Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: supreme court of india Year: 1987 Page 3 of about 82 results (0.094 seconds)

Nov 12 1987 (SC)

Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-12-1987

Reported in : AIR1988SC121; 1988(36)BLJR138; JT1987(4)SC433; 1987(2)SCALE1008; (1988)1SCC105; [1988]1SCR1010

jagannatha shetty, j.1. we grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. shobha rani is the appellant. her husband is madhukar reddy who is respondent before us. the wife is postgraduate in biological sciences. the husband is a medical doctor. they were happily married on december 19, 1982. but their happiness did not last longer. they started exchanging letters with bitter feelings. then they began to accuse each other. at one stage, they thought of winding up by mutual consent. it was perhaps out of disgust. it would have been better, if it had happened. but unfortunately, it did not materialise. ultimately they landed themselves in the court. the wife moved the court for divorce on the ground of cruelty.3. before referring to further facts, let us consider the law. the cruelty simpliciter is now a ground for divorce under section 13 of the hindu marriage act (act 25 of 1955). section 13 provides, so far as it is material:13. divorce.- (1) any marriage solemnized whether before or after the commencement of this act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party....(i) ....(i-a) has, after the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty; or xxx xxx xxx xxx4. section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words 'treated the petitioner with cruelty'. the word 'cruelty' has not been defined. indeed it could not have been defined. it has been used in relation to human .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 1987 (SC)

K.i. Shephard and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-18-1987

Reported in : AIR1988SC686; (1989)1CompLJ167(SC); JT1987(3)SC600; 1988LabIC1497; (1988)ILLJ162SC; 1987(2)SCALE599; (1987)4SCC431; [1988]1SCR188; 1988(1)SLJ105(SC)

..... to be ascertained; and it involved assessment. that has admittedly not been done.7. these employees were in employment under contract in the banking companies which were private banks. they have been excluded from service under the transferee banks and the contracts have now been terminated as a result of inclusion of their names in the schemes. it cannot be disputed - nay .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 04 1987 (SC)

Johney D'couto vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-04-1987

Reported in : AIR1988SC109; [1988]63CompCas781(SC); 1988CriLJ178; 1987(14)ECC234; 1987(32)ELT225(SC); JT1987(4)SC248; 1987(2)SCALE943; (1988)1SCC116; [1988]1SCR787

criminal appellate jurisdiction: criminal appeal no.232 of 1987.from the judgment and order dated 23.2.1987 of the madras high court in w.p. no.6290 of 1986. k.k. venugopal, c.s. vaidyanathan, probir chowdhry, s.r. bhatt and s.r. setia for the appellant. m.m. abdul khader and a.v. rangam for the respondent. 789the judgment of the court was delivered by ranganath misra, j. this appeal is by special leave. appellant challenged his order of detention under section 3(1)(i) of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 (cofeposa for short) by filing a writ petition before the high court and that application, has been dismissed. as many as six contentions had been advanced before the high court. though raised in the writ petition, the point relating to denial of a fair hearing before the advisory board has not been noticed by the high court as a contention on behalf of the appellant, but counsel for the appellant has raised the same point before this court and since the facts on which the ground is raised are not in dispute we find no objection to entertaining this contention now specifically raised in this appeal.the hearing of the representation of the appellant by the advisory board was fixed for 25th november, 1986. on that day the appellant had specifically requested the advisory board to permit one mr. sundararajan, a retired assistant collector of central excise to assist him as a friend. the board, as appears from the counter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 1987 (SC)

Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-08-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC2414; (1987)3CompLJ133(SC); JT1987(4)SC35; 1987(2)SCALE715; (1988)1SCC86; [1988]1SCR383

..... his word. all the more so when the promise is not a bare promise but is made with the intention that the other party should act upon it. just a contract is different from tort and from estoppel, so also in the sphere now under discussion promises may give rise to a different equity from other conduct.the difference may lie .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 1987 (SC)

Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors. Vs. Aditya V. Birla

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-27-1987

Reported in : AIR1988SC420; (1988)67CTR(SC)165; [1988]170ITR137(SC); JT1987(4)SC653; 1987(2)SCALE1296; 1988Supp(1)SCC120; [1988]2SCR115

..... and anr. v. the state of madhya pradesh : 1958crilj803 of the report, it was observed that the concept of employment involved three ingredients: (1) employer (2) employee and (3) the contract of employment. the employee is one who works for other for hire. the employer is one who employs the services of other persons. in the context of this act, therefore ..... actual employment; it rather means to retain and pay a person whether employed or not but if employed then to be employed in the work only in respect of which contract is made. 'medical advisers may be employed at a salary to be ready in case of illness; members of theatrical establishments in case their labour should be needed; household servants .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 1987 (SC)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Nihar Kanta Sen and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-21-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC1713; (1987)1CALLT38(SC); JT1987(2)SC555; 1987(1)SCALE1015; (1987)3SCC465; [1987]2SCR1108; 1987(2)LC310(SC)

..... is a totally miss-conceived submission. section 3 provides that the provisions of the act shall have over-riding effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, contract, usage or custom to the contrary. there are two exceptions to this which is contained in the two proviso. the first proviso lays down that the provisions of the act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 1987 (SC)

All Bihar Christian Schools Association and anr. Vs. State of Bihar an ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-26-1987

Reported in : AIR1988SC305; JT1987(4)SC491; 1987(2)SCALE1200; (1988)1SCC206; [1988]2SCR49

..... their right of administration. this does not mean that an unaided minority institution is immune from operation of general laws of the land. a minority institution cannot claim immunity from contract law tax measures, economic regulations, social welfare legislation, labour and industrial laws and similar other measures which are intended to meet the need of the society. but institutions falling within ..... .24. guarantee of freedom to a minority institution under article 30(1) of the constitution does not permit the minority institution to act contrary to law and order, law of contract, industrial laws or other general laws which are enacted for the welfare of the society. if the minorities claim for immunity from the law of the land is upheld that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 1987 (SC)

Brijendra Nath Bhargava and anr. Vs. Harsh Wardhan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-02-1987

Reported in : AIR1988SC293; JT1987(4)SC538; 1987(2)SCALE1394; (1988)1SCC454; [1988]2SCR124; 1988(1)LC397(SC); 1988(1)WLN143; 1988(1)WLN322

..... of his principal agrees to waive his principal's rights then (subject to any other question such as consideration the principal will be bound, but he will be bound by contract.but in the context of the conclusion that we have reached on the basis of circumstances indicated above that it could not be held that the tenant had constructed this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 1987 (SC)

Sarwan Kumar Onkar Nath Vs. Subhas Kumar Agarwalla

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-09-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC2302; 1987(35)BLJR815; JT1987(4)SC64; 1987(2)SCALE723; (1987)4SCC546; [1988]1SCR414; 1988(1)LC20(SC)

..... prohibits the landlord to accept the rent for more than one month and as the advance was for two months, no benefit can be given to the respondent as the contract was against the statute. it is true that if the parties are in pari delicto court will not come in rescue of either. however, that does not help the appellant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1987 (SC)

Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-13-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC735; 1987CriLJ703; JT1987(1)SC157; 1987(1)SCALE58; (1987)1SCC476; [1987]1SCR991; 1987(1)LC351(SC)

m.p. thakkar, j.1. can a sanction to prosecute surrogate for a sanction to take cognizance? 2. two safeguards are provided in regard to prosecution of members of the armed forces or of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order sought to be prosecuted for use of excessive force in the discharge of purported discharge of their duty: (1) they cannot be 'prosecuted' without obtaining a sanction to prosecute from the appropriate government (section 132 (132. protection against prosecution for acts done under preceding sections-(1) no prosecution against any person for any act purporting to be done under section 129, section 139 or section 131 shall be instituted in any criminal court except-(a) with the sanction of the central government where such person is an officer or member of the armed forces; (b) with the sanction of the state government in any other case..) of the crpc) (cr. pc) (2) no court can take 'cognizance' of an offence against such an official in the absence of the previous sanction of the appropriate government (see section 197 of cr. pc) (197. prosecution of judges and public servants-(1) x x xx 2. no court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the armed forces of the union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the central government. 3. the state government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub- section (2) shall .....

Tag this Judgment!


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