A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
A.Sreedhara Reddy Versus Conservator of Forests and Others. Hyderabad Forest Act – Termination of contract – Natural Justice – Reasonable opportunity must be given before termination. [1976] 1 S.C.R. 770
Abdul Rehman Vs. State. Motor Vehicles Act – Jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere under Art. 226 with the orders of the transport authorities in the grant of stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, of 1939. 1978 (3) SCR 453
Aboobacker Haji Vs Mamu Koya. Kerala HC Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act- Where there has been an actual failure to provide for the maintenance of the wife even if it is because the wife has improperly declined to live with the husband’ S.2 clause (ii) is fulfilled. If the husband departs from standards of suffocating orthodoxy it is not cruelty. When an intolerable situation has been reached, the partners living separate and apart for a substantial time, an inference may be drawn that the marriage has broken down in fact and so should be ended by law. 1971 KLT 663.
Accountant General and another Vs. S.Doraiswamy. Controller and Audit General – Functions – Fixation of seniority – Not arbitrary- 1981 (2) S.C.R.155
Achutananda Purohit and Others Vs State of Orissa. Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 – Agrarian reforms – Fixing of compensation at a small rate of interest on the compensation amount valid- Technicality can be frightened away by technicality. 1976 (3) SCR 919.
Agarwal Engineering Company Versus Technoimpex Hungarian Machine Industries. Arbitration – Two arbitration agreements –Two separate agreements for different sales – Arbitration in the second contract will not supersede earlier agreements. 1978 (1) SCR 167
Ajay Hasia and others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi. Art. 12 – State -Admission to Engineering College – It is immaterial for this purpose whether the corporation is created by a statute or under a statute. The test is whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and· not how it is created. The enquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence. Elimination of candidates by interview which consists of two minutes – Awarding more marks in the interview – Arbitrary. 1981 (2) SCR 79
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) Vs. Union of India. Constitution of India – Art. 32- Our current processual jurisprudence is broad-based and people-oriented and envisions access to justice through “class actions”, “public interest litigation” and “representative proceedings”. The narrow concept of cause of action and person aggrieved and individual litigation is becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions-Reservation of seats for Scheduled Cast and Tribe – State – Carry forwarding shall not result in the selection or appointment of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates considerably in excess of 50% – 1981 (2) SCR 185
Aladankandu Puthiyapurayil Abdulla vs. Food Inspector. An early trial of cases – The trial court in the country should ensure that in the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution, food adulteration cases which involve imprisonment are tried expeditiously so that neither the prosecution nor the accused is prejudiced by unusual judicial procrastination. 1980 (1) SCR 4
Alijan Nanhe Pehalwan Qureshi Vs. State of Maharashtra. – In so serious a crime as murder where so severe a sentence as life imprisonment has been inflicted by the trial court and the appeal is as of right, the High Court must indicate in a reasoned judgment that it has applied its mind to the material questions of fact and Jaw. A judgment may be brief but not a blank.1981 (1) SCR 1194
Aluminium Corporation of India Limited Vs Union of India and Others. Finance Act, 1960.-Excise duty on Aluminum-Exemption namely for the manufacturing of plates, sheets, circles, strips and foils in any form is used. The marginal mystique in interpretation bas arisen from misunderstanding the spirit and letter of the notification 1976 (1) SCR 400
Amalgamated Electrical Co. Vs. Jalgaon Borough. Indian Electricity Act – Provision for payment of the minimum charges. for the supply of electrical energy whether consumed or not so that it may be able to meet the bare maintenance expenses. 1976 (1) SCR 636
Ambika Prasad Mishra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960- Validity – Equitable distribution of lands, the annihilation of the monopoly of ownership by the imposition of ceiling and regeneration of the rural economy by diverse planning and strategies and are covered by the amour of Article 3IA. 1980 (3) SCR 1159
Ameteep Machine Tools Vs. Labour court. Industrial Disputes Act – Where conciliation proceedings are taken and a settlement is reached, it is a valid settlement and binding on the parties even if the workmen who are party to the dispute participate in the proceedings personally and are not represented by any of the persons mentioned in s. 36(,1) of the Act. 1981 (1) SCR 768.
Amikutty Umma Vs Veerankuity Haji. Kerala HC — Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceeding Act,1967- Return of appeal for representation – Appeal is a new proceeding instituted in Appellate Court and its institution is therefore barred by S.4 and S.5 District Judge returning appeal on ground that subject matter of appeal relating to recovery of arrears of rents being a ‘proceeding’ hit by Sec. 5 No limitation. 1969 KLT 440.
Amrik Sing vs Union of India. Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules 1954-All India Services. (Conditions of Seniority Residuary matters) Rules, 1960. Government must be satisfied, not subjectively but objectively, that any rule or regulation affecting the conditions of service of a member of the All India Service cause, undue hardship, then the iniquitous consequence thereof may be relieved against by relaxation of the concerned Rule or Regulation.There must be undue hardship and, further, the relaxation must promote the dealing with the case “in a just and equitable manner”. These are perfectly sensible guidelines. 1980 (3) SCR 485
Anil Dey Vs State of West Bengal. Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 – Ground of detection – Non-application of mind . AIR 1974 SC 832: (1974) 4 SCC 514
Anil Kumar Chowdhury Vs State of Assam. l.A.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955-Rule 3(3) (b)- Holding of posts equivalent to cadre post but not declared to be so sufficient compliance with rule 3(3)(b)-Gap of one week breaks the continuity- Officiation was not continuous. In law, a short gap may prove a costly failure. 1975 (3) SCR 878.
Anwar Ahammed Vs. State of UP. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898-Sec. 514- Seizure of car suspected to have been stolen-Police entrusting the car with the owner on executing the bond. The bond, it can be forfeited. The bond was not one as contemplated by Sec. 514 and, therefore, could not be forfeited. 1976 (1) SCR 779
Arya Vidya Sabha, Kashi and Another Vs Krishna Kumar Srivastava. The distinction between a statutory body and a body registered under the statute. AIR 1976 SC 1073 :(1976) 3 SCC 83
Ashok Kumar Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Criminal trials-Sentence-Offender in his teens at the time of committing the offence- Age a mitigating circumstance – A long protracted litigation is some deterrent for a young man in his twenties. The accused was nineteen when the offences were committed and his youthful age is a factor which deserves & consideration. A long period of incarceration in tile present condition of prisons may brutalize the tile boy and blunt his finer sensibilities so that the end product may perhaps be more criminal than the one at the point of entry. Not that all prison terms are not deterrents but some cases prove to be counterproductive especially when the delinquent is young. AIR 1980 SC 636: (1980)2 SCC 282:1980 (2) SCR 863
Assan Rawther Vs Ammu Umma. Kerala HC. Mohammed Law – A declaration of gift is not a ritual but a reality -No written document is essential -A Muslim gift does not require registration – The logic of law matter beyond the number of judges.The crucial tests of a valid classification are (1) an intelligible basis for segregation and (2) such basis having an intelligent nexus with the object of the law challenged.Personal law so-called is law by virtue of the sanction of the sovereign behind it and is, for that very reason, enforceable through court. Not Manu nor Muhammed but the monarch for the time makes ‘personal law’ enforceable. Art.13 (I) gives an inclusive and not exhaustive definition. 1971 KLT 684.
Assistant Collector of Central Excise Versus Jainson Hosiery Industries. Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Interference with the investigation – Courts must be very careful to see that every condition or need that the investigation or points out as essential for discharging his investigative functions, should be readily conceded unless plainly unreasonable. At the stage of the investigation, it is risky for the court to intervene except where manifest injustice cries for its Order. 1980 (1) SCR 134
Avinder Singh Etc Vs State of Punjab and Another. Constitution of India – Art. 265 – Punjab Municipalities Act, I976 -Absence of delegation – Guidelines – Nothing in the law prohibits double taxation – Tax on Foreign Liquor is valid. 1979 (1) SCR 845
Avon Services Vs. Industrial Tribunal. Industrial Disputes Act 1947-S. 10(1)- Reference of disputes – The Government does not lack. the power to make reference in respect of the same industrial dispute to which it once declined to refer. 1979 (2) SCR 45
Azad Rickshaw Pullers Union (Regd.) Vs. Punjab. The Punjab Cycle Rickshaws (Regulation of Rickshaws) Act, 1976- Court framed rules- The Court with its process of justice alone could not produce a viable project. But now, justice and power have come together 1981 (1)SCR 366