Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: supreme court of india Year: 1978 Page 2 of about 76 results (0.149 seconds)

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!

Oct 04 1978 (SC)

Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Haryana

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-04-1978

Reported in : AIR1979SC1149a; 1979CriLJ927a; (1979)2SCC196a; [1979]1SCR1070

jaswant singh, j.1. during the course of on spot check carried out by him on december 29, 1964 of b.p. sheets lying in appellant no. i's factory at sonepat, the development officer (lme-1) of the directorate general of technical development, new delhi, discovered from an examination of the said appellant's account books that it had during the period intervening between january 1, 1964 and january 12, 1965, acquired black plain iron sheets of prime quality weighing 60.03 metric tons from various parties at a rate higher than the maximum statutory price fixed for such sheets by the iron and steel controller (hereinafter referred to as 'the controller') in exercise of the powers vested in him under clause 15(1) of the iron and steel (control) order, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the control order. after the special magistrate had framed the charges and secured in the court of the special magistrate, ambala cantt. for an offence under section 120b of the indian penal code read with section 7 of the essential commodities act, 1955 (act no. 10 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') as also for an offence under section 7 of the act read with clause 15(3) of the control order. after the special magistrate had framed the charges and examined sixteen prosecution witnesses, the appellants made an application before him on february 12, 1970 under section 251a(11) and 288(1) of the crpc, 1898 praying that in view of the submissions made therein, the case against them be not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 1978 (SC)

Ram Adhar Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-18-1978

Reported in : AIR1979SC702; 1980CriLJ817; (1979)3SCC774; 1979(11)LC139(SC)

v.d. tulzapurkar, j.1. the appellant-accused was sentenced to death by the second temporary civil and sessions judge, kanpur under section 302 ipc for committing the murder of his uncle phool ghand in sessions case no. 279 of 1972 on november 25, 1972, which conviction and sentence were confirmed by the allahabad high court in criminal appeal no. 3336 of 1972 and reference case no. 128 of 1972. he has challenged his said conviction and sentence in this appeal by special leave granted on december 2, 1975. 2. the incident during the course of which phool chand was assaulted by the appellant-accused with a 'karauli' inflicting numerous injuries is said to have taken place on march 16, 1972, at about 6.00 p.m. in the 8 biswa field of phool chand in village bhagwantpur and the motive for the assault was property dispute. briefly stated the prosecution case was that deceased phool chand, whose only daughter had died some 16/17 years ago, had brought his son-in-law salig ram and three grand sons babu, chote lal and raghuraj (pw 1) to his village bhagwantpur and they were living with him. about 10 months prior to the occurrence phool ghand had executed a gift deed (ex. ka-27) in respect of his l/3rd separated share in the ancestral lands (admeasuring 111/2 bighas) in favour of smt. rajeshwar widow of babu (who had in the mean time died), chote lal and raghuraj (pw 1), this was not relished by the appellant-accused and his brother mahadev (nephews of phool chand. after the execution .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 1978 (SC)

Kamlapati Trivedi Vs. State of West Bengal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-13-1978

Reported in : AIR1979SC777; 1979CriLJ679; (1980)2SCC91; [1979]2SCR717

..... ; it has acquired the meaning of the place where justice is administered and, further, has come to mean the persons who exercise judicial functions under authority derived either immediately or mediately from the sovereign. all tribunals, however, are not courts, in the sense in which the term is here employed, namely, to denote such tribunals as exercise jurisdiction over persons by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1978 (SC)

In Re: S. Mulgaokar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-21-1978

Reported in : (1978)3SCC339; [1978]3SCR162

order1. the matter before us arises out of a publication in the indian express newspapers dated 13th december, 1977. some people perhaps believe that attempts to hold trials of everything and everybody by publications in newspapers must include those directed against the highest court of justice in this country and its pronouncements. if this is done in a reasonable manner, which pre-supposes accuracy of information about a matter on which any criticism is offered, and arguments are directed fairly against any reasoning adopted, i would, speaking for myself, be the last person to consider it objectionable even if some criticism offered is erroneous. in bennett coleman & co. and ors. v. union of india and ors. : [1973]2scr757 :john stuart mill, in his essay on 'liberty', pointed out the need for allowing even erroneous opinions to be expressed on the ground that the correct ones become more firmly established by what may be called the 'dialectical' process of a struggle with wrong ones which exposes errors. milton, in his 'areopagitica' (1644) said :'though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously be licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. let her and falsehood grapple; whoever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter ?.... who knows not that truth is strong, next to the almighty; she needs no policies, no stratagems, no licensings to make her victorious; those are the shifts and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1978 (SC)

Madan Mohan Pathak and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-21-1978

Reported in : AIR1978SC803; 1978LabIC612; (1978)ILLJ406SC; (1978)2SCC50; [1978]3SCR334

order44. we agree with the conclusion of brother bhagwati but prefer to rest our decision on the ground that the impugned act violates the provisions of article 31(2) and is, therefore, void. we consider it unnecessary to express any opinion on the effect of the judgment of the calcutta high court in w.p. no. 371 of 1976.

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 28 1978 (SC)

Ramanbhai Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Jashvant Singh Udesingh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-28-1978

Reported in : AIR1978SC1162; (1978)GLR833; (1978)0GLR33; (1978)3SCC142; 1978(10)LC340(SC)

n.l. untwalia, j. 1. this is an appeal under section 116a of the representation of the people act, 1951 hereinafter called the act, by a person who was elected from mahemdabad constituency, district kaira at the general flections held in june, 1975 to the gujarat legislative assembly. the first respondent in this appeal is the election petitioner at whose instance the election of the appellant was set aside by the gujarat high court. respondents 2 to 6 are the unsuccessful candidates at the said election. the appellant was impleaded as respondent no. 1 in the election petition. respondents 2 to 6 were respondents 2 to 6 in the election petition also. the appellant contested the election as an independent candidate and out of the unsuccessful candidates, respondent no. 3 was a candidate set up by the congress party then known as the ruling congress. the election petition to all intents and purposes seems to have been bled at the instance and for the bent tit of respondent no 3.2. the polling took place on the 8th of june, 1975. the results were declared on the 12th june, 1975. the appellant was declared elected to the gujarat assembly from the constituency aforesaid. election petition no 7 of 1975 was tiled by one ramabhai punjabhai. but this election petition was not proceeded with respondent no. 1 filed election petition no. 8 of 1975 on the 28tb of july, 1975. the high court, by its judgment under appeal, allowed the said election petition and set aside the election of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1978 (SC)

Madan Lal 'Dhartipakar' Vs. Shri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-09-1978

Reported in : AIR1978SC802; (1978)2SCC348; [1978]3SCR465; 1978(10)LC275(SC)

1. this is a petition filed by shri madan lal 'dharti-pakar' on august 19, 1977 under the presidential and vice-presidential election act, challenging the election of shri neelam sanjeeva reddy as president of india at the presidential election held on july 19, 1977.2. the petitioner filed a nomination paper on july 5, 1977 but that nomination paper was rejected by the returning officer because- as he admits-it was not subscribed by any elector as proposer or as seconder. he had thus admittedly not complied with the requirements of section 5b(1) of the act. the petitioner has, however, detailed reasons why he could not find any elector to propose or second his nomination papers.3. when the case came up before us today, the petitioner requested that the hearing of the petition be postponed till after the coming summer vacation. we explained to him that we did not see any sufficient reason to accede to his request. the adjournment was declined.4. the petitioner then argued at length urging that the petition should be referred to a larger bench for decision. we have fully heard and considered all that he had to say in this connection, and we are not persuaded to accede to his request.5. since there was no compliance with the requirements of section 5b(1) of the act (no. 31 of 1952), the petitioner was not a duly nominated 'candidate' within the meaning of section 13(a) of the presidential and vice presidential elections (amendment) act, 1977, and, as such, has no locus standi to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1978 (SC)

Harishankar Rastogi Vs. Girdhari Sharma and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-13-1978

Reported in : AIR1978SC1019; 1978CriLJ778; (1978)2SCC165; [1978]3SCR493; 1978(10)LC301(SC)

1. the petitioner appears in person and seeks permission to be represented by another person, who is not an advocate, falling within, the definition in section 2(a) of the advocates act, 1961. on an earlier occasion sri r. k. jain, advocate of this court was requested to act as amicus curiae since the petitioner represented that he could not engage counsel. however, sri jain, for reasons which we need not go into here, has been discharged from the brief at his request. the short question that i have to decide here is whether a person who is not an advocate by profession, can be permitted to plead on behalf of the petitioner 2. advocates are entitled as of right to practise in this court (section 30(i) of the advocates act, 1961). but, this privilege cannot be claimed as of right by any one else. while it is true that article 19 of the constitution guarantees the freedom to practise any profession, it is open to the state to make a law imposing, in the interest of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right. the advocates act, by section 29, provides for such a reasonable restriction, namely, that the only class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law shall be advocates. even so, is it not open to a party who is unable for some reason or other to present his case adequately to seek the help of another person in this behalf to negative such a plea may be denying justice altogether in certain cases, especially in a land of illiteracy .....

Tag this Judgment!


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