondent no. 1 filed a petition for grant of succession certificate in respect of the properties of one iqbal nath sharma (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') claiming that she was his daughter and the only surviving class i legal heir under the hindu succession act, 1956 (in short the 'succession act'). it was indicated in the petition that the deceased had died intestate leaving behind five brothers- sh. banarsi dass, sh. amar nath sharma, sh. ram saran dass sharma, sh. p.l. sharma and sh. k.c. sharma. originally sh. banarsi dass was not impleaded and rest four were impleaded. out of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 2005 (SC)

North Eastern Coalfields Coal India Ltd. Vs. Mubarak Ali and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-21-2005

Reported in : [2005(3)JCR147(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC43; (2005)11SCC293

orderg.s.r. 345 (e) - in exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 5 of the coal mines (nationalization) act, 1973 (26 of 1973), the central government hereby directs that the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to all the coal mines referred to in section 3 of the said act, except the coal mines specified against serial numbers 45 to 219 (both inclusive) 227, 235, 237, 260, 265, 275, 441, 483 and 583 of the schedule to the said act, shall with effect from the 9th july, 1973, vest in the coal mines authority limited, calcutta, a government company incorporated under the companies act, 1956 (1 of 1956), and having its registered office at calcutta, in the state of west bengal.'5. a perusal of this order makes it clear that all the companies mentioned in the schedule to the act of 1973 were taken over by the central govt. and all their right, title and interest of all the private company stood vested in central government and central govt. vested it in its company coal mines authority limited, calcutta. therefore, the finding given by the additional deputy commissioner, tinsukia that since the artc is fout ferrar i.e. already, abandoned and resumed the land to the state was ex facie illegal order de hors the provisions of the act and notification of the central government. therefore, the order passed by the additional deputy commissioner declaring artc as fout ferrar and resuming land was absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction and the .....

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 12 2005 (SC)

indore Development Authority Vs. Shrikrishna Oil Mills and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-12-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2231; JT2005(4)SC249; 2005(4)MPHT484; (2005)4SCC404

c.k. thakker, j.1. leave granted.2. in all these appeals, common judgment and order passed by the high court of madhya pradesh in several writ petitions is questioned by the indore development authority. by the impugned order, the high court allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners -contesting respondents herein - and quashed and set aside the notification dated april 5, 1983 issued under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894, notification dated january 23, 1984 issued under section 6 of the said act as also an order dated august 10, 1998 passed by the director, town and country planning, bhopal.3. to appreciate the controversy raised in the present batch of appeals, relevant facts may be stated.4. the petitioners challenged before the high court of madhya pradesh town development scheme no. 78 prepared in accordance with the provisions of the madhya pradesh town improvement trust act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the trust act') in accordance with the master plan of indore. the case of the petitioners before the high court was that a resolution was passed on november 9, 1976 being resolution no. 196 for framing scheme no. 78 by the improvement trust. a notification under section 46 of the trust act was issued on january 7, 1977 inviting objections against the scheme within sixty days of the publication of the notice. individual notices to the affected persons as required under sub-section (1) of section 48 of the trust act were also issued the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2005 (SC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Chandra

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-12-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2221; (2006)1CALLT20(SC); 2005CriLJ2201; 2005(100)ECC83; JT2005(4)SC390; 2005(3)KLT601(SC); RLW2005(2)SC224; (2005)5SCC151; 2005(2)LC848(SC)

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. the state of rajasthan is in appeal against the judgment of learned single judge, rajasthan high court, jaipur bench, jaipur holding that there was non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of section 50 of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (in short the 'act'). the said conclusion was arrived at on the ground that though the accused respondent had been given the option of being searched in the presence of shri satyendra singh (pw-3), the deputy superintendent of police, he was in essence a member of the raiding party and, therefore, the search in his presence cannot at all be said to be in consonance with section 50 of the act, though he was a gazetted officer.3. background facts in a nutshell are as under:on 8.9.1995 prem shaker meena (pw-2), sho police station, kotwali, baran having received information about illicit trafficking in narcotic substances, rushed to the place pointed out by the informant and apprehended the accused respondent. satyendra singh, dy. s.p. (pw-3) also reached there. subsequently, being of the suspicion that accused respondent was in possession of contraband, the sho informed him of his right to have his search conducted either in presence of shri satyendra singh, dy. s.p. (pw-3) who was a gazetted officer and happened to be present there or in the presence of any magistrate. the accused consented for his search to be conducted in the presence of the dy. s.p. (pw-3). on being searched, .....

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!

Apr 11 2005 (SC)

Nityanand Rai Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2239; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)20; 2005(2)BLJR1182; 2005CriLJ2187; JT2005(4)SC368; RLW2005(2)SC237; (2005)4SCC178

n. santosh hegde, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. leave granted.3. by this appeal the appellant challenges an order of the high court of judicature at patna made in criminal miscellaneous no. 29702 of 2003 dated 19-5-2004 by which order the high court cancelled the bail granted to the appellant earlier by itself on 19-9-2003. basic facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :-it is stated by the prosecution that the petitioner is an accused in hajipur (t) p.s. case no. 71 of 1993 which was registered u/s 302, 307, 120b of the i.p.c. and section 27 of the arms act on the basis of a complaint given by one raj kishore rai on 6-3-1993 wherein it is stated that the appellant along with some others had murdered his brother ram davan rai. pursuant to the said complaint so far as the present appellant is concerned a charge-sheet was filed only on 11th july, 2003 nearly 10 years after the date of alleged incidence. on coming to know of the filing of such a charge-sheet the appellant moved the sessions court at vaishali for grant of anticipatory bail which was rejected by the sessions court as per its order dated 30th of may, 2003. and being aggrieved by the said order of the sessions court, the petitioner preferred an anticipatory bail application before the high court of patna which also came to be rejected on 17-7-2003 directing the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail. as per the said direction, it is stated that the appellant surrendered .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 2005 (SC)

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Pawan Kumar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-08-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2265; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)847; (2006)1CALLT1(SC); 2005CriLJ2208; 2005(99)ECC737; JT2005(4)SC373; 2005(3)KLT195(SC); (2005)4SCC350

g.p. mathur, j.criminal appeal no. 222 of 19971. in view of difference of opinion between two learned judges who heard the appeal, the matter has been placed before this larger bench and the question for consideration is whether the safeguards provided by section 50 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (for short 'the ndps act' or 'the act') regarding search of any 'person' would also apply to any bag, briefcase or any such article or container etc., which is being carried by him.2. the essential facts of the case, which are necessary for decision of the appeal, may be stated in brief. according to the case of the prosecution, hukum singh and munshi ram, head constables and some police personnel were checking buses at the bus stand, mandi in the night of 18.7.1994. while checking a bus at about 8.45 p.m., they noticed that the accused pawan kumar (respondent herein), who was carrying a bag, ex.p3, slipped out from the rear door of the bus and thereafter started running towards subzi mandi side. the police personnel got suspicious and after a chase apprehended him near the gate of bus stand. they felt smell of opium emitting from the bag and, therefore, telephonically informed prem thakur, deputy s.p./s.h.o., p.s. sadar, mandi. prem thakur came to the spot and inquired from the accused whether he wanted to be searched by police or by a magistrate. the accused disclosed his name and expressed his willingness to be searched by the police. a search of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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