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
B. Prabhakara Rao Vs Desari Panakalala Rao and Others. Motor Vehicles Act. 1947. Andhra Pradesh State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1971, R.15 . Rule 15 is intra vires and ·it merely makes patent what is otherwise latent in the statutory provisions. Rule 15 does not entitle parties to the appeal, or application to produce additional evidence but clothes the Tribunal with discretionary power to allow such evidence. What is received is not qua representation under s. 57(4) but qua evidence with public interest flavour .1976 (2) SCR 1032.
B. Shah Vs. Presiding Officer. Maternity Benefits Act,1961 – Computation of maternity benefit has to be made for all the days including Sundays and rest days which may be wageless holidays comprised in the actual period of absence of the woman extending upto six weeks preceding and including the day of delivery as also for all the days falling within the six weeks immediately following the day of delivery thereby ensuring that the woman worker gets for the said period not only the amount equalling 100 per cent of the wages which she was previously earning in terms of section 3(n) of the Act but also the benefit of the wages for all the Sundays and rest days falling within the aforesaid two periods which would ultimately be conducive to the interests of both the woman worker and her employer. 1978 (1) SCR 701
B.N.Nagarajan Vs. State of Karnataka. Constitution of India -Art. 226- Jurisdiction No prayer has been made by the promotes to quash or rectify the seniority list dated the 4th of September, 1973, but then their whole case is based on the contention that they illegally promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineers in a substantive capacity prior to the appointment of the direct recruits, that they would take precedence over direct recruits in the matter of seniority and regular absorption in the cadre of Assistant Engineers and that it was on that account that the promotion of direct recruits to the posts of Executive Engineers without consideration of the case of the promotes for such promotion was illegal. Writ jurisdiction not limited to the prayer portion alone?. 1979 (3) SCR 937
B.S. Yadav and Others Etc Vs State of Haryana and Others. Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 235 and 309, proviso-scope of Governor – it is open to him to give retrospective effect to the rules made under that provision. But the date from which the rules are made to operate must be shown to bear either from the face of the rules or by extrinsic evidence reasonable nexus with the provisions contained in the rules, especially when the retrospective effect extends over a long period. 1981 (1) SCR 1024.
Bablu Das Vs State of West Bengal. Constitution of India – Art. 21 -Preventive Detention – The petitioner is a notorious wagon breaker and railway criminal and was indulging in committing thefts from goods train. AIR 1975 SC 1513:(1975) 4 SCC 108.
Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs Nandlal Khodidas Barot. Constitution of India – Art. 226. In a petition under Art. 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues: both of fact and law. The words “as far as it can be made applicable” occur in s. 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that in applying the various provisions of the Code to proceedings other than those of a suit, the court must take into account the nature of those proceedings and the relief sought. The object of article 226 is to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy to aggrieved parties. Power has consequently been vested in the High Courts to issue orders or writs. If the procedure of a suit had also to be adhered to in the case of writ petitions the entire purpose of having a quick 2nd inexpensive remedy would be defeated. A writ petition under article 226 is essentially different from a suit and it would be incorrect to assimilate and incorporate the procedure of a suit into the proceedings of a petition under article 226. The High Court is not deprived of this jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner’s right of relief, questions of fact may fall to be determined. 1975 (2) SCR 71.
Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P. Supreme Court Rules, 1966 -Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 – Sec. 389 (1) -Pendency of appeal before Supreme Court -Grant of bail by Supreme Court -Practice and Procedure in the matter of granting of bail to an accused person pending the hearing of an appeal-Courts are not barred from second consideration at a later stage by entertaining another application for bail. AIR 1978 SC 527 : 1978 (2) SCR 777
Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab. Criminal Procedure Code – Sec. 401- In the petition filed .under section 401 Cr!. P.C. for the exercise of the High Court’s power of revision, it was permissible for it to exercise the power of a Court of appeal under section 386 for enhancement of the sentence. 1980 (1) SCR 645
Badri Nath vs. MST. Punna. Hindu Succession Act, 1956-S. 4- The right of the baridar was a transferable right. When the right to receive the offerings made at a temple is independent of an obligation to render services involving qualifications of personal nature, (such as officiating the worship) such a right is heritable as well as alienable.1979 (3) SCR 209
Badri Prasad Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others. Marriage – Revision Petition – Challenging wed-lock after fifty years of marriage. If a man and woman who live as husband and wife in society are compelled to prove, after half a century later, by eye-witness evidence that they were validly married, fifty years earlier and few will succeed. A strong presumption arises in favour of wed-lock where the partners have lived together for a Jong spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of its legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. AIR 1978 SC 1557: (1978)3 SCC 527: 1979 (1) SCR 1.
Bai Tahira Vs Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S. 127(3) (b )- Every divorcee, otherwise eligible, is entitled to the benefit of maintenance allowance and the dissolution of the marriage makes no difference to this right under the current Code. No husband can claim under s. 127(3) (b) absolution from his obligation under s. 125 towards a divorced wife except on proof of payment of a sum stipulated by customary or personal law whose quantun1 is more or less sufficient to do duty for maintenance allowance. 1979 (2) SCR 75
Baigana and Others Vs Deputy Collector of Consolidate. Constitution of India Art. 136 -Supreme Court cannot be converted into a court of fifth appeal. 1978 (3) SCR 509
Balakrishnan Trading Corporation Vs Krishna Kurup. Partnership Act. Sec. 69 (2) – The person suing must be a partner – The partner should be shown to have been entered in the register as a partner need not be fulfilled. 1969 KLT 855.
Baldev Raj Chadha Vs Union of India. F. R. Rule 56(j)(i)-·Compulsory retirement. An officer with continuous service for 14 years crossing the efficiency bar and reaching the maximum salary in the scale and with no adverse entries at least for five years immediately before the compulsory retirement cannot be cashiered on the score that long years ago, his performance had been poor, although his superiors had allowed him to cross the efficiency bar without qualms. 1980 (1) SC2 430.
Baleshwar Dass Vs Union of India. Service matter-Duly qualified persons appointed as Assistant Engineers in temporary posts-Officiating service-If the appointment is to a post and the capacity in which the appointment is made is of indefinite duration, if the Public Service Commission has been consulted and has approved, if the tests prescribed have been taken and passed, if probation has been prescribed and has been approved, one may well say that the post was held by the incumbent in a substantive capacity. 1980 (1) SCR 449.
Balkrishna Chhaganlal Soni Versus State of West Bengal. Customs Act, 1978- Meaning of “any persons” and “any place”. This provision is plain, that an authorised customs official is entitled to examine any person at any time, at any place in the course of enquiry.1974 (2) SCR 107.
Balkrishna Somnath Vs Sada Devram Koli Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Sec. 32 (F) – What section 32F(1) insists upon is that (a) the share of such person in the joint family has been separated by metes and bounds; (b) the Mamlatdar is satisfied that the share of the disabled person in the land is separated in the same proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint family property and not in a larger proportion. 1977 (2) SCR 678
Balwant Singh and Others Versus State of Bihar. Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 – Sec. 321 – It may be open to a District Magistrate to bring to the notice of the public prosecutor materials and suggest to him to consider whether the prosecution should be withdrawn or not. He cannot command where he can only commend. In the instant case (a) ordering the public prosecutor to move for withdrawal was not proper for a District Magistrate to do. It is not proper to have the Public Prosecutor ordered about; (b) The Public Prosecutor obeyed and not acted in the instant case and, therefore, the statutory responsibility vested in him was not properly exercised; (c) the surrender of discretion by the Public Prosecutor and the Magistrate are unfortunate; and (d) the State should not stultify the court by first stating that there is a true case to be tried and then make a volte-face to the effect that on a second investigation the case has been discovered to be false.1978 (1) SCR 604
B.Banerjee Vs Anita Pan. West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 as amended in 1969 is valid – There is no violation of Art. 19(1)(f) read with Art.19(5) of the. The constitution in the Amending Act is to stop the influx of a transferee class of. evictors of tenants and institutions of litigation to eject and rack-rent or re-build to make large profits.1975 (2) SCR 774.
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Etc., Etc. Vs A. Rajappa and Others. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947– Sec. 2 (j) – “industry’ – Test laid down- If (i) professions, (ii) clubs (iii) educational institutions (iv) cooperatives, (v) research institutes (vi) charitable projects and (vii) other kindred adventures, they fulfil the triple tests listed they are industry for the purpose of the Act. 1978 (3) SCR 207
Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs M. V. Dabholkar. Advocates Act, 1961 – Sec. 35 (i) – Rule 36 of the rules framed under s. 49 (c) of the Advocates Act, fairly construed sets, out wholesome rules of professional. conduct and the dissection of the said rule, the way it has been done by the Disciplinary Tribunal, 1976 (1) SCR 48
Baradakanta Mishra Vs Registrar of Orissa High Court. Contempt of Courts Act,1971-Ss. 2(c)(iii) & 13-Contempt of Court-Disciplinary control over Subordinate judiciary-Court functions in a disciplinary capacity it does so in furtherance of the administration of justice. Attack on the administrative act of a judge, if amounts to contempt-Administration of justice meaning and scope· of. 1974 (2) SCR 282.
Barati Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. Code of Criminal Procedure. Sec.411-Power of appellate Court to review evidence on which order of acquittal by trial court founded-No limitation on power. 1974 (30 SCR 570.
Baselius Mar Thoma Vs. Paul Mar Athanasius. Code of Civil Procedure-S. 24(1)(b)- In this jurisdiction, the approach has to be pragmatic, not theoretic, without whittling down the basics of law bearing on the transfer of cases. Where a large number of people are affected and the fate of a few hundred suits and a thousand churches are involved, the elimination of some years and duplication of bearings and full arguments at the commanding height of the High Court is a wise measure, all things considered. The social savings of abbreviation of law’s delays are important to social justice. 1979 (1) SCR 271
Basidr Ahmad Magroy Vs. Ghulam. Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957-S.100(1)(d) – Improper rejection of votes – Improper reception or improper rejection of votes can result in invalidating the election only if such improper reception or improper rejection materially affects the result of the election.1977 (2) SCR 297
Basti Sugar Mills Company Limited Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another. Payment of Bonus Act 1965- Sec, 34 – The effect of s. 34 is that anything inconsistent with the Bonus Act in any other law will bow and bend before it. If concluded agreement could be read into the recommendations of the tripartite committee relating to bonus it would be valid despite s. 34. 1979 (1) SCR 590
Bhagwan Dass Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 61, 1957. It is wrong to assume that mines and minerals must always be subsoil and that there can be no minerals on the surface of the earth. The minor minerals while under the river water belonged to the State and the statute answers the question of whether the natural action of the flooding river destroys the title of, the state. 1976 (3) SCR 869.
Bharatpur Motor Workers Cooperative Society Lid. Etc Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. Motor Vehicles Act,1939- Sec. 68C and 68DState route-Publication of Scheme by State Transport Undertaking in the official gazette. The section merely requires publication in the concerned official gazette of the State whose undertaking initiates the project for nationalization. 1975 (2) SCR 37.
Bhupinder Singh Vs Daljit Kaur. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – If an order for maintenance bas been made against the deserter it will operate until vacated or altered in terms of the provisions of the Code itself, if the husband has a case under section 125(4)(5) or section 127 of the Code it is open to him to initiate, appropriate proceedings. But until the original order for maintenance is modified or cancelled by a higher Court or is varied or vacated in terms of section 125(4) or (5) or section 127, its validity survives. It is enforceable and no plea that there has been cohabitation in the interregnum or that there has been a compromise between the parties can hold good as a valid defence.1979 (2) SCR 292
Bhut Nath Mete Vs State of West Bengal. Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. There is obligation to make a fair communication of the grounds and the particulars sufficient to enable the detainee to explain his innocence. 1974 (3) SCR 315 : AIR 1974 SC 806.
Bindumati Bai Vs. Narbada. Hindu Law – lt is permissible under Hindu Law for a co-widow to relinquish by agreement her right of survivorship in the property which falls to the share of the other widow. 1977 (1) SCR 988
Bishnu Deo Shaw Vs State of West Bengal. Indian Penal Code – Sec. 302 -Special reasons for awarding death sentence – Special reasons are reasons which are special with reference to the offender, with reference to constitutional and legislative directives and with reference to the times, that is, with reference to contemporary ideas in the fields of criminology and connected sciences. Special reasons are those which lead inevitably to the conclusion that the offender is beyond redemption, having due regard to his personality and proclivity, to the legislative. Death sentence is ordinarily ruled out and can only be imposed for “Special reasons”. Judges are left ·with the task of discovering “special reasons”. -1979 (3) SCR 355
Blaizue Pereira Vs Adima Abdul Lathef. Civil Procedure Code – Order XXII Rule 3- There cannot be an abatement once an application has been filed under Order XXII Rule 3 C. P. C. within the time limit. Since such an application has been filed in this case all that remained to be done was for the Court to take steps to ascertain whether the persons mentioned as legal representatives before it was really so. It could not have dismissed the application for impleading the legal representatives without discharging this duty. AIR 1969 Ker 286
Brahmanand Vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Another. United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947. Deposit of rent – The expression “where the deposit has been made as aforesaid” ins. 7·C (6) means that the deposit is permissible only when the condition in s. 7·C(l) is complied with. If the landlord refuses to accept rent paid to him a deposit is permissible but payment need not be by a physical tender person to person. It can be by money order or through messenger or by sending a notice to the landlord asking him to nominate a bank into which the refits may be regularly paid to the credit of the landlord. If the landlord refuses under these circumstances then a court deposit will be the remedy. 1977 (3) SCR 435
Burma Oil Co. Vs. Central of Wealth Tax. Wealth Tax Act 1957- Determining wealth – The amount set apart by an assessee in his balance sheet on the valuation date as an estimated provision for meeting its tax liability less the last instalment of the payment of the advance tax was a debt owed by the assessee within the meaning of s. 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and was deductible in computing its net wealth as on that date. 1977 (2) SCR 295
Busching Schmitz Private Limited Vs P.T. Menghani and Another. Interpretation of statutes-Legislature can be assumed to intend obvious literal interpretation resulting in obscurity. The possibility of the power of government to issue orders to vacate being used discriminatorily should be carefully avoided. If exceptions are made in the case of big officers, naturally the middling and the lesser minions of government may have a grievance. It. may perhaps be proper if the government, when allotting good premises for high officers who make from their own house’s large returns by way of rentals make them pay into government coffers some equitable part of the gain so made, giving consideration to circumstances like loans, investments and the like. 1977 (3) SCR 312