Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Sorted by: old Court: supreme court of india Year: 1999 Page 8 of about 78 results (0.073 seconds)

Dec 17 1999 (SC)

Kishori Vs. State (Nct) of Delhi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-17-1999

Reported in : AIR2000SC562; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)85; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)426; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)132; 2000CriLJ756; JT1999(10)SC275; 2000(1)SCALE1; (2000)2SCC83; [1999]Supp5SCR494

..... that the high ideals of the constitution have to be borne in mind, but when normal life breaks down and groups of people go berserk losing balance of mind, the rationale that the ideals of the constitution should be upheld or followed, may not appeal to them in such circumstances, nor can we expect such loose heterogeneous group of persons like .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1999 (SC)

Dr. Narayan Sharma and anr. Etc. Vs. Dr. Pankaj Kr. Lehkar and ors. Et ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-03-1999

Reported in : AIR2000SC72; JT1999(8)SC612; 1999(7)SCALE96; (2000)1SCC44; [1999]Supp4SCR364

m. srinivasan, j.1. these appeals are directed against the judgment of the gauhati high court in civil rule no. 3493/97 and 3544/97, both being writ petitions under article 226 of the constitution. civil rule no. 3493/97 was filed by respondents 1-25 in civil appeal nos. 5242-43/98. civil rule no. 3544/ 97 was filed by respondents 26-42 in the said appeals. the appellants in the said appeals were not parties in either of the writ petitions in the high court. respondents 43.43a, 44 and 45 in the said appeals were respondents 1-4 in civil rule no. 3493/97 and respondents 43, 43a and 44 were the respondents in civil rule no. 3544/97. we find it convenient to refer to the parties as arrayed in civil appeal nos. 5242-5243/98.2. the respondents 1-25 challenged in their writ petition the validity of rules 4, 5 and 8 (vii) of the assam medical colleges (regulation of the admission to the post-graduate courses) rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') on several grounds. respondents 26-42 had on their writ petition prayed for a direction to allow them to appear in the entrance examination for the session 1996-97 and that they should be admitted only on the basis of the performance and merit in the entrance examination. they prayed for issue of a writ quashing the corrigendum issued by the director of medical education in the educational notice dated 11.7.1997 whereby the candidates referred to in sub-rules (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of rule 4 of the 'rules' were exempted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1999 (FN)

Martinez Vs. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Nov-09-1999

..... right. accordingly, the judgment of the california supreme court is affirmed. it is so ordered. justice kennedy, concurring. to resolve this case it is unnecessary to cast doubt upon the rationale of faretta v. california, 422 u. s. 806 (1975). faretta can be accepted as quite sound, yet it does not follow that a convicted person has a similar right of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 1999 (SC)

ishwar Dass JaIn (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Sohan Lal (Dead) by Lrs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-29-1999

Reported in : AIR2000SC426; 2000(1)CTC359; JT1999(9)SC305; (2000)125PLR56; RLW2000(1)SC80; 1999(7)SCALE277; (2000)1SCC434; [1999]Supp5SCR24; 2000(1)LC666(SC)

..... material whole. loose sheets of paper or scraps of paper cannot be termed as 'book' for they can be easily detached and replaced. it has also been held that the rationale behind admissibility of parties' books of account as evidence is that the regularity of habit, the difficulty of falsification and the fair certainty of ultimate detection give them in a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 1999 (SC)

Mujeeb and anr. Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-29-1999

Reported in : 2000CriLJ742; JT1999(9)SC299; 1999(7)SCALE249; (2000)10SCC315; [1999]Supp5SCR16

s.n. phukan, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.01.97 passed by the high court of kerala in criminal appeal no. 485/ 93. the high court allowed the appeal filed by the state by setting aside the judgment of the sessions judge, kozhikode division dated 26th march, 1993 in sessions case no. 9/92.2. the learned sessions judge acquitted accused mujeeb @ mujeeb rahman (a1), johnson (a2) and akbar (a3) who were charged under sections 302, 392, 201 and 120b ipc read with section 34 ipc.3. the high court as stated above allowed the appeal filed by the state and convicted all the three accused under the above sections. the present appeal has been filed only by two accused namely al and a3. a2 is not before us.4. the prosecution case was that on 30.03.91 at about 11.30 a.m a1 reached koyilandy taxi stand, hired the tourist taxi (ambassador car) driven by balan of thazha valappil. al went in that car to ashar lodge in koyilandy where the other accused were staying and all of them proceeded in the car to wynad and spent some time in pookode lake. thereafter, they visited thirunelli temple and mananthavadi. while they were returning to thamarassery, it was alleged by the prosecution that soft drink 'fruity' a mixed with sleeping pills was given to the driver balan and also intoxicating liquor. after immobilizing and removing him from the driver's seat, a1 drove the car to thamarassery and eangampuzha. at about 11.30 p.m. they strangulated the driver balan .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 1999 (FN)

Carmell Vs. Texas

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Nov-30-1999

..... analysis does not depend on an assessment of a statute's wisdom. for current purposes it suffices to note that article 38.07's corroboration requirement rests on the same rationale that underpins accomplice corroboration requirements: the notion that a particular witness, because of his or her role in the events at issue, might not give trustworthy testimony. see reed v .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 1999 (FN)

Gutierrez Vs. Ada

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-06-1999

gutierrez v. ada - 528 u.s. 250 (1999) october term, 1999 syllabus gutierrez et al. v. ada et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no.99-51. argued december 6, 1999-decided january 19,2000 the organic act of guam, 48 u. s. c. 1422, provides, inter alia, that "[i]f no [slate of] candidates [for governor and lieutenant governor of guam] receive[s] a majority of the votes cast in any election, ... a runoff election shall be held." petitioners, candidates running on one slate for governor and lieutenant governor, received a majority of the votes cast for gubernatorial slates in the 1998 guam general election, but did not receive a majority of the total number of ballots that voters cast. respondents, petitioners' opponents, sought a writ of mandamus ordering a runoff election. the district court issued the writ, and the ninth circuit ultimately affirmed, interpreting the statutory phrase "majority of the votes cast in any election" to require that a slate receive a majority of the total number of ballots cast in the general election. held: the guam organic act does not require a runoff election when a candidate slate has received a majority of the votes cast for governor and lieutenant governor of the territory, but not a majority of the number of ballots cast in the simultaneous general election. section 1422 contains six express references to an election for those offices, two of them preceding the phrase "in any election," and four .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 1999 (SC)

State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-10-1999

Reported in : 2000(1)ALD(Cri)606; JT1999(9)SC513; 1999(7)SCALE386; (2000)1SCC471; [1999]Supp5SCR215; 2000(1)LC326(SC)

..... . unless it is suggested that there was another alternative and safer route for the culprit to take the girl unnoticed by any shopkeeper or even a pedestrian there in no rationale in the reasoning that there is 'inherent incredibility' in the version that respondent would have taken the girl through this route.20. the last reasoning of the division bench is .....

Tag this Judgment!


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