Court : Supreme Court of India
The matter was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. By the efforts of the Mediator, the matter has been settled. Parties have entered into a compromise. A Compromise Petition has been handed over to us in Court, which is taken on record. In terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioners have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.40 lacs in full and final settlement of all claims of respondent-Mrs.Veena Rao. A Pay Order for a sum of Rs.40 lacs has been given to her in Court. Both the parties have prayed that following cases filed by them be quashed in view of the settlement. The details of cases pending in Courts are reproduced as under :-i) Criminal Case NO.54/2008 lodged by 1st Respondent accusing the petitioners - pending investigation at Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad (Gujarat),ii) A petition filed by Respondent No.1 against the petitioners under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, being Petition No.887 of 2008 pending before the 2nd Joint Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1.Leave granted. Heard the counsel.2. The appellant claims that his date of birth is 8.9.1988. He passed the matriculation examination in the year 2004. The matriculation certificate dated 12.5.2004 issued by the Haryana Board of School Education showed his date of birth as 8.11.1989 thereby making him one year and two months younger. According to appellant, the date of birth entered in the matriculation certification was erroneous and therefore he approached the school authorities for correction of his date of birth. When his request was pending, vacancies in respect of the post of Constables (Executive) in Delhi Police were advertised in May, 2007. The appellant applied for the said post mentioning the correct date of birth, that is, 8.9.1988 in the application hoping that by the time he was appointed, the date of birth in the matriculation certificate could be got amended. In pursuance of his application, he was selected and appointed on 21.5.2008 and sent for training.3. In the mea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 14.12.2000 of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the appeal filed by Shashikant Bansal (hereinafter referred to as `the appellant') under Section 147 of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 (for short, `the Act') was partly allowed and market value of the land acquired by Gwalior Improvement Trust/Gwalior Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent') was fixed at the rate of Rs.1.50 per square feet minus 25% development cost and the appellant's claim for payment of interest on solatium was rejected.2. The appellant's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 48 to 53, 60 to 63 and 65 to 67 measuring 16.04 Bighas situated in Keshobaagh, Gwalior was acquired for execution of the residential scheme framed by the respondent. The appellant was offered a sum of Rs.1,98,975/- as compensation for the land, house and wells existing over the land but he did not accept the same. Therefore, a referen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1.Leave granted. Heard.2. The appellant (State of Himachal Pradesh represented by the Executive Engineer, I&PH; Division, Hamirpur) entered into a contract with the respondent on 15.7.2002, for the construction of a water purification plant. The respondent raised a dispute in regard to the payment for extra work, which was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made an award dated 5.11.2007 in favour of the respondent and sent it to the parties by speed post. The postal cover containing the award was received by a peon/beldar in the office of the Executive Engineer on 10.11.2007 (a Saturday) which was a government holiday. 11th November, 2007 being a Sunday was also a holiday. It was received by the Executive Engineer on 12.11.2007.3. A petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (`Act' for short) was filed by the appellant on 11.3.2008, challenging the arbitral award. The petition was accompanied by an application under sub-section (3) of section 34 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC3413; 20105AWC(Supp)5098SC; III(2010)BC495; 2011(1)BomCR653; (2010)3CompLJ585(SC); 2010-5-LW193; 2010(7)SCALE696; (2010)8SCC110; [2010]9SCR1; 2010AIR(SCW)5267
1. Leave granted.2. With a view to give impetus to the industrial development of the country, the Central and State Governments encouraged the banks and other financial institutions to formulate liberal policies for grant of loans and other financial facilities to those who wanted to set up new industrial units or expand the existing units. Many hundred thousand took advantage of easy financing by the banks and other financial institutions but a large number of them did not repay the amount of loan, etc. Not only this, they instituted frivolous cases and succeeded in persuading the Civil Courts to pass orders of injunction against the steps taken by banks and financial institutions to recover their dues. Due to lack of adequate infrastructure and non-availability of manpower, the regular Courts could not accomplish the task of expeditiously adjudicating the cases instituted by banks and other financial institutions for recovery of their dues. As a result, several hundred crores of publ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2005, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2001 by the High Court of Calcutta, by which the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2001 (State v. Bipin Kumar Mondal) under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as the `IPC'). Factual Matrix :2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that one Sujit Mondal, PW-1, lodged an Ejahar with Raninagar Police Station on 6.12.1999 stating that his father Bipin Kumar Mondal, appellant herein, came to their house at about midnight on 5.12.1999 and attacked his mother, Usha Rani Mondal, with a knife and inflicted severe injuries on her person. When he went to save his mother, he was also attacked by his father. He received injuries on his head and hands and he had to escape out of fear. His younger brother, Aj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1.Leave granted. The general scope of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`Code' for short) and the question whether the said section empowers the court to refer the parties to a suit to arbitration without the consent of both parties, arise for consideration in this appeal.2. The second respondent (Cochin Port Trust) entrusted the work of construction of certain bridges and roads to the appellants under an agreement dated 20.4.2001. The appellants sub-contracted a part of the said work to the first respondent under an agreement dated 1.8.2001. It is not in dispute that the agreement between the appellants and the first respondent did not contain any provision for reference of the disputes to arbitration. 3. The first respondent filed a suit against the appellants for recovery of Rs.210,70,881 from the appellants and their assets and/or the amounts due to the appellants from the employer, with interest at 18% per annum. In the said suit an order of attachment was made on 15.9.20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(3)KLT75(SN)(C.No.83)SC; 2010(3)ILR(Ker)917; 2010(6)SCJ786; 2010(5)LW241; 2010(8)MLJ369; 2010AIR(SCW)4983; 2010(8)SCC24; 2011(2)KLJ(NOC)17; 2010(3)CLT351; 2010(3)ArbLR116; 2010(7)Scale293; 2010(7)JT616; 2010(6)SLT362
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.Leave granted. The general scope of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`Code' for short) and the question whether the said section empowers the court to refer the parties to a suit to arbitration without the consent of both parties, arise for consideration in this appeal.2. The second respondent (Cochin Port Trust) entrusted the work of construction of certain bridges and roads to the appellants under an agreement dated 20.4.2001. The appellants sub-contracted a part of the said work to the first respondent under an agreement dated 1.8.2001. It is not in dispute that the agreement between the appellants and the first respondent did not contain any provision for reference of the disputes to arbitration.3. The first respondent filed a suit against the appellants for recovery of Rs.210,70,881 from the appellants and their assets and/or the amounts due to the appellants from the employer, with interest at 18% per annum. In the said suit an order of attachmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent-contemnor has placed on record a letter stating therein that the bank guarantee has been filed before the Registrar, Original Side of the Calcutta High Court on 28th May, 2010 and the same has been duly acknowledged by the Office of the Registrar in Insolvency, Original side of the Calcutta High Court, subject to scrutiny by the Department. In view of this, nothing survives in this matter. The Contempt Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th July 2002, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant (for short "the assessee") and affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay-II ("the Adjudicating Authority" for short), rejecting the claim preferred by the assessee for refund of the excess amount of excise duty paid by them as time barred as also on merits on account of disallowance of post manufacturing expenses for the purpose of valuation of the goods in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") as it existed at the relevant time.2. The background facts, giving rise to this appeal, are as follows: The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of coated fabrics. The price of goods declared by the assessee in the price list, as required under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for sho...
Tag this Judgment!