Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 138 (2.04 seconds)
Documents citing Sadhuram Bansal vs Pulin Behari Sarkar & Ors on 26 April, 1984

Nature Lovers Movement vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 7 October, 1999

"In our opinion, there appears to be some misapprehension about what actually social justice is. There is no ritualistic formula or any magical charm in the concept of social Justice. All that it means is that as between two parties if a deal is made with one party without serious detriment to the other, then the Court would lean in favour of the weaker section of the society. Social justice is the recognition of greater good to larger number without deprivation of accrual of legal rights of anybody. If such a thing can be done then indeed social justice must prevail over any technical rule. It is in response to the felt necessities of time and situation in order to do greater good to a larger number even though it might detract from some technical rule in favour of a party. Living accommodation is a human problem for vast millions in our country. (Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar, AIR 1984 SC 1471).
Kerala High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sree Jain Setambar Terapanthi Vid (S) vs Phundan Singh And Ors on 9 February, 1999

In Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar and Others, what happened was that the court receiver sold the property in question which was in the occupation of trespassers, thirty eight families, who had made pucca constructions thereon. The receiver sold the property by private negotia- tions with the permission of the court. Though the offer amount was accepted by the receiver, the balance of the sale consideration was not paid within time. The purchaser obtained orders for the summary eviction of the respondents-occupiers of the land. On the applications of respondents, Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings were initiated and they were pending. The respondents offered one lakh rupees more than the sale consideration agreed to by the purchaser. Though the learned single Judge of the High Court rejected the offer of the respondents, the Division Bench accepted the offer on the ground that there was no concluded contract with the purchaser and to do social justice as it would save eviction of thirty eight families from their houses. On special appeal, this Court observed that by its judgment the High Court got more money for the owners on the one hand and on the other sought to rehabilitate the thirty eight families of the respondents who had already built permanent structures and were in actual possession and hence there would be no further litigation and difficulty in acquiring the ownership without deprivation of existing legal rights of any party concerned, so on the facts of the case, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, it would not interfere with the order which promotes social justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

S.Senthilkumar vs The Director Of Fisheries Department on 16 December, 2022

Whatever may be the precise content of “social justice”, it is held to include recognition of the needs of weaker section of the community as “human beings.” This need is more urgent where a large section of people have been seriously affected by natural calamity like earthquake and their homes and life is totally shattered (See Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar, AIR 1984 SC 1471 (paras 29-30, 68, 70 and 73). We have, therefore, support from host of case law of the Supreme Court for taking a view that to humans affected by calamity the State is obliged to provide help, assistance and support so that they may be able to save their lives. This right of assistance in calamity has to be treated as an enforceable right. Such affected persons, as a result of the calamity, are rendered helpless and handicapped. Help and corrective action 6/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis sought for them through service spirited organisation or section of people cannot be thwarted, but the same deserves to be encouraged.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

Bipinchandra J. Divan And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 17 February, 2001

This need is more urgent where a large sections of people have been seriously affected by natural calamity like earthquake and their homes and life is totally shattered (See Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1471, Paras 29-30, 68, 70 and 73). We have, therefore, support from host of case-law of the Supreme Court for taking a view that to humans affected by calamity the State is obliged to provide help, assistance and support, so that they may be able to save their lives. This right of assistance in calamity has to be treated as an enforceable right. Such affected persons, as a result of the calamity, are rendered helpless and handicapped. Help and corrective action sought for them through service-spirited organisations or section of people cannot be thwarted, but the same deserves to be encouraged.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Dhanraj Gupta vs Savitri Malhotra And Ors. on 1 March, 1996

(25) In another leading case Sadhuram Bansal vs. Pulin Behari Sarkar and others , the Supreme Court has observed as under : "THE felt necessities of time and in this case the convenience of the situation and the need for adjusting the rights of a large number of people without deprivation of any accrued right of anybody would be justice according to law. Before we reject social justice as something alien to legal justice we should remember that a meaningful definition of the rule of law must be based on the realities of contemporary societies and the realities of the contemporary societies are. ..... men are in acute shortage of living accommodation and if they are prepared to bargain and rehabilitate themselves on competitive terms, they should be encouraged and no technical rules should stand in their way. That would be justice "by highways" and not infiltration by byelanes."
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Senior Divisional Commercial Manager ... vs S.C.R Caterers,Dry Fruits,F.J.S.W ... on 29 January, 2016

“Social justice, equality and dignity of person are cornerstones of social democracy. The concept 'social justice' which the Constitution of India engrafted, consists of diverse principles essential for the orderly growth and development of personality of every citizen.……Social justice is a dynamic device to mitigate the sufferings of the poor, weak, Dalits, Tribals and deprived sections of the society and to elevate them to the level of equality to live a life with dignity of person. Social justice is not a simple or single idea of a society but is an essential part of complex social change to relieve the poor etc. from handicaps, penury to ward off distress, and to make their life livable, for greater good of the society at large. In other words, the aim of social justice is to attain substantial degree of social, economic and political equality, which is the legitimate expectation. Social security, just and humane conditions of work and leisure to workman are part of his meaningful right to life and to achieve self- expression of his personality and to enjoy the life with dignity, the State should provide facilities and opportunities to enable them to reach at least minimum standard of health, economic security and civilised living while sharing according to the capacity, social and cultural heritage.” Further, in the case of Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Sarkar[11] this Court held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 66 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Sh. Thakur Dass Bhardwaj And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 6 August, 2015

43. The Apex Court in the case titled as Sadhuram Bansal versus Pulin Behari Sarkar and others, reported in of (1984) 3 Supreme Court Cases 410, held that some procedure here and there, mere technicalities here and there cannot be the rt ground to quash a rule. It is a duty of the Court to see that proper justice is granted and rights are protected. It is apt to reproduce paras 29, 30 and 35 of the judgment herein:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 35 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next