Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 1978 Page 4 of about 76 results (0.084 seconds)

Sep 15 1978 (SC)

Lily Kurian Vs. Sr. Lewina and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-15-1978

Reported in : AIR1979SC52; 1978LabIC1644; (1979)2SCC124; [1979]1SCR820

sen, j.1. these appeals by special leave directed against the judgment of the kerala high court dated july 19, 1973, raise a question of far reaching importance. the question is whether an educational institution established and managed by a religious or linguistic minority is bound by the provisions of ordinance 33(4), chapter lvii of the ordinances framed by the syndicate of the university of kerala, under section 19(j) of the kerala university act, 1957.2. smt. lilly kurian, the appellant herein, was appointed as principal of the st. joseph training college for women, ernakulam in the year 1957. the college was established by the congregation of the mothers of carmal, which is a religious society of nnus belonging to the roman catholic church, and is affiliated to the university of kerala. it is administered by a managing board, and the provincial of the congregation is its president.3. on october 30, 1969, there was an unfortunate incident between the appellant and one p.k. rajaratnam, a lecturer of the college, placed on deputation by the government. on the basis of a complaint by rajaratnam, the managing board initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and appointed a retired principal of the maharaja's college, ernakulam, to be the enquiry officer. the appellant did not participate in the proceedings. the attitude adopted by the appellant unfortunately was one of supreme indifference, taking the stand that the managing board had no competence whatsoever .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 1978 (SC)

Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-29-1978

Reported in : AIR1979SC1280; 1979CriLJ871; (1979)4SCC145

a.d. koshal, j.1. for the abduction and murder of inder singh, a resident of village lataur to police station mulepur of dist. patiala and for doing away with his dead-body, three other residents of the same village, namely, gurbachan singh aged 55, his son baldev singh aged 30, and the latter's brother hardev singh aged 27, were tried by shri jagwant singh, additional sessions judge, patiala, for offences under section 364, section 302 read with section 34, section 120b read with section 302 and section 201, of the indian penal code. two of the accused, namely, hardev singh and ms father were acquitted of all the charges. their co-accused baldev singh was, however, found guilty of murdering inder singh in furtherance of the common intention of himself and others and was convicted of an offence under section 392 read with section 34 of the i.p.c. the charges under section 864 and section 201 of the code were also found proved against him and he was convicted thereof. the sentences awarded to him were life imprisonment on the first count, rigorous imprisonment for five years on the second and rigorous imprisonment for three years on the third, all of them having been directed to run concurrently. his appeal was rejected by a judgment dated the 8th of october 1971 of a division bench of the high court of punjab and haryana and it is that judgment which is challenged before us in the present appeal.2. the prosecution case may be stated thus:- about a decade prior to the 21st .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1978 (SC)

Sarwan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-30-1978

Reported in : AIR1978SC1525; 1978CriLJ1598; (1978)4SCC111; [1979]1SCR383

kailasam, j.1.the two criminal appeals nos. 59 and 60 of 1972 are by special leave. criminal appeal no. 59 of 1972 is preferred by sarwan singh, karnail singh, zora singh and malkiat singh, while criminal appeal no. 60 of 1972 is by bachan singh against their conviction and sentence imposed on them by the trial court and confirmed by the punjab and haryana high court in criminal appeal no. 512 of 1970. this court granted special leave in both cases limited to the question as to whether the offence committed by the appellants is one punishable under section 300 i.p.c. or under any part of section 304 i.p.c.2. the facts necessary for determining what offence the accused were guilty of may be stated. sant singh is the father of sarwan singh, bachan singh and mewa singh. sarwan singh is the first appellant in criminal appeal no. 59 of 1972 and bachan singh is the sole appellant in criminal appeal no. 60 of 1972. the deceased mewa singh is their brother. sarwan singh had two sons, zora singh and karnail singh who are appellants nos. 3 and 2 in criminal appeal no. 59 of 1972. sarwan singh's daughter was married to malkiat singh who is the fourth appellant in criminal appeal no. 59 of 1972. pending appeal, sarwan singh and bachan singh have died and their appeals have abated. we are therefore concerned only with karnail singh, zora singh and malkiat singh who are appellants nos. 2, 3 and 4 in criminal appeal no. 59 of 1972.3. the deceased is the brother of the two accused and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 1978 (SC)

The State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Atma Ram Sadashiv Dongarwar and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-16-1978

Reported in : AIR1978SC1635; 1979MhLJ41(SC); (1978)4SCC170; [1979]1SCR163; 1978(10)LC644(SC)

jaswant singh, j.1. this appeal by certificate granted under article 133(1)(c) of the constitution by the high court of judicature at bombay (nagpur bench) which is directed against its judgment and order dated july 5, 1967 in special civil application no. 893 of 1965 raises an important question of law as to the right of the state to levy and collect water charges from the respondents under the central provinces irrigation act, 1931 (act no. iii of 1931) for appropriation for irrigation purposes of water from navegaon bandh tank in tehsil sakoli, district bhandara.2. the facts giving rise to this appeal are :as already indicated, there is in village navegaon, tehsil sakoli, district bhandara, which formed part of the erstwhile state of madhya pradesh, a very large reservoir of water called navegaon bandh tank which is said to have been constructed some 300 years ago by one kawdu patel. the tank which is over an area of land admeasuring nearly 3200 acres has, since the time of its construction, been the main source of supply of water to the rice and sugarcane growing areas of five villages viz, mouza navegaon, deolgaon, mungli, yerandi and kholi comprising about 2688 acres of land which is held partly by the quondam malguzars including respondents 1 to 8 and partly by the tenants including respondents 9 to 20. the said tank came to vest in the state under the madhya pradesh abolition of proprietary rights (estates, mahals and alienated lands) act, 1950 (act no. 1 of 1951). in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 1978 (SC)

Suleman Noormohamed and ors. Vs. Umarbhai Janubhai

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-23-1978

Reported in : AIR1978SC952; (1978)0GLR566; (1978)2SCC179; [1978]3SCR387; 1978(10)LC253(SC)

1. this is a decree-holders' appeal by special leave. the sole respondent is the judgment debtor. the appellants filed a suit against the respondent in the small causes court at ahmedabad in 1964 claiming a decree for eviction against him on the ground of non-payment of rent and bonafide personal necessity. the grounds made out were in accordance with the relevant provisions of the bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates control act, 1947- hereinafter to be referred to as the act. the respondent filed a writ-ten statement with a view to contest the suit. eventually on account of the default of the defendant the suit was taken up for hearing ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed on the 16th of march, 1966. the defendant applied under order ix rule 13 of the cpc-hereinafter to be referred to as the code, for setting aside the decree. it was set aside. but ultimately the suit was disposed of on the 1st march, 1967 on compromise between the parties. according to the terms of the compromise decree, the judgment-debtor was to hand over possession of the suit premises to the decree holders within a period of three years i.e. by 1st of march, 1970. but he did not] do so. thereupon the decree-holders filed an execution case to get possession of the property. the respondent contested the execution on the ground that the decree was a nullity. the first court accepted his plea but on appeal by the decree-holders it was held by the appellate court that the decree was not a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 1978 (SC)

Udai Chand Vs. Shankar Lal and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-07-1978

Reported in : AIR1978SC765; (1978)2SCC209; [1978]2SCR809; 1978(10)LC171(SC)

m.h. beg, j.1. the plaintiff landlord had purchased a shop by a sale deed dated 17th may, 1965, and then terminated the tenancy of the defendant-petitioner by a registered notice in july, 1965, coupled with a demand for arrears of rent. upon the failure of defendant to comply with the notice to quit a suit was filed against the defendant-petitioner on 23rd november, 1965. during the pendency of that suit the rajasthan premises (control of rent & eviction) act, 1950, was made applicable by a notification dated 30th march, 1967, to rajgarh town where the shop is situated.2. the defendant petitioner had denied having executed any rent note in favour of bhurdas, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff landlord who had also notified the defendant petitioner of the sale in. favour of the plaintiff by a registered notice dated 25th june, 1965, received by the defendant petitioner on 29th june, 1965. the defendant petitioner pleaded having taken the shop from another individual, mahant ram ratan das.3. in the course of litigation, the defendant-petitioner had asked for an-issue to-be framed on the question whether there was legal necessity for the transfer in favour of the plaintiff. in other words, he had questioned, at that stage, the legality of transfer in favour of the plaintiff on the ground of want of title in the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest and also on the ground that the sale deed was invalid. the high court had, however, on a revision application preferred by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 1978 (SC)

Khatki Ahmed Mushabhai Vs. Limdi Municipality

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-20-1978

Reported in : AIR1979SC418; (1979)0GLR370; (1979)1SCC248; [1979]2SCR338

orderv.r. krishna iyer, j.1. the petitioner's counsel, in his fighting submission, argues that his client's fundamental right to a licence for a meat shop has been flouted by the little limdi municipality, founding himself on a decision of this court in mohd. faruk v. m.p. state [197] 1 scr 156. that decision hardly helps. there a byelaw was challenged as violative of article 19(1)(g). here there is no law whatever which bans the grant of meat licences. indeed, there are three other licensed meat stalls and the petitioner himself had a meat licence in a shop leased to him by the same municipality earlier which by efflux of time had expired. the law vests a discretion to be reasonably exercised in the context of citizen's fundamental right. the ground on which the municipal body has, refused licence here is not irrelevant and cannot be described as unreasonable within the meaning of article 19(6) of the constitution. the bye-laws permit the municipality, as the licensing authority, to grant or to refuse licences. no butcher, baker or circus manager can say that he has the unqualified right to get a licence on mere application. it is open to the licensing council-indeed, is obligatory on its part-to take note of all relevant circumstances and then decide whether, in the particular spot chosen by the particular applicant, a licence should be granted. various factors enter the verdict and the local authorities are the best judge of these factual factors, not the court, especially .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 1978 (SC)

Morcha Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-13-1978

Reported in : AIR1979SC80; 1978CriLJ1710; (1979)1SCC161; [1979]1SCR744

jaswant singh, j.1. this appeal under section 2(a) of the supreme court (enlargement of criminal appellate jurisdiction) act, 1970 (act 28 of 1970) raises a short question as to the nature of the offence made out against the appellant on the basis of the evidence adduced in sessions case no. 64 of 1966.2. the sessions judge, udaipur, who tried the appellant found on a consideration of the evidence led in the case including the direct testimony of mst. jelki (p.w. 3) and mst. modan (p.w. 8) that the appellant attacked his wife, mst. gajri with dagger (exh. 1) and caused injuries on her person out of which injury no. 2 which had injured the liver and caused the perforation of the large colon was sufficient to cause her death in the ordinary course of nature. despite this finding, the sessions judge convicted the appellant under section 304 part ii of the indian penal code and acquitted him of the charge under section 302 of the penal code in view of the fact that dr. laxmi narain (p.w. 1) who conducted the post mortem examination of the body of mst. gajri had said in the course of his examination that if immediate expert treatment had been available and emergency operation had been performed, there were chances of her survival. the sessions judge agreeing with the contention raised on behalf of the defence also found that according to the case of the prosecution itself, the accused had gone to the village of his in-laws to fetch mst. gajri and it was only on her refusal to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 08 1978 (SC)

Maulana ShamsuddIn Vs. Khushilal and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-08-1978

Reported in : AIR1978SC1740; (1979)1SCC121; [1979]1SCR582; 1978(10)LC723(SC)

untwalia, j.1. in this appeal by certificate granted by the madhya pradesh high court the question of law which falls for our determination is whether conferral of bhumiswami rights on shri khushi lal, respondent no. 1 in respect of the lands in question in accordance with section 190 of the madhya pradesh land revenue code, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the m.p. code of 1959, by the revenue authorities is correct and sustainable.2. maulana shamsuddin, the sole appellant in this appeal, was a muafidar in the erstwhile state of bhopal of the disputed lands in accordance with the bhopal state land revenue act, 1932 (for brevity, the bhopal act of 1932). the first respondent claimed to be a shikmi of the appellant in respect of the lands in question. his case was that the appellant was the occupant of the lands within the meaning of the bhopal act of 1932. on the coming into force of the m.p. code of 1959, the appellant became a bhumiswami under clause (c) of section 158 and the respondent became an occupancy tenant under section 185(1)(iv)(b). thus he became entitled to conferment of bhumiswami rights under section 490. he applied before the tahsildar, huzur, respondent no. 5 for mutation of his name as a bhumiswami in the revenue records. the tahsildar by his order dated the 24th june, 1963 directed khushi lal to deposit compensation equivalent to 15 times of the land revenue on the payment of which his name was to be recorded as a bhumiswami of the holdings. it appears his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1978 (SC)

Purshotam Dass Goel Vs. Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Dhillon and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-17-1978

Reported in : AIR1978SC1014; 1978CriLJ772; (1978)2SCC370; [1978]3SCR510; 1978(10)LC596(SC)

1. this is an appeal filed by the alleged contemner under section 19(1) of the contempt of courts act, 1971 (hereinafter called the act), from the order dated 2nd april, 1975 of the high court of punjab and haryana directing the issue of notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for committing contempt of the high court. the notice was issued in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 17 of the act, to show cause against the appellant's alleged liability to be punished under section 15.2. a preliminary objection was raised by the learned solicitor general on behalf of the respondents that no appeal lies to this court under section 19 of the act from an order issuing notice as nothing yet has been decided by the high court. mr. mohan behari lal, learned counsel for the appellant combated this argument and submitted that an appeal does lie to this court as a matter of right under section 19.3. in our opinion, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents is well-founded and must be accepted as correct. section 19(1) says :an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the high court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt-(a) where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a bench of not less than two judges of the court; (b) where the order or decision is that of a bench, to the supreme court :provided that where the order or decision is that of the court of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

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