Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 1987 Page 3 of about 77 results (0.109 seconds)

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!

May 01 1987 (SC)

E.S. Reddi Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of A.P. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-01-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC1550; JT1987(2)SC339; 1987(1)SCALE919; (1987)3SCC258; [1987]3SCR146; 1987(2)LC283(SC)

a.p. sen, j.1. this is an application made by one t.v. choudhary, a member of the indian administrative service, under suspension, for recalling the court's orders dated may 5, 1986 and august, 11, 1986 passed in special leave petition no. 14045 of 1985.2. we shall first deal with the special leave petition of e.s. reddy, a member of the indian administrative service belonging to andhra pradesh cadre and who worked as the vice-chairman-cum-managing director of the andhra pradesh mining corporation. it is directed against a judgment of the division bench of the high court dated october 18, 1985 reversing the judgment and order of a learned single judge dated september 2, 1985 and dismissing his petition under article 226 of the constitution. by the writ petition, the petitioner had called in question the validity of an order of the state government of andhra pradesh dated february 11, 1985 placing him under suspension under sub-rule(1) of rule 13 of the andhra pradesh civil services (classification, control & appeal) rules, 1963. the main grievance of the petitioner before the high court was that the impugned order of suspension was wholly mala fide, arbitrary and irrational and violative of article 14 of the constitution as there was no justification for the differential treatment meted out to him while the applicant t.v. choudhary, also a member of the indian administrative service, who worked in various capacities viz. as central manager, functional director, member, board .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1987 (SC)

Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and o ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-06-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC1727; 65(1988)CLT1(SC); JT1987(2)SC362; 1987(1)SCALE1213; (1987)3SCC189; [1987]3SCR265; 1987(2)LC297(SC)

1. m/s. indian metals and ferro b alloys ltd. the petitioner in writ petition no. 1753 of 1986 and in s.l.p. (c) nos. 14923-14924 of 1986 is a public limited company incorporated under the indian companies act which is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of ferro silicon and silicon metal which are said to be a valuable raw-material used by the defence establishments in india and also exported out of the country. the second petitioner in q the aforesaid writ petition and the special leave petitions is the managing director of the company. the company has installed three units namely, 11 kv, 33 kv and 132 kv furnaces in which it is manufacturing ferro alloys and silicon metal in a composite industrial complex in a place called therubali in the state of orissa. the company has also a subsidiary by name m/s. indian metal and carbide ltd. engaged in the manufacture of silicon carbide and its factory is also situated in the same industrial complex. all the four units utilise electricity as raw material and they are, therefore, classified as 'power intensive industrial units'-the four units shall hereinafter referred to as '11 kv imfal', '33 kv imfal', '11 kv imcl' and '132 kv imfal'.-the company has entered into separate agreements with the orissa state electricity board (hereinafter called the 'board') for supply of electric energy to these four different units and the rates of tariff to be charged for such supply. the agreement in respect of 11 kv imfal was entered into .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1987 (SC)

Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-01-1987

Reported in : I(1987)ACC413; [1987]62CompCas138(SC); JT1987(2)SC43; 1987MhLJ556(SC); 1987(1)SCALE648; (1987)2SCC654; [1987]2SCR752

m.p. thakkar, j.1. while in some states (andhra pradesh, gujarat) a widow of a victim of a motor vehicle accident can recover the amount of compensation awarded to her from the insurance company, in a precisely similar fact-situation she would be unable to do so, in other states (assam, madhya pradesh, orissa), conflicting views having been taken by the respective high courts. the unaesthetic wrinkles from the face of law require to be removed by settling the law so that the same law does not operate on citizens differently depending on the situs of the accident. the question is whether the insurer is entitled to claim immunity from a decree obtained by the dependents of the victim of a fatal accident on the ground that the insurance policy provided 'a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification,' and that such exclusion was permissible in the context of section 96(2)(b)(ii) 3. 96. duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks-(1) if, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (4) of section 95 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgments in respect of any such liability is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 95 (being a liability covered by the terms of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 1987 (SC)

State of Punjab Vs. Dharam Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-06-1987

Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC89

s. natarajan and; v. balakrishnan eradi, jj.1. this appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the high court allowing a petition under section 482 crpc and quashing the first information report registered against the respondents and the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof. the order of the high court cannot be sustained because the police authorities are enjoined by law to register a case and conduct investigation whenever information is laid regarding the commission of cognizable offences. as such the quashing of a first information report will amount to restraining the police authorities from performing the duties enjoined upon them by law. the high court has not been unaware of this position because it has stated in its order as follows:insofar as the legal position is concerned it is well established that the first information report which sets into motion the investigational process can be quashed only in a case where the facts as alleged in the report, even if taken to be true, do not prima facie constitute an offence, meaning thereby that the first information report must disclose prima facie that a cognizable offence has been committed.2. the high court has, however, not confined its scrutiny to the averments contained in the first information report but has traversed beyond and examined the case in the light of the contentions put forth by the respondents in their petition under section 482 crpc. by indulgence in such exercise the high court has .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 1987 (SC)

U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow Vs. P.L. Kelkar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-07-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC1701; JT1987(2)SC564; 1987LabIC1322; (1987)IILLJ350SC; 1987(1)SCALE1192; (1987)3SCC161; [1987]3SCR335; 1987(2)LC262(SC)

1. this appeal by special leave and the connected special leave petition and the writ petition directed against the judgment and order of the allahabad high court dated february 1, 1985 raise a question of construction of regulation 7(iv)(b) of the u.p. state electricity board service of engineers (integration & seniority) regulations, 1976, framed under section 79(c) of the electricity (supply) act, 1948. by the judgment, a division bench of the high court has disallowed a batch of writ petitions seeking to quash an order of the u.p. public services tribunal, lucknow dated april 3, 1978. allowing a representation made by respondent no. 1, presently working as superintending engineer in the u.p. state electricity board, the tribunal held that in terms of regulation 7(iv)(b) of the regulations, respondent no. 1 having been granted seven advance increments was entitled to the benefit of as many years of service as the number of advance increments given to him at the time of his recruitment. the high court has upheld the order of the public services tribunal. as a result, respondent no. 1 who figures at serial no. 12 in the integrated seniority list of assistant engineers (civil) i.e. below other superintending engineers including the six petitioners in the connected special leave petition no. 8835/85, would take his place at serial no. 1 in the seniority list i.e. above them.2. the short question involved in this appeal is whether respondent no. 1 on a proper construction was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 1987 (SC)

Samarjit Ghosh Vs. Bennett Coleman and Co. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jun-29-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC1869; (1987)1CALLT33(SC); JT1987(3)SC19; (1987)IILLJ337SC; 1987(2)SCALE5; (1987)3SCC507; [1987]3SCR475; 1987(3)SLJ228(SC); 1987(2)LC385(SC)

1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a division bench of the calcutta high court affirming on appeal the judgment and order of a learned single judge of the high court declaring that the reference made by the government of west bengal in the dispute raised by the appellant is incompetent and invalid.2. the appellant is a working journalist employed by the respondents, messrs. bennett coleman and company limited. the registered office of the company is at bombay and its press is located in calcutta. the sales office of the company is situated in calcutta. on 1 november, 1961 the appellant was appointed a staff correspondent in the calcutta office of the company. the letter of appointment dated y november, 1961 was issued by the company from its registered office at bombay. subsequently, the appellant was promoted to the post of industrial correspondent, pune and was transferred from calcutta to pune from 16 february, 1976. upon transfer to pune the appellant received his remuneration and allowances from the pune office of the company, and he was under the direct control and supervision of the registered office of the company situated in bombay.3. while the appellant was in calcutta and before his transfer on promotion to pune the appellant applied to the labour department, government of west bengal on 29 april, 1975 under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the working journalists and other newspaper employees (conditions of service) and miscellaneous .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1987 (SC)

U.P. Public Service Commission at Allahabad Vs. Suresh Chandra Tewari ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-07-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC1953; JT1987(3)SC243; 1987LabIC1644; 1987(2)SCALE223; (1987)4SCC176; [1987]3SCR833; 1987(3)SLJ253(SC); 1987(2)LC345(SC)

order1. the uttar pradesh public service commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the commission') is the petitioner in this petition. it has questioned the correctness of the order passed by the high court of allahabad in writ petition no. 17082 of 1986 directing it to comply with the order dated august 30, 1986 passed by the state government on an appeal filed by respondent no. 1 against the order passed by the commission in a disciplinary proceeding held against him.2. respondent no. 1 was working as a section officer in the office of the commission. on july 18, 1981 he was placed under suspension on certain charges and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. in the said enquiry he was found guilty and he was reverted to the rank of an upper division assistant by the order dated april 24, 1982 and by another order passed on the same day he was dismissed from service. against these orders respondent no. 1 preferred an appeal before the state government. the state government found that respondent no. 1 had not been given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced at the disciplinary enquiry, that he had not been given a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence from his side and that, therefore, the punishment imposed on him was violative of article 311(2) of the constitution. accordingly, the order of dismissal passed against him in the disciplinary enquiry was set aside and the commission was directed to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 1987 (SC)

Osmania University Teachers' Association Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-13-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC2034; JT1987(3)SC424; 1987(2)SCALE289; (1987)4SCC671; [1987]3SCR949; 1987(2)LC490(SC)

1. this appeal on a certificate raises a short but an important question as to the constitutional validity of the andhra pradesh commissionerate of higher education act, 1986 (act no. 26 of 1986) (called shortly 'the commissionerate act'). the question is whether the enactment falls within entry 66 list i or entry 25 list iii-concurrent list of the seventh schedule to the constitution. the high court of andhra pradesh has upheld its validity by holding that the act falls under the latter entry, but granted a certificate for leave to appeal to this court under article 133(1) of the constitution.2. the said act was enacted on the basis of the recommendations of a high power committee constituted by the state government to study the higher education system in the state of andhra pradesh with special reference to its curricula, courses of study, finance and management. the committee in its report submitted to the government observed, inter-alia, that there is no proper coordination and academic planning among the various bodies like universities, directorate of higher education and university grants commission etc. there is no policy perspective in the development of higher education system. the committee said that in order to streamline the general working and oversee the development of higher education in the state, there is need to constitute a commission to advise the government in that matter.3. the government appears to have accepted the said report of the committee. that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 1987 (SC)

State Bank of India and Anr. Vs. S.B.i. Employees' Union and Anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-15-1987

Reported in : AIR1987SC2203; 1988(36)BLJR500; (1987)89BOMLR630; [1987]169ITR675(SC); JT1987(3)SC579; 1987(2)SCALE575; (1987)4SCC370; [1988]1SCR153; [1988]68STC316(SC); 1988(1)LC171(SC)

order1. the certificate on the basis of which this appeal is filed is issued by a learned single judge of the high court of bombay under article 134a of the constitution in respect of an order passed by him in a writ petition in which the employees of the state bank of india had questioned the right of the management to fix the hours of work and the hours of recess and its right to stagger the period of recess and had prayed for other consequential reliefs. the learned single judge allowed the petition following certain earlier decisions of the high court rendered by the division benches. he however proceeded to grant a certificate of fitness to file an appeal against his decision before this court following an earlier order of a division bench granting such a certificate in respect of one of those earlier decisions. he issued the certificate under article 134a of the constitution without referring to the article under which the appeal could be filed. article 134a of the constitution reads thus:134a. every high court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final order, or sentence, referred to in clause (1) of article 132 or clause (1) of article 133, or clause (1) of article 134,-(a) may, if it deems fit so to do, on its own motion; and(b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after the passing or making of such judgment, decree, final order or sentence,determine, as soon as may be after such passing or making, the question .....

Tag this Judgment!

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