Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2005 Page 9 of about 118 results (0.076 seconds)

Apr 05 2005 (SC)

Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-05-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2461; JT2005(4)SC89; (2005)5SCC347

arijit pasayat, j.1. appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a division bench of the madhya pradesh high court at jabalpur upsetting judgment of a learned single judge who held that the municipal council, kymore, presently known as kymore nagar panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the 'municipal council') is bound by the government order dated 15.12.1995 issued by the state government under the madhya pradesh municipalities act, 1961 (in short the 'act'). learned single judge was of the view that the power vests with the state government who issued the said government order and there is no justification on the part of the municipal council in making the impugned demands on the basis of rates fixed by it. it was consequentially declared that the present appellant was not liable to pay the differential sum and was only required to pay tax at the rate of 0.20% as fixed by the state government.2. the factual position which is almost undisputed is essentially as follows:the appellant, a company registered under the companies act, 1956 (in short the 'companies act') has its head office at bombay and is engaged in manufacture of various kinds of cement. it has one cement manufacturing plant at kymore known as kymore cement works. on 2.5.1991 the municipal council in exercise of powers conferred under section 127(1)(xvi) of the act had resolved to impose export tax on cement and other commodities which are exported from the limits of the municipal council. a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2005 (SC)

Kamalanantha and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-05-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2132; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN41; 2005(3)CTC764; JT2005(4)SC170; (2005)5SCC194

h.m. sema, j.1. these appeals by special leave are preferred by accused nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 against their conviction concurrently recorded by two courts. a-3 served out the sentence and a-5 died during the pendency of the appeal before the high court and his appeal stands abated. they were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment as under:-charge nos.convicted under sectionaccusedsentence of imprisonment/ fine imposed.(1)(2)(3)(4)1.120(b) i.p.c.a-1 to a-7no separate sentence.2.376(2)(c) i.p.c. (12 counts)a-1imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 5,10,000/- on each count. in default rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years and six months. (total fine rs. 61,20,000/-. imprisonment for life on each count is to run concurrently.3.376 r/w 109 i.p.c.a-2, a-4, a-6 & a-7 a-3imprisonment for life on each accused. rigorous imprisonment for two years, 7 months and 2 days (period of sentence already undergone) and to pay a fine of rs.10,000/-. in default. rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months.4.354 i.p.c. (one count)a-1no separate sentence.5.312 i. p.c. (four counts)a-3rigorous imprisonment for two years, 7 months and 2 days (period of sentence already undergone) and to pay a fine of rs.5,000/- on each count. in default, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 45 days. (total fine rs.20,000/-6.302 i.p.c.a-1imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of rs.10,000/-. in default, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months.302 r/w 34 i.p. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 2005 (SC)

State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-01-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2191; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)697; 100(2005)CLT111(SC); 2005(183)ELT337(SC); JT2005(4)SC10; 2005(2)KLT547(SC); RLW2005(3)SC357; (2005)3SCC752; 2005(1)LC648(SC)

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. the state of nagaland questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned single judge of the gauhati high court, kohima bench refusing to condone the delay by rejecting the application filed under section 5 of the limitation act, 1963 (in short the 'limitation act') and consequentially rejecting of application for grant of leave to appeal. before we deal with the legality of the order refusing to condone the delay in making the application for grant of leave, a brief reference to the factual background would suffice3. application for grant of leave was made in terms of section 378(3) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short the 'code'). a judgment of acquittal was passed by learned additional deputy commissioner (judicial) dimapur, nagaland. the judgment was pronounced on 18.12.2002. as there was delay in making the application for grant of leave in terms of section 378(3) of the code, application for condonation of delay was filed. as is revealed from the application for condonation, copy of the order was received by the concerned department on 15th january, 2003; without wasting any time on the same date the relevant documents and papers were put up for necessary action before the deputy inspector general of police, (head quarters), nagaland. on the next day, the said deputy inspector general considered the matter and forwarded the file for consideration to the deputy inspector general of police (m&p;), nagaland. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2005 (SC)

V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-31-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC4138; 2005(5)BomCR374; JT2005(3)SC607; (2005)140PLR743; (2005)4SCC613

ashok bhan, j.1. these appeals by grant of leave are directed against the common judgment and order of affirmation passed by the high court of bombay at goa in first appeal no.27 of 1992 and appeal from order no.69 of 1991. the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') was dismissed by the district judge, south goa, mormugao by judgment dated 30th december, 1991 on the ground that the same was not maintainable for want of notice under section 120 of the major port trust act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and that the suit was barred by limitation. this judgment was challenged in first appeal no.27 of 1992. prior to that district judge vide order dated 30th april, 1991, had come to the conclusion that section 120 of the act was applicable to the present case. against this order the appellant had filed an appeal from order 69 of 1991. the two appeals having arisen from the same suit were heard together and disposed of by the high court by a common judgment. we propose to do the same.2. we would referring to the facts necessary to dispose of the appeals as found by the high court on which there is no dispute between the counsel for the parties.3. loading operation in relation to iron ore at mormugao port was sought to be regulated by the mormugao port (shipment of ore and pellets from mechanised ore handling plant at berth no.9 and related matters) regulations, 1979. respondent no.1-the board of the trustees of mormugao ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2005 (SC)

Sree Balaji Rice Mill, Bellary Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-31-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2197; 2005(2)CTC591; JT2005(5)SC539; (2005)4SCC21; [2005]140STC267(SC)

ar. lakshmanan, j.1. these appeals were filed against the order dated 15.11.1999 in s.t.a.nos. 31 and 32 of 1996 on the file of the high court of karnataka vide which, the high court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.2. the appellant is a dealer registered under the provisions of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') engaged in the activity of hulling paddy and is also a trader in rice, paddy husk and rice bran. the assistant commissioner of commercial taxes, bellary passed an order of assessment under section 12(3) of the act vide order dated 12.07.1990 for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.3. the additional commissioner of commercial taxes, devangere zone, devangere issued notices dated 16.02.1994 and 21.03.1994 under section 22a of the act proposing to revise the order of assessment dated 12.07.1990 passed by the assessing authority on the ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. in the notices, the revisional authority had made observations to the effect that the books of accounts have not been properly maintained. in response to the notices, the appellant filed reply on 04.04.1994 denying the observations made by the revisional authority and had requested the said authority to drop the proceedings initiated under section 22a of the act. the revisional authority on 08.04.1994 issued a further notice under section 22a(1) of the act making the same proposal as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2005 (SC)

Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-31-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2090; 2005(2)BLJR1223; (2005)4CompLJ249(SC); 2005(2)ESC225; [2005(105)FLR630]; [2005(4)JCR124(SC)]; JT2005(4)SC40; (2005)IILLJ461SC; (2005)6SCC321; [2005]61SCL144(

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. challenge in this appeal is to correctness of the judgment rendered by a division bench of the kerala high court holding that the order directing respondent's dismissal from service was in violation of the principles of natural justice. therefore, it was held that the order was passed without proper application of mind regarding the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority on the basis of report of the enquiry officer, and relating to imposition of punishment. however, high court permitted the respondent - writ petitioner to make a detailed representation to the disciplinary authority in respect of the enquiry proceedings and findings, within a stipulated time and direction was given to the disciplinary authority to consider the submission and pass a fresh order. high court further directed that the period during which respondent was out of service was to be treated as period under suspension, and the employee was to be paid subsistence allowance. it would be relevant to note that the respondent filed a writ petition questioning the order directing his dismissal from service. learned single judge came to hold that the quantum of punishment i.e. dismissal from service was disproportionate to the misconduct proved. it was however, held that no prejudice was caused to the writ petitioner and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. both the writ petitioner and the present appellant had preferred writ appeals before the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2005 (SC)

N.S. Viswanatha Shetty Vs. K.R. Shivaswamy and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-31-2005

Reported in : JT2005(4)SC5; 2005(4)KarLJ145; (2005)11SCC130

order1. delay condoned.2. leave granted.3. the appellant herein is the owner of three shops situate in kollegal town, which is a town municipal council constituted as such under the karnataka municipalities act, 1964. the appellant filed eviction petitions under the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (since repealed) for eviction of the respondents-tenants on the ground of bona fide need for personal occupation. eviction was ordered by the learned munsif. the district judge, mysore confirmed the eviction order on a revision filed by the aggrieved tenants under section 50(2) of the said act. thereupon, the respondents filed further revisions before the high court of karnataka under section 115 of the code of civil procedure. during the pendency of revisions in the high court, the karnataka rent act, 1999 came into force on and from 31st december, 2001. before the revision petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the tenants filed a memo stating that the premises in question was situate in a town municipal council area and, therefore, it was excluded from the purview of the karnataka rent act, 1999 and by virtue of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 70 of the said act, the entire proceedings at whatever stage they were, stood abated. accepting the submission made by the learned counsel for the tenants, the learned single judge held that the eviction proceedings stood abated. the learned judge then observed that it would not come in the way of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2005 (SC)

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-30-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2871; 2005(2)BLJR1168; 2005(99)ECC689; [2005(2)JCR235(SC)]; JT2005(3)SC582; (2005)4SCC272; [2005]140STC284(SC)

s.b. sinha, j. 1. leave granted in s.l.p. (c) no. 15419 of 2004.2. interpretation and application of the notifications bearing nos. 65, 66 & 67 dated 12thjanuary, 2002 issued by the state of jharkhand pursuant to the jharkhand industrial policy, 2001 falls for our consideration in these appeals which arise out of judgments and orders dated 12.8.2003 and 16.3.2004 passed by a division bench of the jharkhand high court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellants herein was disposed of with certain directions.background facts: 3. the fact of the matter is being noticed from civil appeal no. 1912 of 2004.4. the appellant, an existing company within the meaning of companies act, 1956, is a producer of saleable steel and other alloy products having a production capacity of 17.4 lakh tons. it at all material times was and still is producing steel through its hot rolled mill (hrm). it is registered as a dealer both under the central sales tax act, 1956 and the bihar finance act, 1981 (1981 act). it was granted an industrial licence for expansion of its existing industrial unit located at jamshedpur for production of steel to the extent of 21 lakh tons per annum.exemption claimed for new industrial unit :5. the government of bihar issued an industrial policy in the year 1995. with a view to give effect thereto it issued two notifications bearing nos. 478 and 479 dated 22.12.1995 granting exemption to dealers in terms of section 7(3)(b) of the 1981 act in respect .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2005 (SC)

Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-30-2005

Reported in : II(2005)BC443(SC); [2005]124CompCas797(SC); (2005)4CompLJ513(SC); JT2005(3)SC570; (2005)4SCC456; [2005]60SCL387(SC)

y.k. sabharwal, j.1. the question that arises for consideration in these matters is whether karnataka state industrial investment and development corporation (for short, 'ksiidc') acted in a bona fide manner in sale of the properties of the borrower exercising its right under section 29 of state financial corporation act, 1951 (for short, 'the act').2. the appeals have been preferred by ksiidc as well as m/s vinpack investments pvt ltd., the purchaser (for short 'vinpack') against the judgment and order of the division bench of the karnataka high court directing ksiidc to undertake the entire sale process once again and give opportunity to respondent no. 1 to bring better offer for the properties.3. respondent no. 1, m/s cavalet industries ltd. (for short, 'the borrower') borrowed a sum of rs. 116.30 lakhs from ksiidc as per the sanction letter dated 22nd april, 1991. the borrower committed defaults in payment of the installments and, therefore, ksiidc on 30th march, 1995 passed an order under section 29 of the act for taking over the unit of the borrower for recovery of its dues. however, ksiidc did not implement that order. there was considerable correspondence between ksiidc and the borrower, in regard to the offers of some third parties, who were proposing either to purchase the unit or enter into some working arrangement with the borrower to run the unit. the efforts of the borrower to enter in to arrangement with third parties to work the unit did not yield any result. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2005 (SC)

K. Kalimuthu Vs. State by D.S.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-30-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2257; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)683; 2005(2)BLJR1185; 2005CriLJ2190; 2005(3)CTC313; [2005(2)JCR254(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC48; (2005)4SCC512; 2005(1)LC710(SC)

arijit pasayat, j.1. leave granted.2. all these appeals involve identical question of law and are, therefore, taken up together. in each of these cases, on the allegation that the appellant was guilty of various offences under the indian penal code, 1860 (in short the 'ipc') and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act, 1947 (in short the 'act'), information was lodged, investigation was undertaken and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. the appellant in each case filed petition before the principal special judge for cbi cases, chennai, contending that in the absence of requisite sanction under section 197 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short the 'code') it was beyond jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of the alleged offences. the stand taken in the petitions was that the alleged acts were directly and reasonably connected with official duty and since there was a direct nexus and relationship between the discharge of his alleged act and the official duties and because of the absence of requisite sanction as contemplated under section 197 of the code, cognizance could not have been taken. the plea found favour with the concerned court in the matter of k. kalimuthu. the state questioned correctness of the judgment by filing revision taking the stand that section 197 of the code has no application to the facts of the case. the plea was accepted by the high court, which is the subject matter of challenge .....

Tag this Judgment!


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