Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 1992 Page 6 of about 113 results (0.076 seconds)

Jan 31 1992 (SC)

Smt. A.N. Kapoor Vs. Smt. Pushpa Talwar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-31-1992

Reported in : AIR1992SC799; JT1992(1)SC348; 1992(1)SCALE204; (1992)2SCC80; [1992]1SCR472; 1992(1)LC685(SC)

ordert.k. thommen, j.1. this appeal arises from the judgment of the delhi high court in s.a.o.no. 59 of 1979 whereby the high court, reversing the concurrent findings of the additional rent controller and the rent control tribunal, allowed the respondent-landlord's application for eviction of the appellant-tenant under section 14(1)(e) of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (the 'act'). the respondent is the daughter of the original landlord who had let out the premises to the appellant on 1.10.1961. the present respondent purchased the property from her father on 27th june, 1964 and thus stepped into his shoes as the 'landlord' as defined under section 2(e) of the act.2. relying upon the rent note and the appellant's letters dated 7.10.1961 and 18.8.1962 addressed to the respondent's father and the earlier proceedings between them for eviction of the appellant on the ground of subletting the premises for commercial purposes, both the statutory authorities found that the premises which had been let out for residential purposes to the appellant had also been used incidentally for commercial purposes so as to exclude the application of section 14(1)(e) read with the explanation thereto. this finding was reversed by the high court by the impugned judgment. the high court found that there was no evidence for the statutory authorities to come to the conclusion, which they did, as regards the premises having been used for commercial purposes. this is what the high court says:-. no .....

Tag this Judgment!

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!

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!

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 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!

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!

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!

Sep 17 1992 (SC)

Mithilesh Kumar Sinha and Kaka Joginder Singh Alias Dharati Pakad Vs. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-17-1992

Reported in : AIR1993SC20; JT1992(5)SC479; 1992(2)SCALE566; 1993Supp(4)SCC386; [1992]Supp1SCR651

orderj.s. verma, j.1. both these election petitions filed under section 14 of the presidential and vice-presidential elections act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') challenge the election of dr. shanker dayal sharma, as the ninth president of india, on scrutiny of nomination papers made on june 25, 1992 by the returning officer, the nomination papers of only four persons, namely, dr. shanker dayal sharma, prof. g.g. swell, shri ram jethmalani and kaka joginder singh alias dharati paked, were found valid and accordingly accepted. polling was held on july 13, 1992 and result of the election was declared on july 16, 1992 at which dr. shanker dayal sharma was declared elected; and he was sworn in as the ninth president of india on july 25, 1992. mithilesh kumar sinha, petitioner in election petition no. 1 of 1992, had filed his nomination paper at the election, but the same was rejected by the returning officer on the date of scrutiny due to non-compliance of the mandatory requirements for a valid nomination.2. in both these election petitions, certain preliminary objections raised on behalf of the returned candidate, dr. shanker dayal sharma as well as the attorney general of india require to be decided at the threshold. the substance of the preliminary objection in election petition no. 1 of 1992 is that it is liable to be rejected as not maintainable primarily on the ground of not being presented by a competent person, namely, 'any candidate at such election' as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1992 (SC)

Kapoor Chand and Others Vs. Ganesh Dutt and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-08-1992

Reported in : AIR1993SC1145; 1992(3)SCALE356; 1993Supp(4)SCC432

orders.c. agrawal, j.1. we have heard learned counsel for the parties. we hereby grant special leave in slp (civil) no. 12981 of 1987 which is directed against the judgment of the rajasthan high court dated july 23, 1987 in s.b. civil second appeal no. 123 of 1979, and proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. this appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellants wherein they had challenged is that sale of a shop by ganesh dutt, respondent no. 1, in favour of respondents nos. 2 and 3 under sale deed dated october 14, 1968. the suit was brought by the appellants in a representative capacity as worshippers at the temple of shri radha govindji situate at bharatpur. the appellants have claimed that the said temple is a public temple and that respondent no. i was manager of the said temple. it was claimed that the shop in question, which belonged to laxmi narain, had been dedicated to the deity by his widow, shrimati bhagwati devi, and that its income was in fact used for the expenses of 'bhograg' of the deity and that respondent no. 1 had no right to sell the same and the sale deed dated october 14, 1968 executed by him in favour of the respondents nos. 2 and 3 was null and void. the said suit was contested by the vendees, respondents nos. 2 and 3 as well as by the vendor, respondent no. 1 respondent no. 4 who was a tenant in the said shop admitted the claim of the appellants. the contesting respondents pleaded that there was no such temple as that of shri radha govindji and that it .....

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!


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