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
K. K. Shrivastava and Others Vs Bhupendra Kumar Jain. Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Unfortunate that an election petition, which probably might have been disposed of long ago, is still pending because the writ petition was pending in the High Court and later on special leave having been granted these appeals have been pending in this Court, the Court observed. How injurious sometimes the repercussions of entertaining writ petitions are where they should not be is illustrated by this very case. AIR 1977 SC 1703 :(1977) 2 SCC 494.
K. Sreedhara Reddy Vs. Conservator of Forests. Hyderabad Forest Act-Forest Contract Rules – It is clear that in the absence of a statutory exclusion of natural justice any exercise of power prejudicially affecting another must be in conformity with the rules of natural justice. On a true construction of ru1e 29 once a Forest Authority detects a breach it must investigate the extent and estimate, the nature and degree of damage caused by the breach. If it is serious they must proceed to ascertain the sum to be fixed as a penalty. In doing this, a reasonable opportunity must be given to the affected party. 1976 (1) SCR 770
K. Venkamma Vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Others. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939- Sec. 2 (28A)- The definition of ‘Route’ in S. 2(28A) of the Act is not a notional line “as the crow flies” but the actual highway as a motor vehicle traverses from one terminal to another. A route is transformed into an inter-state one if the highway it covers passes through more than one state. An inter-state route may lie of the categories of either connecting two states or traversing two or more states.1977 (3) SCR 562
K.C. Sundaram Vs The Authority Under The Payment Of Wages Act-Kerala HC -Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Sec. 115 – Revision against the order passed under the Minimum Wages Act is not maintainable. But counsel should be given an opportunity to convert the same into a petition under Art. 226 and/or 227. 1968 KLT 610.
K.C.P. Employees’ Association, Madras Vs Management of K.C.P. Limited, Madras. Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 – Sec. 3 proviso -Three separate companies – Separate balance sheet and profit and loss accounts have been prepared and maintained in the past and during the relevant years of accounting also. Direction issued to reconsider. AIR 1978 SC 274 : 1978 (2) SCR 608
K.C.Vasudeva and others Vs. Union of India and others. Seniority fixation – fixation of seniority between existing employees and those taken over from an autonomous body after its dissolution must be based not on mere compassion but on rational criteria having full consideration for the rights of other parties affected and having nexus with efficiency in administration [1980] Suppl. SCC 341
K.Kalpana Saraswathi Vs. P.S.S.Somasundram Chettiar. Specific Relief Act -Specific nature – It is open to the court in control of a suit for specific performance to extend the time for deposit and this Court may do so even now to enable the plaintiff to get the advantage of the agreement to sell in her favour. The disentitling circumstances relied upon by the defendant are offset by the false pleas raised in the course of the suit by him and rightly negatived. Specific performance is an equitable relief and he who seeks equity can be put on terms to ensure that equity is done to the opposite party even while granting the relief . AIR 1980 SC 512: 1980 (2) SCR 292
K.P. Khader Vs K. K. P. Kunhamina And Others. Kerala HC. Mohammedan Law – Gift – if the donor has done all that the law of the land requires to be done to separate himself from the property, a gift of Musha will be as valid as that of property which can be physically handed over to the donee.1970 KLT 237.
K.P. Vasudevan Pillai Vs Kumarakom Central Vyavasaya Co-Operative Society. Kerala HC. Travancore – Cochin Cooperative Societies Act, 1951 -Sec. 65- Once the loan has been made, it is as good as the representative of the Society having taken away the money of the Society and made it over to the defendant, and discovering this disappearance of funds the Society is trying to get it back. It is not open to a defendant, who has benefitted by taking a loan, to challenge the validity of the loan in such a case. 1971 KLT 837.
Kadir Mohammed Vs Augusthy Varghese. Kerala HC – Kerala Land Reforms Act,1963 – Sec. 32 –The suit must be for eviction of a cultivating tenant from his holding and there must be a fair rent petition pending; if so, the suit shall not be entertained what that means itself being moot. The defendant should be a tenant and not one who is only a caretaker or trespasser wearing the mask of a tenant and filing a fair rent application merely as make-believe. 1969 KLT 739.
Kalathile Valappil Pookkoth Mammad & Another Vs Cheeramoolayil Pookoth Aleema. Kerala HC -Marumakkathayam Act (Madras), 1932 –Just cause for upsetting the earlier maintenance arrangement. A bona fide offer of an alternative arrangement has been made justifying the setting aside of the earlier maintenance arrangement. The new arrangement therefore will be that every member of the family will be entitled to an equal share in the income from the two items of property. The karnavan will be entitled to collect the income but he will distribute it among the members equally (depending on the number of members for the time being) he himself not claiming any higher share. 1970 KLJ 126.
Kale and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Others. Registration Act – Sec.17(1)(b)-Family arrangement – The Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the High Court was wrong in taking the view that in the absence of registration, the family arrangement could not be sustained. Assuming that the family arrangement was compulsorily registrable, a family arrangement is binding on the parties to it, and would operate as an estoppel by preventing the parties after having taken advantage under the arrangement to resile from the same or trying to revoke it. 1976 (3) SCR 202
Kalliani and others vs Madhavi. Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 – Sec. 11 (4) – The court must be astute and vigilant to baulk the landlord’s devices. So, while I affirm the order for eviction I think it necessary to give directions to protect the tenant from being kept out of possession of the building for too long a period. It is appropriate to give nothing more than 6 months’ time for the landlord to rebuild. Even his advocate agrees it is reasonable. He has already a plan and licence and, therefore, it must certainly be possible for him to complete that structure within that span of time. The landlord will, therefore, be directed to complete the building within 6 months from the date on which the tenant or the court puts him into possession. 1970 KLT 257.
Kamla Devi and Others Vs Pt. Mani Lal Tewari. Limitation Act, 1963-Sec. 19. Fresh period of limitation when starts -The function of S.19 is to provide a later date to count the period of limitation afresh, and that fresh period of limitation will be computed from the time when the acknowledgement is signed. Nothing turns on whether the acknowledgement is itself registered or not AIR 1977 SC 1187: (1976) 4 SCC 818
Kandathy and others vs Kuttymani. Kerala HC – Personal Law – Malabar Areas – Pulayas –Custom – The party setting up the custom must have the benefit of all legal presumptions, but he can take nothing by any resort to mere surmise, however ingenious, and his proof, though scanty, must still be ‘rational and solid’. The court below has merely adopted the Hindu law without first satisfying himself about the preliminary condition that there is no proof about the rule of customary law on the point 1970 KLT 799.
Kanta Goel Vs. B.P.Pathk. Delhi Rent Control Act 19.58-Sec. 2(c) (1)-14- The complications of estoppel or the concepts of the Transfer of Property Act need not necessarily or inflexibly be imported into the proceedings under the Rent Control Law, tried by special Tribunals under a special statute. The Court left open the question of some co-owner seeking eviction of a tenant and others opposing whether such an application would be maintainable. 1977 (3) SCR 412
Katikara Chintamani Dora and Others Vs Guntreddi Annamnaidu. Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948-Sec. 9 (1) – Under the Abolition Act, as it stood at the material date, the inquiry of the Settlement Officer could legitimately be confined to the ascertainment of only two disputes of fact, viz., (i) Was the village an “inam village”? (ii) If so, was it an ‘Inam Estate’ as defined in s. 2(7) of the Abolition Act. AIR 1974 SC 1069:1974 SCR (2) 655
Kesavan Nair Vs State Insurance Officer. Kerala HC – Motor Accidents Act, 1939 -Sec. 92- – Liability of the insurer – Out of a sense of humanity and having due regard to the handicap of the innocent victim in establishing the negligence of the operator of the vehicle a blanket liability must be cast on the insurer, instead of its being restricted to cases where the vehicle operator has been shown to be negligent. This is more a matter for the legislature and not for the court. But this is a lacuna in the law which should be rectified. 1971 KLT 380
Khatki Ahmed Mushabhai Vs Limdi Municipality. The ground on which the Municipal body has refused licence is not irrelevant and cannot be described as unrealistic within the meaning of Art. 19(6) of the Constitution. 1979 (2) SCR 338
Khem Karan and Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 – Appeal against acquittal -The fact that a large number of accused have been. acquitted and the remaining· who have been convicted are less than five cannot vitiate the conviction under s. 149 read with the substantive offence if as in this case, the Court has taken care to find that there are other persons who might not have been identified or convicted but were party· to the crime and together constituted the statutory number. On this basis, the conviction under s. 307 read with s. 149 has to be sustained. AIR 1974 SC 1567: 1974 SCR (3) 863
Kisan Trimbak Kothula and Others Vs State of Maharashtra. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954- The Public Analyst reported that the milk was buffalo’s milk, that there was a deficiency of fat and that the milk contained added water. To earn the eligibility to the benefit of the proviso to s. 16(1)(a)(i) the accused must establish not only that his case falls positively under the offences specified in the said proviso, but negatively, that his acts do not attract any of the non-proviso offences in Sec. 16 (1). 1997 (2) SCR 102
Kishor Singh Ravinder Dev Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan. Prisons Act, 1894 – Section 46. By keeping the prisoners in separate solitary rooms for long periods ranging. from 8 to 11 months, putting cross· bar fetters for several days on the flimsy grounds of loitering in the prison, behaving insolently and in an uncivilised manner the prison authorities have acted in utter disregard of the mandate of this Court in Sunil Batra .1981 (1) SCR 995.
Krishna Chandra Gangopadhyaya Vs Union of India. Constitution of India-Seventh Schedule, List I Item 54, List II, Item 23. Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1951. Section 15- Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 -Section 10(2)-Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1964-Rule 20(2)- Under our scheme of distribution of the legislative powers, particularly when subjects of national and provincial concern are involved and the States a lesser role, the present case of mines and minerals being an instance in point. AIR 1975 SC 1389, 1975 SCR Supp 151
Krishnan Lal Vs. State of Haryana. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sec. 376 – To forsake vital consideration and go by obsolete demands for substantial corroboration is to sacrifice common sense in favour of an artificial concoction called ‘judicial’ probability’. A socially sensitized judge is a better statutory armour against gender outrage than long clauses of a complex section with all the protections writ into it. 1980 (3) SCR 305
Kulchhinder Singh and Others Vs Hardayal Singh Brar and Others. Constitution of India-Article 226 and 221- Contractual obligation – The writ petition seeks enforcement of a binding contract but the neat and necessary repellant is that the remedy of Art. 226 is unavailable to enforce a contract qua contract. The wide amplitude of Article 226 and its potent use to correct manifest injustice but cannot agree that contractual obligations in the ordinary course without even statutory complexion can be enforced under Article 226. AIR 1976 SC 2216 : 1976 SCR (3) 680
Kumarakom Central Industrial Co-Operative Society Vs District Collector, Kottayam -Kerala HC – Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1959 – S.74(1)(iv) -Exemption from payment of Court Fees only available in the suit level and not in appeal. 1969 KLT 318.
Kunhu Mohammad Vs T.K. Ummayithi Alias Umma Haji Umma. Kerala HC – Civil Procedure Code,1908 – Sec. 132 (1) – The limited right under S.132(1) of the Code is only be exempt from personal appearance in Court while holding its public hearing and does not extend to her examination in camera in the chambers of the Judge or in some other place where both parties will have equal facilities. A Judge has the power to direct the examination of a party or witness in his chambers or in some place other than the residence of the person to be examined. 1969 KLT 418.
Kunwar Wripendra Bahadur Vs. Jai Ram Varma. Representation of the People Act,1951 – Sec. 27 – In a catena of cases this Court has consistently taken the view that the finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged in an election petition even if certain irregularities had taken place in the preparation of the electoral roll or if subsequent disqualification had taken place and the electoral roll had on that score not been corrected before the last hour of making nominations. After that deadline the electoral roll of a constituency cannot be interfered with and no one can go behind the entries except for the purpose of considering disqualification under s. 16 of the 1950 Act. 1978 (1) SCR 208
Kurian Chocko Vs Varkey Ouseph. Kerala HC. Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Sec. 92 & 107 – Duty of appellate court to consider evidence independently – An appellate court is the final Court of fact ordinarily and therefore a litigant is entitled to a full and fair and independent consideration of the evidence at the appellate stage. Anything less than this is unjust to him and I have no doubt that in the present case, the learned Subordinate Judge has fallen far short of what is expected of him as an appellate Court. AIR 1969 Kerala 316 : 1969 KLT 196.
Kuruvila Chandy vs Hasan Bava. Kerala HC – Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Order IX Rule 9 -Appearance by counsel in the absence of party –The judgment of the Court dismissing the suit does not purport to be on the merits either. Naturally, it must be treated as one under O.17 R.2 CPC. The question then arises whether there was any nonappearance of the plaintiff so as to warrant disposal under this provision. Non-appearance at the hearing of the suit is a sine qua non for the applicability of O.17 R.2. Appearance by a pleader in Court has a purpose to serve and if the presence of the advocate does not serve that purpose it is as good as non-appearance from the point of view of the party 1969 KLT 402.