Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-20-1998
Reported in : (1998)120PLR221
..... item-wise break-up and indicating the quantities thereof. in this break-up, as far as possible, all important basic raw materials shall be shown as separate items. the inter-mediates manufacturers may, if their list is too large to be included in the break-up, be grouped under suitable heading without mentioning the quantities provided all those items which in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jun-22-1998
Reported in : 1999(2)ALT(Cri)77; II(1999)DMC174
..... the principal sub-judge, kottayam against the first respondent. the case was taken for settlement on 29.11.1997. the dispute between the parties are settled in the presence of mediators. parties agreed to continue to reside together. so the case was adjourned to 6.12.1997 for filing a joint application.3. it is admitted that on 30.11.1997 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-27-1998
Reported in : AIR1998Raj240; 1998(3)WLC76; 1998(1)WLN216
..... that the arbitral tribunal remains within the limits of its jurisdiction; (iv) to minimize the supervisory role of courtsin the arbitral process: (vi) to permit an arbitral tribunals to use mediation, conciliation or other procedures during the arbitral proceedings to encourage settlement of disputes; (vii) to provide that every final arbitral awardis enforced in the same manner as if it were .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Sep-25-1998
Reported in : 1999CriLJ3034
..... accused for separation from the joint family. seven months after the marriage, she left the house against the wishes of the accused and was brought back after great persuasion and mediation by the village elders. however, her relationship with other family members continued to be sore, with the result that the accused remained tense and depressed. the situation was aggravated further .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-11-1998
Reported in : (1999)123PLR741
swatanter kumar, j. 1. learned counsel for the appellants has contended that as per the principles enunciated by the hon'ble supreme court of india in the case of bhoop singh v. ram singh, (1996-1)112 p.lr. 559 (s.c.), the court was obliged to examine to greater detail whether the party had a pre-existing right or not. he further contended that learned courts below have mis-appreciated the evidence and have not arrived at a correct decision in consonance with the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court of india. in order to examine the merits of this contention, reference to the basic facts would be necessary.2. ranjiv singh saini and another son of arjan singh filed a suit against him stating that they were sons of arjan singh; the defendant was owner in possession and he had transferred the said land by way of a family settlement in favour of the plaintiffs on 15.6.1996 and as total land has fallen to their share they have become owners in possession. they further stated that as the defendant was trying to resile from the settlement, the suit for declaration was filed. the defendant filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff and even made a statement to that effect. as hardly any issue arose for determination before the learned trial court, no issue was framed and a legal controversy whether a decree in favour of the plaintiffs should be passed or not was decided by the learned trial court. the learned trial court came to the following conclusion:'however, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-12-1998
Reported in : AIR1998SC3016; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)453; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)248; 1998CriLJ4053; JT1998(5)SC456; RLW1999(1)SC67; 1998(4)SCALE512; (1998)6SCC564; 3SCR1129
d.p. wadhwa, j.1. we condone delay in slp (crl.) no. 2625 of 1998 and grant leave to appeal.2. we heard both the appeals together.3. state of rajasthan is aggrieved by the judgment dated may 1, 1996 of the division bench of the rajasthan high court (jaipur bench) for two reasons: (1) acquitting natthi, karan singh and ram bharosi of offences under sections 302/149, 149 and 447 indian penal code (ipc for short) though maintaining their conviction for offence under section 323 ipc but reducing their sentence to the rigorous imprisonment already undergone by them; and (2) acquitting makhan and gokula of charges under sections 302, 148, 447 and 323 ipc and instead convicting each of them for offence under section 307 ipc and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to a fine of rs. 2000 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. gokula and makhan have appealed against the same very judgment against their conviction and sentence.4. additional sessions judge, bayana (bharatpur), who tried eight persons, by judgment dated june 18, 1994 convicted makhan and gokula under section 302 ipc and natthi, karan singh and ram bharosi under sections 302/149 ipc and sentenced all five of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 500 each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. all the five accused were also convicted for offences under sections 148, 447 and 323 ipc .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-02-1998
Reported in : AIR1998Raj103; 1998(1)WLN118
orderb.s. chauhan, j. 1. the instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29-11-1992 contained in annexure-3 to this writ petition, which has been passed by the board of revenue (respondent no. 2) rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of therevenue authority dated 31-1-1992 containedin annexure-p.2 to the petition passed on hisapplication under order 7, rule 11 of the code of civilprocedure in the suit pending before the saidauthority. 2. the brief facts of the case, as revealed by the record, are that the petitioner-defendant arid respondent no. 3-plaintiff are real brothers and respondent no. 4 smt. gurdev kaur is their sister, their father ishar singh was holding a (sic) land in chak no. 5-mld (b), tehsil (sic) district sri ganganagar, who died on 12-11-1987. the petitioner-defendant got the mutation of the whole land in his favour on the strength of a will purported to have been executed by his father ishar singh. the respondent no. 3 (plaintiff) filed a suit before the revenue authority under section 53 read with section 88 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenancy act'), wherein the allegations have been made as under :--(i) after the death of their father, their sister gurdeo kaur has relinquished her share in favour of the said brothers;(ii) partition took place between the petitioner-defendant and respondent no. 3 (plaintiff) which was verified and signed by the tehsildar and it .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-18-1998
Reported in : 1999CriLJ1558; 1999(4)KarLJ247
orderr.p. sethi, c.j. 1. without impleading him as party respondent but alleging corruption, favouritism and nepotism against sri h.d. devegowda, former prime minister of india, the petitioner herein has attempted to ignite the process of law by invoking action under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, apparently under the patent name of public interest litigation. prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register a criminal case in the matter of offences allegedly committed by former prime minister and his family members which are stated to be punishable under the provisions of the prevention of corruption act and the penal code. the jurisdiction of the court has been invoked for the alleged failure of the respondents to take any action on the memorandum at annexure-a submitted by the petitioner on 10-12-1996 when shri h.d. devegowda had become the prime minister. the omission on the part of the respondent to take action is alleged to be non-performance of their statutory obligations. powers of the court for issuance of appropriate directions have been prayed in the name and furtherance of cause of justice and equity and for strengthening the rule of law.2. the petitioner claims to be a social worker and a life member of karnataka a bhrashtachara virodhi vedike committed consistently in exposing the authorities for their misdeeds and colossal corrupt practices of responsible political leaders and public servants in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-16-1998
Reported in : 1998(4)AWC49
sudhir narain, j.1. this writ petition is directed against the order of the board of revenue dated 7.5.1984, allowing the appeal filed by the defendant-respondents and dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioners.2. the facts in brief are that the petitioners filed suit no. 1053 of 1970 for declaration under section 229b of u.p.z.a. and l.r. act that they are bhumidhars of the land in dispute. they relied upon the following pedigree :durga|_____________________________________________________________________________| |munni lal chunni lal|____________________________________________________| | |jhagaru khannu sukhu-widow- |smt. shanti devi chhedilaltheir case was that munni lal was sole tenure-holder of plot no 534 area 1.03 acre situate in village sarai nandan, pargana dehat amanat, district varanasi. the petitioners are related to munnilal as given in the pedigree. munni lal had executed a gift deed duly registered on 8.9.1965 in favour of the petitioners. munni lal died on 1.1.1968. mangroo, father of respondent nos. 1 to 5, got his name mutated over the revenue records. the petitioners also filed an application for mutation but that was rejected on 25.4.1970. this has given the cause of action for filing the suit.3. mangroo, father of respondent nos. 1 to 5, who was impteaded as defendant no. 1 in the suit, filed written statement. his case was that munnilal had died in the year 1902. his widow smt. jhuna, after the death of munnilal started living with chunni .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-06-1998
Reported in : 1998(4)AWC371; (1999)1UPLBEC157
d.k. seth, j.1. the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in which the petitioner had submitted his reply, which is annexure-7 to the writ petition. in the enquiry the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges levelled against him in the charge-sheets dated 2nd of april, 1983 and 23rd of june, 1983, which is apparent from the enquiry report dated 21st of september, 1983. on the basis thereof a notice dated 31st of december, 1983 was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause against the proposed punishment. the petitioner had shown cause. after considering the same, by an order dated 27th of february, 1984 dismissal from service was inflicted as punishment. this order was challenged by the petitioner before the state public services tribunal, lucknow in claim petition no. 118/1 of 1985. by a decision dated 5th of may, 1993, the claim petition was dismissed. in the enquiry report, the petitioner was found partially guilty of the charges levelled in the first charge-sheet ; whereas he was found guilty of the charges levelled in the second charge-sheet. the disciplinary authority concurred with the report of the inquiry officer and inflicted the punishment ; whereas the learned tribunal had discarded the findings of guilt in respect of the charges levelled through the first charge-sheet on the ground that partially proved charges cannot be sustained. however, the learned tribunal had concurred with the findings of the disciplinary authority and the .....Tag this Judgment!