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
C.B.Muthamma Vs. Union of India. Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 16- Indian Foreign Service- Denial of promotion on the ground that she is a lady –Gender discrimination- That sex prejudice against Indian womanhood pervades the service rules even a third of a century after Freedom. There is some basis for the charge of bias in the rules and this makes the ominous indifference of the executive to bring about the banishment of discrimination in the heritage of service rules. If high officials lose hopes of equal justice under the rules a legal lot of the little Indian, already priced’ out of the expensive judicial market, is best left to guess. AIR 1979 SC 1868: (1979)4 SCC 260:1980 (1) SCR 668
C.C. Padmanabhan Vs. The Director. Promotional post-Post of Assistant Educational Officer in Kerala Educational Service is a promotional post and a reversion therefrom is, therefore, invalid. If the rules do not permit Assistant Educational Officers to become Headmasters of High schools but the Government has been posting them as such in contravention of the rules it _would not follow that the rules automatically stand amended to be read in conformity with the contravention. There is no incongruity in the two categories of the posts, one higher and the other lower, furnishing two sources of recruitment to another higher post and it would not necessarily follow from such a practice that the two sources must be regarded as equivalent to each other for all purposes. 1981 (1) SCR 178
C.I.T. Vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills. Income Tax Act, 1961- Jurisdiction of High Court on reference – The danger of failing to recognize that the jurisdiction of the High Court in these matters is only advisory and that conclusion of facts are conclusions on which the High Court is to exercise the advisory jurisdiction is illustrated by this case. At no time had the assessee a case that shares were purchased with a view to helping a sister concern. Nowhere in the statement of the case or the supplementary statement of the case prepared by the Tribunal and filed in the High· Court was there a finding on the question. 1976 (1) SCR 126
C.K.Thomas vs Bhavani Amma. Kerala HC -Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 34 Rule 5 – Final Decree proceedings – A final decree proceeding certainly will affect the interests of the sharers and so it is only proper to imply an obligation on the part of the Court to issue notice to all the sharers and others who will be affected by the decree
C.Muniyappa Naidu Vs. State of Karnataka. City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1971, framed under the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Regulation 3 of the Regulations which was in force when the Resolution was passed by the Corporation recognised only two modes of recruitment to the post of Senior Health Inspectors namely, by promotion from the cadre of Junior Health Inspectors and by deputation. Therefore, to absorb Senior Health Inspectors from the State. Directorate of health Services’ as permanent employees of the Corporation would be plainly contrary to the express mandate of this statutory provision. 1977 (1) SCR 791
Carew and Company Limited Vs Union of India. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. An “undertaking” is defined as an undertaking that itself discloses the difficulty felt by the draftsmen in delineating the precise content. 1976 (1) SCR 379.
Chacko Kochuvarghese Vs Narayani Amma Gouri Amma. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sec. 58 & 105. Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 – Sec. 2 (22) – Morotage or lease – Document styled as “Otti” – Test – The real test is whether the transfer was intended by the parties for the enjoyment of the property by the transferee or whether it was intended solely to secure the amount advanced by him. If it is not solely to secure a loan, the transfer is a lease. Kerala HC – AIR 1970 Ker 267 : 1968 KLJ 895.
Chacko vs. State of Kerala. Kerala HC –Criminal Trial – Court must also try to find out whether the petitioner is irreclaimably addicted to serious crime, and have some regard for his social and family circumstances as well as his previous career. 1971 KLT 115: 1971 CriLJ 1251
Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Another Vs Ramjee. Coal Mines Regulations -Natural Justice – Principles explained – Law is meant to serve the living and does not beat its abstract wings in the jural void. Its functional fulfilment and ‘social engineering’ depend on its scrutinized response to the situation, subject matter and the complex of realities which require ordered control. A holistic understanding is a simple justice to the meaning of all legislation. 1977 (2) SCR 904
Chairman, Ramappa Gundappa Sahakari Samyukta Besava Sangha Limited v. State of Mysore and Others. Constitution of India – Art. 19 and 226 – Lease of Government land – Government being free to grant leases of its lands according to any public policy which it may evolve on that behalf. AIR 1974 SC 856: (1974) 2 SCC 221
Chaitanya Kumar Adatiya Vs Smt. Sushila Dixit. Conduct of Election Rules – Ballot papers – An order for inspection of election papers cannot be made as a matter of course and it is only when on the basis of evidence adduced allegations of irregularity are prima facie established and the court is prima facie satisfied that the making of such an order is necessary to do complete justice between the parties that an order for inspection would be justified. AIR 1975 SC 1718: 1976 (3) SCC 97
Chanda Singh Vs Choudhary Shiv Ram Verma and Others. Conduct of Election Rules, Rule 63 – Demand for recounting be rejected by Returning Officer – The Returning Officer, has to be careful, objective and sensitive in assessing the legitimacy of the plea for re-running the course. of counting. Victory by a very few votes may certainly be ground to fear unwitting error in count given other circumstances tending that way. AIR 1975 SC 403, (1975) 4 SCC 393
Chandrasekharan Nair Vs Purushothaman Nair. Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Order 44 Rule 1 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O.47 Rule 1- where there is a binding decision prior or subsequent to the order sought to be reviewed taking a different view of the law, that is a good ground for review because it would be the discovery of a new and important matter and in any case an error apparent on the face of the record within the meaning – 1969 KLT 687.
Chandu Naik Vs. Sitaram. Maharashtra Vacant Lands (Prohibition of Unauthorised Occupation and Summary Eviction) Act, 1975. In substance and effect a proceeding u/s. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not for the purpose of evicting any person from any land but is primarily concerned with the prevention of the breach of the peace by declaring the party found in possession to be entitled to remain in possession until evicted therefrom in due course of law 1978 (2) SCR 353
Charan Lal Sahu Vs Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy. Constitution of India 1950, Arts. 54, SS, 58 and 71. Presidential Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952- Presidential election – A court or tribunal functioning or exercising its jurisdiction under an enactment will not question the validity of that very enactment which is the source of its powers. The Supreme Court functions as an election tribunal set up under a law made by Parliament under Art. 71 (1) of the Constitution. Sections 5B and 5C of the Act and the Constitution Amendment 1974, which introduced Art. 71(3) are valid. There is also no invasion of any basic structure of the Constitution. AIR 1978 SC 499: 1978 (3) SCR 1
Charge Substation Vs Workmen Shift In-Addl. Industrial Tribunal. Industrial Disputes Act – Award – The only financial impact whereof would be around Rs. 6,000/-. The award of the Tribunal be modified and the recommendations of the sub-Committee where both sides were represented be substituted Court made it an award. AIR 1980 SC 511 : (1980) 1 SCC 683.
Charles K. Skaria Vs. Dr.C.Mathew. Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14 and 15 – Admission to Post Graduate degree and diploma course – Reservation- The Court must use its power to correct the error and promote order and not strike down an illegal error Without going forward to affirmative action which may minimise injury generally. The judicial process, in its creative impulse, must hesitate to scuttle, salvage wherever possible and destroy only when the situation is beyond retrieval. A distinction was drawn between the factum of eligibility and the proof thereof. It was held that if a person possesses eligibility before the date of actual selection, he cannot be denied benefit because its proof is produced later. (1980) 2 SCC 752: 1980 (3) SCR 71
Charles Sobraj Vs Supdt. Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Prison jurisprudence – Art. 21 of the Constitution read with Art. 19(i)(d) and (5) is capable of wider application than the imperial mischief which gave its birth and must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency and dignity that mark the progress of a mature society. The fair procedure is the soul of Art. 21, and reasonableness of the restriction is the· essence of Art. 19(5) and sweeping discretion degenerating into arbitrary discrimination is anathema for Art. 14. Constitutional Karuna is thus injected into incarceration strategy to produce prison justice.1979 (1) SCR 512
Chatnu Vs Valayanat Tharayil Chirutha. Kerala HC – Evidence Act, 1872 – Malicious Prosecution – The civil court can, and has a duty to, decide the issues independently of the judgment of the criminal court while recording its findings on the four elements already adverted to. If a person alleges in a complaint or “first information” that a certain offence has been committed by another to his personal knowledge, runs the argument, and the criminal case flowing therefrom fails eventually, a presumption of absence of reasonable and probable cause arises and, further, of malice in the prosecutor. 1970 KLJ 1023.
Chempakaikutty Kalyani vs Kunju Ramalakshmi. Kerala HC – Limitation Act, 1963 – Sec. 12. Art. 116 – In order to get the benefit of S.12, a second application for a copy of the judgment must be made before the extended period of 90 days. The Court must adopt that construction which advances enforcement of rights rather than inhibits or curtails it. Therefore, between two interpretations of S.12, one that will give a larger period of limitation must be preferred. Indeed, there is really no possibility of two interpretations in this case because S.12 expressly excluded two periods and there is no warrant for so reading S.12 as to constrain a party to apply for a copy of the decree and judgment within the statutory period of 90 days before he could claim the benefit of the exclusion. 1969 KLT 876.
Cheran Transport Company Limited Vs Kanan Lorry Service and Another. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Secs. 58,68–C 68D(3), 68F(1D)—Stage carriage operator- If a permit holder whose permit is about to expire diligently does in the normal course, all that he needs and all that he can, that is to say, if he sets in motion the legal machinery for the grant of renewal as laid down in section 58, the fact that a scheme is published before the actual grant of renewal will not intercept or extinguish the process of law set in motion by the application for renewal. AIR 1977 SC 1564: 1977 SCR (2) 389
Chidambaram Mulraj Vs. C.I.T. Bombay. Indian Income Tax Act, 1922-Sub-s. SA of s. 10 introduced by the Finance Act of 1955-Interpretation of- The compensation paid for the termination of a managing agency business is a payment in relation to. the said business and, therefore, the previous year relevant to that receipt would be the same as the previous year for the managing agency business itself 1976 (2) SCR 773
Chitan J. Vaswani and Another Vs State of West Bengal and Another. Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act,1956 – The Magistrate has the power to order eviction when there is a conviction either under Sec.3 or 7. Under Sec. 18(1), when a Magistrate receives information that a brothel is being run within a distance of 200 yds. from certain specified types of public institutions, he may order the eviction of the occupier after hearing him. 1976 (2) SCR 300
Col. A.S.Iyer and others etc. Vs. V.Balasubramanyam and others. Constitution of India -Service’ consisted of Anny and Civilian Officers – The 1950 Rules bring out certain incidents of service boldly. Notwithstanding the fact that they entered the Survey of India service. 1978 (1) SCR 1036.
Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon Vs Union of India. Civil Procedure Code – Review – A review is not a routine procedure. An earlier order cannot be reviewed unless the· Court is satisfied that material error manifests on the face of the order undermines its soundness or results in a miscarriage· of justice. A review· of a judgment is a serious step and resorting to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. 1981 (1) SCR 168
Commissioner of Expenditure-Tax, A.P. Vs P.V.G. Raju. Expenditure Tax Act, 1957-Sec. 5 (j) – Politics if a profession – Under modern conditions, politics is a profession or occupation. But the expenses incurred on behalf of other candidates cannot be the assessee’s professional expenses. When a person gives money to another without any_ material return, he donates that sum. Therefore, when the assessee gave money to the candidates of his party for their elections expenses, it was money gratuitously given, that is· he made donations. 1976 (1) SCR 1017
Commissioner of Income Tax West Bengal III, Calcutta Vs Sri Jagannath Jee. Income Tax Act 1922.Sec. 4 (3) (i)- Trust for a religious and charitable purposes. The court negatived the contention that even if the property vested in the Deity, all the amounts to be spent on the Shebaits and the members of their family on the upkeep of horses and carriages and repair of buildings etc. were charged on the income and, therefore, the same did not and could not come into the hands of the Deity as his income and could not be taxed as such. If the Shebaits received rent and interest to the extent of these other disbursements they received the amounts merely as collectors of rents etc. and not as receivers of income. The terms in which the directions are couched do not divest the income at the source but merely direct a Shebait to apply the income received from debutter properties for specified purposes. 1976 (3) SCR 483.
Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Calcutta Vs B. N. Bhattachargee and Another. Income Tax Act, 1961- Sec. 245A – Settlement Commission – The Settlement Commission should be inhibited from proceeding with the application of the assessee and the appeals by the assessee before the lnc·on1e Tax Appellate Tribunal must be revived and disposed of expeditiously [ 1979 (3) SCR 133
C I.T. vs. M/s. P.S.S.Investments – Income Tax Act, 1961. First Schedule Part IT, Explanation (iii) to par11-graph D-Calculation of rebate in the computation of Super-tax. For computing, the reduction in rebate under paragraph D of Part H of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1958, the position of profits and gains as it existed in the previous year should be taken into account and not in the years prior to that Clause (iii) introduces a fiction with regard to the number of dividends which shall be deemed to have been distributed. The taxing authorities have to take into account the company’s total income and the profits and gains other than capital receipts reduced by certain allowances only in the previous year, i.e., the year in which the dividend was distributed. 1977 (2) SCR 78
Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. Vs T.N. Aravinda Reddy. Income-tax Act-1961- Sec. 54 (1) – Meaning of the term “purchase”- If you sell your house and make a. profit, pay Caesar what is due to him. But if you buy or build another subject to the conditions of Sec. 54(1) you are exempt. The purpose is plain; the symmetry is simple; the language is plain. Why. mutilate the meaning by lexical legalism.1980 (1) SCR 872
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs R.M. Chidambaram Pillai. lncome Tax Rules 1922- Only 40 per cent of the income from the tea sales is taxable; the balance, namely, 60 per cent is agricultural and exempt. 60 per cent of the salaries to partners comes out of this exempted gross sum and shares the benefit and the Central Income-tax cannot break into its inviolability. AIR 1977 SC 489: 1977 SCR (2) 111
Commissioner of Sales-Tax, U.P Vs Mangal Sen Shyam Lal. U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948-Section 10(3) and 10(3-B) period of limitation for filing revision by the Commissioner. The difficulty in construing the unhappy language of the statute was felt in the year 1960 and even earlier, and has given rise to this protracted litigation extending over fifteen years. It is desirable that the Legislature should amend the statute and make its intent clear. In any event, it should make a statutory provision requiring the Sales Tax Officer to send forthwith a copy of every assessment order made by him to the Commissioner for information. 1975 SCR Supp (1) 58.
Concord of India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others. Limitation Act – Sec. 5 – A company relies on its Legal Adviser and Manager’s expertise is in company management and not in law. There is no particular reason why when a company or other person retains a lawyer to advise it or him on legal affairs reliance should not be placed on such counsel. Of course, if there is a gross delay too patent even for the layman or if there is incomprehensible indifference the shield of legal opinion may still be vulnerable. If legal Adviser’s opinions are to be subjected by company managers to further legal scrutiny of their own, an impossible situation may arise. Indeed Government, a large litigant in this country, may find itself in difficulty. 1979 AIR 1666, 1979 SCR (3) 694
Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat Vs Kantilal Trikamlal. Estate Duty Act – The relative, as the accountable person under the Act, is liable to pay estate duty, on the difference between the share that the deceased was legally entitled to and the share that the deceased actually took, that is, to the extent of the benefit received by the accountable person. AIR 1976 SC 1935, 1977 SCR (1) 9
Cox and Kings (Agro) Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 The definition of ‘award’ under s. 2(b) falls into two parts (i) determination, final or interim, of any industrial dispute and (ii) of any question relating to an industrial dispute. The basic postulate common to both parts of the definition is the existence of an industrial dispute, actual or apprehended. The ‘determination’ contemplated by the definition is of an industrial dispute or a question relating thereto on merits. 1977 (3) SCR 332
CTO Moradabad Vs. H. Farid Ahammed. U.P. Sales Tax Act -Best judgment assessment when return is filed – Section 7 A clearly authorizes the assessing authority to make a provisional assessment in respect of the assessment year to the best of his judgment and does not contain any pre-conditions at all. 1976 (1) SCR 776
Cumbum Roadways Private Limited Vs Balaguru Bus Service Private Limited. Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and Motor Vehicles Rules – Permits cannot be equated with the distribution of patronage. Public interest is at stake when public transport services are operated. The scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules is that he who can serve the travelling public best is to be chosen as the permit-holder. Considerations of grace, charity and compassion at the expense of public interest are an act of unfairness to the Act. AIR 1977SC 1563:1977 SCR (2) 407: 1977 SCC (1) 440.