Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.30 seconds)
Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil vs Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi & Ors. And Vice ... on 9 December, 1986
cites
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Naim on 15 March, 1963
About the adverse remarks being made against the erst-
while Chief Minister, we were reminded of the observations
of this Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim
[1964] SCR 2 363 where this Court reiterated that it is a
principle of cordinal importance in the administration of
justice that the power, freedom of judges and Magistrates
must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their
functions freely and without interference by any body, even
by this Court. But it is equally necessary that in express-
ing their opinions, Judges and Magistrates must be guided by
considerations of justice, fair-play and restriant. Judicial
pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should' not
normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. In
that case this Court found that the remarks in the judgment
in respect of the entire police force of the State were not
justified in the facts of the case, nor were they necessary
for the disposal of the case and should have been expunged.
We are clearly of the opinion that the principle enunciated
by that decision can have no application in the facts of
this case. In the instant case, the first issue was whether
there was tampering of the gradesheet, a fact which has been
found by the learned single judge and by the Division Bench
and which is not in dispute in any of these appeals before
us. The other dispute was the allegation and the finding of
the learned single judge was that the same was at the behest
of the appellant in the first appeal and the respondent in
the second appeal, Nilangekar Patil, the erstwhile Chief
Minister. This point was very much in issue. He was a party.
He had been heard on this point. So, therefore, whether the
remarks were correct or not, is another issue but there was,
no question of the remarks being beyond the issue and no
question of the party against whom the remarks had been made
had not been given an opportunity.
Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tara Chand Khatri vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. on 26 November, 1976
The same principles in respect of affidavit evidence
were reiterated in different context by this Court in Tara
Chand Khatri v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.,
[1977] 2 SCR 198. This Court reiterated that the High Court
was not too wrong in dismissing the writ petition in limine
in that case because a prima facie case requiring investiga-
tion had not been made out by the appellant. This Court
reiterated that the High Court would be justified in refus-
ing to carry on investigation into the allegations of mala
fide if necessary particulars of the charge making out a
prima facie case Were not given in the petition. Since the
burden of establishing mala fide lay very heavily on the
person who alleged and the allegations made in regard there-
to in the writ petition were not sufficient in that case to
establish malus animus, this Court found that the High Court
was justified in dismissing the petition without issuing
notice. Dr. Singhvi submitted that precisely the same was
the position in the instant case.
Sukhvinder Pal Bipan Kumar vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 2 December, 1981
Reliance was also placed on Sukhvinder Pal Bipan Kumar
v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1982] 2 SCR 31 where at page 40
of the report after dealing with the allegations in the writ
petition, this Court observed that the allegations in the
writ petition were not sufficient to constitute an averment
of mala fides so as the vitiate the orders of suspension
issued in that case. In such a situation the court was
justified in refusing to carry out investigation into the
allegations of mala fides if necessary particulars of the
charge making a prima facie case were not there in the
petition. This Court reiterated that burden of mala fide
prima facie lay very heavily on the person who alleged it.
There the petitioner sought to invalidate certain orders of
suspension and it was the onus on them to establish the
charge of bad faith or misuse of its power by the govern-
ment.
Vineet Kumar vs Mangal Sain Wadhere on 5 January, 1984
Our attention was drawn to the decision of this Court in
Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera AIR [1985] SC 817 in aid
of the submission that additional evidence should have been
allowed but in our opinion the context in which the said
observation was made was entirely different and cannot have
any relevance to the facts of this Case.
Narasingh Charan Mohanty vs Surendra Mohanty on 12 October, 1973
In a different context dealing with the election matter
in Sri Harasingh Charan Mohanty v. Sh. Surendra Mohanty,
[1974] 3 SCC 680 the question arose was whether the consent
or agency was there. This Court observed that consent or
agency of Shri Biju Patnaik could not be inferred from mere
close friendship or other relationship or political affilia-
tion. However, close was the relationship, unless there was
evidence to prove that the person publishing or
482
writing the editorial was authorised by the returned candi-
date or he had undertaken to be responsible for all the
publications, no consent could be inferred. In our opinion,
the observations must be read in the context of the facts of
that case.
Seth Gulabchand vs Seth Kudilal And Others on 22 February, 1966
Seth Gulabchand v. Seth Kudilal and Others [1966] 3 SCR
623 at 629] was a case under the Contract Act, 1872 where
under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applied the
same standard of proof in all civil cases.