Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 1987 Page 2 of about 77 results (0.078 seconds)

Aug 06 1987 (SC)

U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Konaria Chemicals and Industries Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-06-1987

Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC611

order 1. delay condoned. 2. this is a petition challenging the award of the arbitrator appointed by this court. justice d.p. madon, a former judge of this court was appointed as the arbitrator by the order of this court. the order directed inter alia that the arbitrator would be free if he chooses to make either a speaking or a non-speaking award and be free to give reasons for his award. it appears that justice madon made the award on january 21, 1987 after hearing all the parties. the validity of non-speaking awards is under challenge in this court and the question has been referred to the constitution bench of this court, and is pending there. the award of justice madon is under challenge. it is contended that the award is bad and is a non-speaking award. on the other hand, it is submitted that by virtue of the order of this court the learned arbitrator was not obliged to make any speaking award and thus he did not violate the provisions of law. it is well settled that if the arbitrator has not made a speaking award and if there is no allegation of any misconduct, which there is none, the award can only be challenged if there is any error on the face of the award. but whether the arbitrator is obliged and enjoined by law to make a speaking award and non-speaking awards violate the fundamental rights of the people is a matter which is pending adjudication by a bench of five learned judges of this court. it is appropriate in our opinion that this matter should be finally .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 1987 (SC)

Ramesh Laxman Pardesi Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-10-1987

Reported in : (1987)89BOMLR213; JT1987(3)SC5; 1987(1)SCALE826; 1987(Supp)SCC1; [1987]2SCR901

g.l. oza, j.1. this appeal has been filed after obtaining leave from this court against the conviction of the appellant under section 302 and sentence of imprisonment for life recorded by additional sessions judge greater bombay in sessions case no. 204/73 and maintained on appeal by high court of bombay by its judgment dated 17th oct. 1977.2. the prosecution case at the trial was that on the midnight intervening between 25th/26th july, 1972 the appellant alongwith others went to traffic island near bandra, situated on linking road where badshah umarbax was doing the business of vending eatables from his hand cart kept in that island. the eatables included heavy non-vegetarian items. badshah, p.w. 4 was assisted in his trade by his brother-in-law sadatali, p.w. 5 and some other servants. it is alleged that the appellant alongwith his friends had reached there to celebrate the victory of carom game of the carom club run by accused no. 1 and on reaching near the cart accused nos. 1 and 4 placed order for meat and other preparations.3. as the dishes were getting ready the deceased sheroo lala came there, driving his red fiat car mrt 566. by his side was his relation ahmedkhan, who, though cited as a witness, was not examined at the trial, as it was reported that he was not available. in the back seat sat chutkhan, p.w. 2 and alikhan, p.w. 3. it appears that chutkan and kala topi met in a hotel in khar and while they were conversing, sheroo lala came there together with alikhan .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1987 (SC)

K. Rajaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-19-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC2005; JT1987(3)SC378; 1987LabIC1659; (1987)IILLJ519SC; 1987(2)SCALE409; 1987Supp(1)SCC345; [1987]3SCR1010

1. this appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the andhra pradesh administrative tribunal, hyderabad, holding that the appellant was appointed to the post of sub-inspector of police (civil) as a direct recruit and directing that he shall be accorded seniority from the date when he joined the post on such appointment.2. on december 30, 1968, the appellant, who was then an undergraduate, was appointed to the post of reserve sub-inspector of police. during his service in that post, he passed the b.a. examination of the osmania university in april 1971. pursuant to an advertisement in the local newspaper inviting applications for the posts of sub-inspector of police (civil), the appellant applied for the post and appeared in the written test and viva voce test. he was selected and appointed to the post on december 14, 1976 on probation for two years along with thirty seven others. after the completion of his probationary period, he was confirmed in the post on november 29, 1978.3. it appears that the inspector general of police did not accede to the request pf the appellant to take into account the period of his service as reserve sub-inspector of police in computing his seniority in the new post of sub-inspector of police (civil). thereafter, the appellant made a representation to the government. the government in its order being goms no. 344 dated june 11, 1982, took the view that the entire period of service of the appellant as reserve sub-inspector of police .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 14 1987 (SC)

State of U.P. Vs. Niyamat and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-14-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC1652; 1987CriLJ1881; JT1987(3)SC1; 1987(1)SCALE844; (1987)3SCC434; [1987]2SCR953

g.l. oza, j.1. this appeal has been preferred by the state after obtaining leave from this court against the acquittal of the respondents recorded by the high court of allahabad by its judgment dated 13th april 1977 hearing an appeal against the conviction of the respondents recorded by first additional sessions judge, etah convicting all the respondents under section 302 read with 149, section 395 and 147 and sentenced to life, 10 years and 2 years rigorous imprisonment respectively to each one of the respondents.2. the prosecution case at the trial was that on 27. 10. 1974 a.s.i. om prakash sharma accompanied by two constables gauri shanker, p.w. 2 and kanauji lal, p.w. 4 went to village nidhauli khurd, which was at a distance of three miles from kotwali etah, and arrested one laturi there at about 1 or 1.30 p.m. virendra nath, deceased, had helped them in arresting the said laturi. the a.s.i. and the two constables returned to the police station kotwali etah with laturi in custody at 6.50 p.m. a few minutes later these constables, gauri shanker and kanauji lal, were given summons for service on one girish of village nidhauli khurd. so constables gauri shanker and kanauji lal returned to the village nidhauli khurd the same evening at about 7.30 p.m. to serve the summons. it is alleged that at that time the two constables were wearing police uniforms and gauri shanker was carrying his personal dbbl gun and a belt of cartridges.3. while they were in the village, virendra nath .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 1987 (SC)

Bhagwan Dass and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-31-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC2049; JT1987(3)SC206; 1987LabIC1662; 1987(2)SCALE160; (1987)4SCC634; [1987]3SCR714; 1987(3)SLJ93(SC)

m.p. thakkar, j.1. the alleged violation of 'equal work equal pay' doctrine is the principal grievance of the petitioners.2. the petitioners 102 (originally there were 91 petitioners. subsequently 11 more were added as per the order of the court dated september 18, 1986 in civil misc. petition nos. 23014 and 25722 of 1986) in number holding the degrees of b.a., b.ed, and m.a., b.ed, were appointed as supervisors by a competent selection committee constituted by the education department of haryana from time to time since october 2, 1978.3. they have instituted the present petition under article 32 of the constitution of india seeking appropriate reliefs in the context of two grievances, one that the petitioners are given a deliberate break of one day after the lapse of every six months and have thus been treated as temporary government servants notwithstanding the fact that they have been continuously working ever since the dates of their respective appointment subject to the aforesaid break of one day at intervals of six months instead of absorbing them as regular employees in regular pay scales. and secondly, though the petitioners performed their duties as supervisors in the education department and do the same work as is being done by their counterparts, respondents 2 to 6 who are discharging similar duties as supervisors in the education department who are absorbed as regular government servants they are paid less. the relief claimed by the petitioners is in the following .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1987 (SC)

Smt. Bhuri Bai (Dead) by Lrs. and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-07-1987

Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC690

order a quantity of bricks belonging to the appellant was seized and thereafter confiscated by an order of the collector dated august 28, 1959. and appeal to the commissioner of land revenue and a further appeal to the board of revenue were rejected. on a petition filed by the appellant under article 226 of the constitution, the high court of madhya pradesh by its judgment dated march 19, 1966, quashed the order of confiscation. thereafter, the appellant filed the suit, out of which the present appeal arises to recover the value of the bricks, which had in the meanwhile been sold by auction. the suit was decreed by the trial court but was dismissed by the high court on two grounds. the first ground was that the state of madhya pradesh could not be sued for the value of the bricks as the act of the collector in seizing the bricks was a sovereign act. the second ground was that the suit was barred by limitation as it was not filed within one year from the date of seizure, as contemplated by article 29 of the schedule to the limitation act. we may mention here that no plea regarding limitation was raised by the government in the written statement filed in the trial court. the high court took up the question of limitation of its own motion. we are satisfied that both the grounds given by the high court for reversing the judgment and decree granted by the trial court, are unsustainable. the seizure of the bricks by the collector and the subsequent confiscation were made pursuant .....

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!

Jul 28 1987 (SC)

Samar Singh Vs. Kedar Nath Alias K.N. Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-28-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC1926; (1988)1GLR73(SC); JT1987(3)SC165; 1987(3)KarLJ63; 1987(2)SCALE135; 1987Supp(1)SCC663

1. this appeal under section 116-a of the representation of people act, 1951 is directed against the judgment of the high court of allahabad dated march 6, 1986 rejecting the appellant's election petition under order 7 rule 11 of the cpc.2. briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are that during the general elections held in the year 1984, the appellant filed his nomination paper for contesting election to the lok sabha from 79-hapur parliamentary constituency. the appellant's nomination paper was accepted and he was allotted symbol of 'lion'. the appellant kedar nath alias k.n. singh-respondent, and 17 other candidates contested the election. the appellant could poll only 617 votes while kedar nath respondent polled 255828 votes and he was declared elected. the appellant filed election petition challenging the respondent's election on a number of grounds. the respondent appeared before the high court, filed written statement and contested the election petition. on 10.12.1985 issues were framed thereafter respondent made an application for rejecting the election under order 7 rule 11 cpc on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action. a learned single judge of the high court after hearing the parties at length rejected the election petition on the finding that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action. the appellant has challenged the correctness of the high court order by means of this appeal.3. the appellant who is an advocate appeared in person .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 1987 (SC)

General Electric Co. Vs. Renusagar Power Co.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-11-1987

Reported in : JT1987(3)SC277; 1987(2)SCALE257; (1987)4SCC137; [1987]3SCR858; 1987(2)UJ410(SC)

civil appellate jurisdiction: civil appeal no. 2319 of 1986.from the judgment and order dated 7.3. 1986 of the allahabad high court in revision petition no. 454 of 1985. shanti bhushan, s. dastur, j.j. bhatt, a. dayal and k.j. john for the appellant.l.m. singhvi, depanker gupta, p.l.' dubey, n.r. khaitan, a.m. singhvi, u.k. khaitan, ajay jain, praveen kumar and c. mukhopadhya for the respondent.the judgment of the court was delivered by chinnappa reddy, j. the appellant, general electric company, a multi-national, entered into a contract with the respondent, renusagar power company limited, an indian company, agreeing to sell equipment for a thermal electric generating plant to be erected at renukoot on the terms and conditions set forth in the contract. for the purposes of this case, it is unnecessary to set out the terms of the contract and the details of what was envisaged to be done by the parties. it is also unnecessary to set out the various events that took place subsequently. it is sufficient to state that on march 2, 1982, the gec submitted certain disputes between the gec and renusagar for arbitration to the international chambers of commerce. on june 11, 1982, renusagar filed a suit in the bombay high court .for a declaration that the claims purported to be referred to arbitration by gec to icc were beyond the scope and purview of the arbitration agreement contained in the contract and sought an injunction to restrain the gec from taking any further steps pursuant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 1987 (SC)

State of Orissa and anr. Vs. Alekh Chandra Jena

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-07-1987

Reported in : JT1987(4)SC657; (1988)ILLJ338SC; 1987(2)SCALE1416; 1988Supp(1)SCC469; [1988]2SCR177

l.m. sharma, j.1. special leave granted. arguments heard.2. the respondent a.c. jena was a sarpanch of padanipal grama panchayat, orissa. he was removed from the office under section 115 of the orissa grama panchayat act, 1964 by the order of the state government (petitioner no. 1 before us) dated 24.10.86, as contained in annexure-d to the special leave petition, which has been quashed by the impugned judgment of the orissa high court dated 20.1.1987 in o.j.c. no. 3300/86.3. the relevant provisions of section 115 of the act read as follows; 115(1). if on the report of the sub-divisional officer the collector is of the opinion that circumstances exist to show that the sarpaneh or naib-sarpaneh of a grartia panchayat wilfully omits or refuses to carry out or violates the provisions of this act, or the rules or orders made thereunder or abuses the powers, rights and privileges vested in him or acts in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the inhabitants of the grama and that the further continuance of such person in office would be detrimental to the interest of the grama panchayat or the inhabitants of the grama, he may, by order, suspend the sarpaneh or naib-sarpanch, as the case may be, from office and report the matter to the state government.(2) the state government, on the report of the collector under sub-section (1) shall, or if the state government themselves ate of the opinion that the circumstances specified in the said sub-section exist in relation to a sarpaneh .....

Tag this Judgment!


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