Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: us supreme court Year: 2005 Page 2 of about 61 results (0.094 seconds)

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 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!

Mar 11 2005 (SC)

iqbal Singh Marwah and anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2119; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)717; 2005CriLJ2161; 118(2005)DLT329(SC); JT2005(3)SC195; 2005(3)MhLj530; 2005(II)OLR(SC)102; (2005)4SCC370; 2005(1)LC675(SC)

g.p. mathur, j.1. leave granted in special leave petition (crl) no.4111 of 2000.2. in view of conflict of opinion between two decisions of this court each rendered by a bench of three learned judges in surjit singh v. balbir singh : 1996crilj2304 and sachida nand singh v. state of bihar 1998 (2) scc 493, regarding interpretation of section 195(1)(b)(ii) of code of criminal procedure 1973 (for short 'cr.p.c.'), this appeal has been placed before the present bench.3. the facts of the case may be noticed in brief. the appellant nos.1 and 2 are real brothers of mukhtar singh marwah, while respondent nos.1 and 2 are his widow and son respectively. mukhtar singh marwah died on 3.6.1993. the appellant no.1 filed probate case no.363 of 1993 in the court of district judge, delhi, for being granted probate of the will allegedly executed by mukhtar singh marwah on 20.1.1993. the petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that the will was forged. on their application the appellant no.1 filed the original will in the court of district judge on 10.2.1994. thereafter, the respondents moved an application under section 340 cr.p.c. requesting the court to file a criminal complaint against appellant no.1 as the will set up by him was forged. a reply to the said application was filed on 27.7.1994 but the application has not been disposed of so far. thereafter, the respondents filed a criminal complaint in may 1996 in the court of chief metropolitan magistrate, new delhi, for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 2005 (SC)

Calcutta Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. Shrey Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-09-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC1879; (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN120; 100(2005)CLT235(SC); JT2005(3)SC143; (2005)4SCC245

s.h. kapadia, j.1. the short question which arises for determination in these civil appeals by grant of special leave by calcutta municipal corporation is - whether the imposition for the process of change in the name of the owner in the assessment books of the corporation is in the nature of 'a fee' or 'tax'.2. for the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts of civil appeal no.5631 of 2000.3. premises bearing no.9a, jatindra mohan avenue, calcutta - 700 006 belonged to tapas ghosh, meenakshi sinha and gayatri chandra. by several deeds of conveyance, they sold the said premises to m/s shrey mercantile (p) ltd., m/s drishti mercantile (p) ltd. and m/s kic resources ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the developers'). the building in the premises was very old and was in a dilapidated condition. the developers decided to construct a new building after demolishing the existing old structure. the developers submitted the building plan for sanction which the corporation refused to accept without the names of the developers being brought on record by way of mutation. on 21.3.1997, the developers applied for mutation by deletion of the names of the previous owners and substitution of their names for which the corporation demanded mutation fees of rs.3 lacs under calcutta corporation (taxation) regulations, 1989. this demand was challenged by filing of writ petition in the calcutta high court.4. the calcutta municipal corporation (amendment) act, 1988 was passed by the state .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2005 (FN)

Bell Vs. Thompson

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-27-2005

bell v. thompson - 04-514 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 bell v. thompson supreme court of the united states bell, warden v . thompson certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit no. 04 514.argued april 26, 2005 decided june 27, 2005 after respondent thompson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, tennessee state courts denied postconviction relief on his claim that his trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to adequately investigate his mental health. his federal habeas attorneys subsequently retained psychologist dr. sultan, whose report and deposition contended that thompson suffered from serious mental illness at the time of his offense. the district court dismissed the petition, but apparently thompson s habeas counsel had failed to include sultan s deposition and report in the record. upholding the dismissal, the sixth circuit, inter alia, found no ineffective assistance and did not discuss sultan s report and deposition in detail. that court later denied rehearing, but stayed issuance of its mandate pending disposition of thompson s certiorari petition. after this court denied certiorari on december 1, 2003, the sixth circuit stayed its mandate again, pending disposition of a petition for rehearing, which this court denied on january 20, 2004. a copy of that order was filed with the sixth circuit on january 23, but the court did not issue its mandate. the state set thompson s execution date, and state and federal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2005 (FN)

Mccreary County Vs. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-27-2005

mccreary county v. american civil liberties union of ky. - 03-1693 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 mccreary county v. american civil libertiesunion of ky. supreme court of the united states mccreary county, kentucky, et al. v . american civil liberties union of kentucky et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit no. 03 1693.argued march 2, 2005 decided june 27, 2005 after petitioners, two kentucky counties, each posted large, readily visible copies of the ten commandments in their courthouses, respondents, the american civil liberties union (aclu) et al., sued under 42 u. s. c. 1983 to enjoin the displays on the ground that they violated the first amendment s establishment clause. the counties then adopted nearly identical resolutions calling for a more extensive exhibit meant to show that the commandments are kentucky s precedent legal code. the resolutions noted several grounds for taking that position, including the state legislature s acknowledgment of christ as the prince of ethics. the displays around the commandments were modified to include eight smaller, historical documents containing religious references as their sole common element, e.g., the declaration of independence s endowed by their creator passage. entering a preliminary injunction, the district court followed the lemon v. kurtzman, 403 u. s. 602 , test to find, inter alia , that the original display lacked any secular purpose because the commandments are a distinctly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2005 (FN)

Van Orden Vs. Perry

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-27-2005

van orden v. perry - 03-1500 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 van orden v. perry supreme court of the united states van orden v . perry, in his official capacity as governor of texas and chairman, state preservation board, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit no. 03 1500.argued march 2, 2005 decided june 27, 2005 among the 21 historical markers and 17 monuments surrounding the texas state capitol is a 6-foot-high monolith inscribed with the ten commandments. the legislative record illustrates that, after accepting the monument from the fraternal order of eagles a national social, civic, and patriotic organization the state selected a site for it based on the recommendation of the state organization that maintains the capitol grounds. petitioner, an austin resident who encounters the monument during his frequent visits to those grounds, brought this 42 u. s. c. 1983 suit seeking a declaration that the monument s placement violates the first amendment s establishment clause and an injunction requiring its removal. holding that the monument did not contravene the clause, the district court found that the state had a valid secular purpose in recognizing and commending the eagles for their efforts to reduce juvenile delinquency, and that a reasonable observer, mindful of history, purpose, and context, would not conclude that this passive monument conveyed the message that the state endorsed religion. the fifth circuit affirmed. held: the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 2005 (FN)

Gonzalez Vs. Crosby

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-23-2005

gonzalez v. crosby - 04-6432 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 gonzalez v. crosby supreme court of the united states gonzalez v . crosby, secretary, florida department of corrections certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit no. 04 6432.argued april 25, 2005 decided june 23, 2005 petitioner s federal habeas corpus petition was dismissed as time barred when the district court concluded that the federal limitations period was not tolled while petitioner s motion for postconviction relief was pending in state court. after petitioner abandoned his attempt to seek review of the district court s decision, this court decided that a state postconviction relief petition can toll the federal statute of limitations even if, like petitioner s, the petition is ultimately dismissed as procedurally barred. artuz v. bennett , 531 u. s. 4 . petitioner filed a federal rule of civil procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the judgment, which the district court denied. the eleventh circuit affirmed the denial, holding that the rule 60(b) motion was in substance a second or successive habeas petition, which under the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 (aedpa), 28 u. s. c. 2244(b), cannot be filed without precertification by the court of appeals. held: 1. because petitioner s rule 60(b) motion challenged only the district court s previous ruling on aedpa s statute of limitations, it is not the equivalent of a successive habeas petition and can .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 2005 (FN)

Mayle Vs. Felix

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-23-2005

mayle v. felix - 04-563 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 mayle v. felix supreme court of the united states mayle, warden v . felix certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 04 563.argued april 19, 2005 decided june 23, 2005 respondent felix was convicted of murder and robbery in california state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. his current application for federal habeas relief centers on two alleged trial-court errors, both involving the admission of out-of-court statements during the prosecutor s case-in-chief but otherwise unrelated. felix had made inculpatory statements during pretrial police interrogation. he alleged that those statements were coerced, and that their admission violated his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. he also alleged that the admission of a videotape recording of testimony of a prosecution witness violated the sixth amendment s confrontation clause. felix s conviction was affirmed on appeal and became final on august 12, 1997. under the one-year limitation period imposed by the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 (aedpa), 28 u. s. c. 2244(d)(1), felix had until august 12, 1998 to file a habeas petition in federal court. on may 8, 1998, in a timely filed habeas petition, felix asserted his confrontation clause challenge to admission of the videotaped prosecution witness testimony, but did not then challenge the admission of his own pretrial statements. on january 28, .....

Tag this Judgment!


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