Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 1992 Page 6 of about 113 results (0.082 seconds)

Mar 13 1992 (SC)

Smt. Paniben Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-13-1992

Reported in : AIR1992SC1817; 1992CriLJ2919; 1992(1)Crimes1180(SC); (1993)2GLR985; JT1992(4)SC397; 1992(1)SCALE655; (1992)2SCC474; [1992]2SCR197

ordermohan, j.1. everytime a case relating to dowry death comes up, it causes ripples in the pool of the conscience of this court. nothing could be more barbarous, nothing could be more heinous than this sort of crime. the root cause for killing young bride or daughter-in-law is avarice and greed. all tender feelings which alone make the humanity noble disappear from the heart. kindness which is the hallmark of human culture is buried. sympathy to the fairer sex, the minimum sympathy is not even shown. the seedling which is uprooted from its original soil and is to be planted in another soil to grow and bear fruits is crushed. with this prefatory note, we pass on to the matrix of facts.2. the criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of indian penal code and sentencing her to life imprisonment reversing the acquittal by the trial court. the case of the prosecution shortly is as under:bai kanta was married to valji sayji sometime in the year 1972. accused is the mother-in-law of bai kanta. there were frequent quarrels between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law. once bai kanta on account of quarrel went away to her parent's house. accused went to the house of bai kanta to bring her back. the father-in-law of bai kanta gave an assurance that nothing would go wrong. on this assurance, bai kanta was sent to the house of accused. the accused, bai kanta and her husband were all living in the same house. even after the return, there .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 1992 (SC)

State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and Another

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-15-1992

Reported in : AIR1992SC2100; 1992CriLJ3454; 1992(3)Crimes5(SC); JT1992(4)SC73; 1992(II)OLR(SC)209; 1992(2)SCALE9; (1992)3SCC700; [1992]3SCR480

order1. general a.s. vaidya, the then chief of the armed forced was, on the orders. of the then prime minister smt. indira gandhi, assigned the difficult and delicate task of flushing out militants who had taken refuge in the golden temple at amritsar. during this operation, known as the blue star operation, some militants were killed and a part of the golden temple known as harminder saheb was damaged. both the then prime minister smt. indira gandhi and general vaidya had, therefore, incurred the wrath of the punjab militants for what they called the desecration of the golden temple. they, therefore, vowed to average the deaths of their colleagues and punish all those who were responsible for the damage to the golden temple. after the assassination of smt. gandhi on 31st october, 1984, it is the prosecution case, they waited for general vaidya to retire on 31 st january, 1986 so that the security cover which would then stand reduced may not be difficult to penetrate. after his retirement general vaidya decided to settled down in pune in the state of maharashtra.2. after his retirement on 31st january, 1986, general vaidya and his wife bhanumati left delhi for pune. as their bungalow at pune was still under construction, they shared bungalow no.20 at queens garden, pune, occupied by major general y.k. yadav. general vaidya owned a maruti car bearing registration no. dib 1437 which reached pune on the next day i.e. 1st february, 1986. between 4th and 16th february, 1986 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1992 (SC)

Management of Puri Urban Cooperative Bank Vs. Madhusudan Sahu and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-29-1992

Reported in : AIR1992SC1452; JT1992(3)SC290; 1992(1)SCALE1059; (1992)3SCC323; 1992(2)SLJ112(SC)

madan mohan punchhi, j.1. in this matter challenge has been made to the judgment and order dated 14-3-1991 of the orissa .high court passed in ojc no. 1483 of 1985. notice was issued to madhusudan sahu, respondent, the person concerned, indicating that the matter shall be disposed of at the notice stage. despite presumptive service, no one appeared on his behalf. we heard only learned counsel for the appellant.2. special leave is granted.3. the respondent, madhusudan sahu (hereafter referred as 'sahu') was engaged as an appraiser by puri urban co-operative bank, the appellant herein, pursuant to an advertisement dated january 10, 1978. as an appraiser his job was to be available in the bank, when called, for performing the services of weighing and testing the gold ornaments offered to be pledged to the bank to secure loans. it was stipulated in the advertisement that the appraiser's commission (termed wages by the high court) shall be 25 paise per hundred rupees of loan but in no case shall remuneration be less than rs. 2/-per appraisal. besides the said commission/ wages the appraiser could claim no other sum for his services. as stipulated sahu's services were terminable at any time. his services were terminated by the bank on 27-8-1979. he successfully sought a reference from the government to the labour court. the labour court went into the matter and vide award dated march 27, 1985, set aside the order of termination terming it as illegal and unjustified, ordering sahu's .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 1992 (SC)

State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Kishan Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-06-1992

Reported in : AIR1992SC1946; JT1992(4)SC413; 1992(2)SCALE132; (1992)3SCC696; [1992]3SCR748; 1992(2)LC375(SC)

orderkuldip singh, j 1. the rajasthan government issued notification dated may 30, 1978 under section 2(i)(a) of the rajasthan colonisation act, 1954 (the act) appointing the colonisation tehsildars to perform the functions and exercise the powers of the collector under section 22 of the act. the short question for our determination is whether the said notification validly confers the powers and the functions of the collector under the act upon the colonisation tehsildars.2. section 2(i)(a) and section 22 of the act, which are relevant, are reproduced hereunder:-section 2(i)(a) 'collector' means the collector of the district and includes-(a) any officer appointed by the state government to perform all or any of the functions and exercise all or any of the powers of the collector under this act. 22. unauthorised occupation of land and re-entry.- (1) any person who occupied or continues to occupy any land in a colony to which he has no right or title or without lawful authority shall be regarded a trespasser and may be summarily evicted therefrom by the collector at any time at his own motion or upon the application of an aggrieved person at whose disposal such land has been placed; and any crops, trees and buildings or any other constructions, erected or anything deposited on such land shall, if not removed within such reasonable time as the collector may from time to time fix for the purpose, be liable to be forfeited to the state and to be disposed of as the collector may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 1992 (SC)

Surendra Kumar Gyani Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-03-1992

Reported in : AIR1993SC115; 1993(1)ALT9(SC); [1992(65)FLR878]; JT1992(5)SC293; (1993)IILLJ903SC; 1992(2)SCALE432; (1992)4SCC464; 1992(2)LC465(SC)

g.n. ray, j.1. civil appeal no. 833 of 1986 and special leave petition (civil) nos. 6597-6686 and special leave petition (civil) no. 12528 of 1986 have been heard analogously as the common question of law and fact arise in these matters and all the above matters are disposed of by this common judgment. it appears that various persons joined service of the government of rajasthan in the department of state insurance and provident fund as lower division clerks at the daily wage of rs. 15/-. such appointment at the daily wage of rs. 15/- was made pursuant to the approval given by the general administrative department of government of rajasthan by letter no. 13/10/general/admn./3/84 dated 5.9.84. the persons getting such employment continued to work as lower division clerks with breaks at times. but after some time their service were terminated. for example in the case of surendra kumar gyani, appointment was made on 8.10.1984 and the impugned termination was effected on 30.9.1985 (afternoon) with break in service on 15.6.1985 and appointment on 22.6.1985.2. civil writ petition no. 1720 of 1985 (suresh kumar gyani v. state of rajasthan and anr. was taken up for hearing before single bench of rajasthan high court along with a number of other writ petitions referred to in schedule a to the judgment. it was contended at the hearing of the writ petition on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petitions that the department of state insurance and provident fund, government of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 1992 (SC)

Mohan Rawale Vs. Damodar Tatyaba Alias Dadasaheb and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-06-1992

Reported in : 1994(1)SCALE481; (1994)2SCC392; [1992]Supp3SCR850

order1. appellant seeks special leave to appeal to this court from the order dated 24/26th february 1992 of the high court of judicature at bombay in chamber summons no. 1179/ 1991 in election petition no. 4/1991.2. before the high court, the first respondent, who was defeated at the election held j on 15th june, 1991, to the 10th lok sabha from the south central parliamentary constituency, called in question the election of the returned candidate- the appellant. corrupt practices under section 123(2), 123(3) and 123(3a) of the representation of people's act, 1951 ('act') are alleged. in the proceedings, appellant took out chamber summons for an order of dismissal of the election petition on the ground, inter alia, that the memorandum of election petition did not disclose a cause of action; that copies were not supplied; that the pleadings were frivolous and vexations and required to be struck out. the high court has dismissed this motion.3. we have heard sri g.l. sanghi for the appellant and sri r.f. nariman for the respondents. we grant special leave. the appeal is heard and is disposed of by this order. a number of grounds appear to have been taken before the high court in support of the chamber summons. but sri sanghi confined himself to and urged only three contentions in support of this appeal:(i) the first is that the allegation of corrupt practice under section 123(2), 123(3) and 123(3a) in paras 1 to 20 of the memorandum of election petition refer to matters long .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 1992 (SC)

Unit Trust of India and ors. Vs. T. Bijaya Kumar and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-14-1992

Reported in : JT1992(6)SC82; (1993)ILLJ240SC; (1993)1UPLBEC561

order1. by a letter dated 5th april, 1984, the first respondent was offered the post of manager 40 (finance) on the terms and conditions set out therein. the letter of offer says that the first respondent will be placed on probation for one year extendable upto two years at the discretion of the trust. pursuant to the said offer, the first respondent joined service on 16th may, 1984. he was placed on probation and it appears from the letter of 15th may, 1985 that his performance was reported to be below average. he was advised to show improvement in the next six months, 45 by which period his probation was extended. the assessment reports made during this period on 14.12.84, 10/13.5.85 and 25.10.85 also disclose that his performance was not satisfactory and, therefore, the management took the decision to terminate his service by the order of 29th october, 1985 which reads as under:shri t.b. patra, manager (finance) on probation attached to calcutta regional office would cease to be in the employment of the trust with effect from close of business on 15th november, 1985.it appears from the plain reading of this order that it is an order of discharge simpliciter attaching no stigma whatsoever. it also appears from the office note which was prepared prior to the making of this order that the deputy general manager (personnel and administration) found that the work of the first respondent was reported to be unsatisfactory and hence he was not recommended for confirmation. this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1992 (SC)

Jammi Raja Rao Vs. Sri Anjaneyaswami Temple Valu Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-06-1992

Reported in : AIR1992SC1110; JT1992(2)SC470; (1993)1MLJ9(SC); 1992(1)SCALE571; (1992)3SCC14; [1992]2SCR47

orders.c. agrawal, j.1. these appeals by special leave directed against the judgment dated april 25, 1975 of the andhra pradesh high court in appeals nos. 87 and 362 of 1972, involve the question whether the temple of sri anjaneya swami (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit temple') situate at valuthimmapuram in peddapuram taluk, east godavari district of the state of andhra pradesh is a private temple and not a public temple and the appellant as the hereditary trustee of the suit temple is entitled to the possession of the temple and the properties attached to it.2. after the enactment of the madras hindu religious endowments act, 1926 (madras act ii of 1927), hereinafter referred to as 'the 1927 act', turanga rao, father of the appellant, submitted an application (o.a. no. 117 of 1934) under sections 18 and 84 of the said act wherein it was claimed that the suit temple is a private temple and the applicant was the hereditary trustee of the same. one m. satyanarayana murthy of peddapuram also filed a petition before the board alleging that the suit temple is a public temple and that he may be appointed as the trustee. the said application of turanga rao was dismissed by the board of commissioners constituted under the 1927 act by order dated march 30, 1935, and it was held that the suit temple is a public temple in terms of section 9(12) of the said act and that the act was applicable to it and to its endowments. turanga rao filed a petition (o.p. no. 15 of 1936) in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 1992 (SC)

R.M. Gurjar and Another Vs. High Court of Gujarat and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-11-1992

Reported in : AIR1992SC2000; [1992(65)FLR682]; (1992)2GLR1535; JT1992(4)SC586; 1992LabIC2042; 1992(2)SCALE148; (1992)4SCC10; [1992]3SCR775; 1993(2)SLJ57(SC); 1992(2)LC318(SC)

orderkuldip singh, j.1. r.m. gurjar and d.n. jadhav were working as junior clerks in the civil courts under the administrative control of district judge, broach, gujarat. disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them on the charge that they falsely identified three persons before a judicial magistrate. at the enquiry both of them admitted the charge and prayed for mercy. the district judge by the order dated june 5, 1974 imposed the penalty of withholding their future promotions with permanent effect. the high court in exercise of its powers under rule 23 of the gujarat civil services (discipline & appeal) rules, 1971 (the rules) enhanced the penalty and imposed the punishment of removal from service. it is not disputed that the high court enhanced the penalty after affording opportunity to the two officials in accordance with law. gurjar and jadhav challenged the order of their removal by way of a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india before the high court. the learned single judge after considering the relevant provisions including the historical background of various constitutional reforms appears to have been of the view that the source of power to pass the impugned order lay in the constitutional control of the high court under article 235. however, the difficulty which came in the way of the learned single judge to hold so was on account of the judgment of a division bench in ramesh c. mashruvala v. state 16 g.l.r. 277 wherein the division .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 1992 (SC)

Sampat Singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-18-1992

Reported in : 1992(3)SCALE565; (1993)1SCC561; [1992]Supp3SCR728

s. ratnavel pandian, j. 1. the above special leave petition is preferred by the petitioners of whom petitioner nos. 1 to 16 are members of the legislative assembly of haryana and petitioner nos. 17 to 19 are members of the parliament. they all jointly filed a civil writ petition no. 14500 of 1991 under article 226 of the constitution of india before the high court of punjab and haryana, chandigarh seeking various reliefs, the main of which being to direct an investigation by central bureau of investigation against ch. bhajan lal on the. basis of f.i.r. no. 372 of 1987 of sadar police station, registered on the complaint of dharam pal, making serious allegations on corruption, misuse of authority etc. and for setting aside the order of the magistrate discharging the accused, ch. bhajan lal.2. the high court dismissed the petition by a brief order without going into the locus standi of the petitioners. the relevant portion of the impugned order is as follows:3. the reasons disclosed in the writ petition and canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners broadly are, that respondent no. 2 being in the helm of affairs of state, there is a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the people that a fair and impartial investigation in the aforesaid f.i.r. is not expected, more so when respondent no. 2 in the earlier case has already refuted the allegations levelled against him in the affidavit filed by him before the hon'ble supreme court. it has been vehemently stressed by the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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