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
D. C. Gouse and Company Etc. Vs State of Kerala and Another Etc. Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975- State Legislature was competent to impose a tax on the buildings under entry 49 of List II. 1979 (3) SCR 804.
D. Nataraja Mudallar Vs State Transport Authority, Madras– Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sec. 50- If a small man, whose heavy investment in a tourist coach is to be sterilized altogether, it is a social trauma, and if fundamental rights are disposed of as if by executive fiats, this Court must intervene under Art 136, to uphold the credibility in the rule of law and prevent its derailment. The touchstone is not the little man and his little lis but the large issue and the deep portent. 1978 (3) SCR 552.
D. Papiah Vs. Mysore State Transport. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section 45(1)- A contract carriage does not ply along a fixed “route or routes” but over an “area” which is why an application for a contract carriage permit has to contain a statement as to the proposed area. The word “area” in the first proviso to s. 45(1) of” the Act means the area of motorable roads within the territorial jurisdiction of a regional transport authority. Except that the territorial jurisdiction of the regional transport authority is fixed in terms of “geographical area”–district-wise in the State of Karnataka-“area” in that wider sense is irrelevant to the purpose of the Act. 1976 (3) SCR 28
D.D. Suri Vs Union of India and Another. Indian Administrative Service (Regulations of Seniority) Rules, 1954, Rule 3 read with “Open Market Emergency Recruitment Scheme ‘N’ formula”- Normally the decision of the government of India assigning a year of allotment to a. particular officer under Rule 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, or, in accordance with orders and instructions issued by the Central Government in that behalf before the commencement of these Rules is final and cannot be interfered by the Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution unless the such decision was capricious or arbitrary or in breach of the said Rules. The same principle should apply to the assignment of a year of allotment under the ‘N’ formula. – 1980 (1) SCR 24
D.R. Venkatachalam and Others Vs Dy. Transport Commissioner and Others. Motor Vehicles Act,1939- M V Rules – Rule 115-A – The assignment of mark under the rule. 155-A is geared toward the public interest, which is the desideratum of Sec. 47(1) of the ·Act. This is not an arbitrary stroke of favouritism because there are many promotional factors bearing on · the interest o! the travelling public which a State enterprise qua State enterprise will, but a private enterprise qua private enterprise will not take care of. AIR 1977 SC 842: 1977 (2) SCR 392
Dada Sahib Dattatraya Vs. Pandurang Raoji. Election Petition-Corrupt practice as envisaged by S.144-1(3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. – As Section 144-1 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, corresponds to S. 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the same principles must govern the adjudication of disputes relating to elections under the latter Act. AIR 1978 SC 351: 1978 (2) SCR 524
Dalbir Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab. Indian Penal Code – Sec. 302 – Sentence – Section 302 of the Penal Code, read with s. 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code demands special reasons for awarding the graver sentence. Taking the cue from the. English legislation on abolition, the majority opinion suggested that life imprisonment which strictly means imprisonment for the whole of the man’s life but in practice amounts to incarceration for a period between 10 and 14 years may at the option of the convicting court, be subject to the condition that the sentence of imprisonn1ent shall last as long as life lasts Where there are exceptional indications of murderous recidivism and the community cannot run the risk of the convict being at large.. 1979 (3) SCR 1059
Dattaraya Govind Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra. Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act. 1961- In so far as it creates an artificial concept ·of the family unit and fixes a ce1lmg on holding of land by the such family unit, does not conflict with the second proviso to clause (1) of Art. 31A. 1977 (2) SCR 790
Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate Vs Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval. Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), Sections 106,110 and 111. Under s. 110 of the Transfer of Property Act, in computing the period of one year from the date of commencement of the tenancy, that is, April 9, 1945, had to be· excluded. Therefore, the one-year’s tenancy ended on April 9, 1946. By holding over the tenancy _from month to month starting from April 10, 1946, ending on the 9th day of the following month. AIR 1975 SC 1111: (1975)2 SCC 246: 1975 Supp (1) 67.
Daven Port & Co. Vs. C.I.T. Income Tax Act·, 1922, Explanation 2 to section 24(1)- Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Sec. 2(2)-Contract Act, Sec. 30. – The words actual delivery in explanation 2 means real as opposed to notional delivery. For income tax purposes, the speculative transaction means that the definition o! that expression in explanation 2 says. Whether a transaction 1s speculative in the general sense or under the Contract Act is not relevant for the purpose of this explanation. The definition of “delivery” under Sec.2 ( 2) of the Sale of Goods Act which has been held to include both actual and constructive or symbolical delivery has no bearing on the definition of speculative transaction in the explanation. A transaction which is otherwise speculative would not be a speculative · transaction within the meaning of, explanation 2 if actual delivery of 1he commodity or the scrips has taken place; on the other hand, a transaction which is not otherwise speculative in nature may yet be speculative according to explanation 2 if there is no actual delivery of the commodity or the scrips. The explanation does not invalidate speculative transactions which are otherwise legal but gives a special meaning to that expression for purpose of income tax only. 1976 (1) SCR 180
Dejapada Das and Another Vs Union of India. Coal Mines (Nationalisation Amendment) Act, 1976 – Sections 3 (3) and 4, the scope of- Section 3 (3) of the 1976 Act being mandatory and having been held constitutional by this Court, it is no longer permissible for any court in India to appoint a receiver or otherwise permit extraction of coal or coking coal.1980 (3) SCR 586
Devassy vs Joseph. Kerala HC – Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1959 – Determination of fair rent -Fair rent is not always what is fair between a particular landlord and his tenant, considering their relative economic circumstances. Fair rent is not what a tenant has acquiesced in for reasons of prudence but what the prescribes to be fair inspite of his consent to pay the higher rent. That cannot acquiesce away your right to fix fair rent is basic to this type of legislation. 1969 KLT 541.
Devi Prasad vs. Govt of Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh Engineering subordinate Service Rules – The court finds force in the submission that the Junior Engineers have to face adversity regarding promotions. A direction made to make representation. AIR 1980 SC 1185: 1980 Supp (1) SCC 206
Devki Alias Kala Vs State of Haryana. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – It is an insulting stultification of the amelioratory legislation viz. Probation of Offenders Act to extend its considerate provisions to anti-social specialist criminals who kidnap girls. 1980 (1) SCR 91
Dhani Ram Gupta and others Vs. Lala Sri Ram and another. Code of Civil Procedure 1908 –Order XXI Rule 16 – Assignment of decree – Property in a decree must pass to the transferee under a deed of assignment when the parties to the deed of assignment intend such property to pass. It does not depend on the Court’s recognition of the transfer. Order XXI Rule 16 neither expressly nor by implication provides that assignment of a decree does not take effect until recognized by the Court. 1980 (2) SCR 469.
Dhanraj Vs Smt. Suraj Bai. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956-Ss. 6(ii), 9 and 11- the physical act of giving and receiving was absolutely necessary to the validity of adoption under the Hindu Law as it existed before the coming into force of the Act. If the custom permits a pet son of the age of 15 years or more to be taken in for adoption then even such a person would be the child of the father or the mother. ‘Child’ would not necessarily mean in that context a minor child. If the child is minor, in the absence of the father or the mother a guardian appointed by the will of the child’s father a mother and a guardian appointed or declared by a court, would be competent to give the child in adoption. AIR 1975 SC 1103: 1975 SCR Supp 1 SCR 73
Dharam Das Wadhwani Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Penal Code – Sec. 328 – Criminal Trial – The critical rule of proof by circumstantial evidence, is that such testimony can be the probative basis for conviction only if one rigorous test is satisfied, namely, that the circumstances must make so strong a mesh that the innocence of the accused is wholly excluded and on every reasonable hypothesis the guilt of the accused must be the only inference. Every evidentiary circumstance is a probative link, strong, or weak, and must be made out with certainty. AIR 1975 SC 241
Dharam Dev Mehta Vs. Union of India and others. C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 -Compulsory retirement – F.R. 56(j) read with rule 2(a) of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965- The order of compulsory retirement by issued by the Director of Commercial Audit is contrary to law and illegal when the Controller and Auditor General of India is there. 1980 (2) SCR 554
Dharambir and another Vs. State of U.P. Supreme Court Rules 1966 Order XLVIl Rule 6. Sentencing jurisprudence – Long prison terms do not humanise or habilitate but debase and promote recidivism. Life imprisonment means languishing in prison for years Such induration of the soul induced by indefinite incarceration hardens the inmates, but not often their response.1980 (1) SCR 1
Dilbag Singh Vs State of Punjab. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.- 360- To jail an accused is a mechanical farewell to the finer sentencing sensitivity of the Judge of salvaging an irredeemable man by non-institutionalized treatment. If the judge has before him a complete and accurate pre-sentence investigation report which sets forth the conditions, circumstances, background, and surrounding of the accused and the circumstances underlying the offence which has been a committee of the judge could then impose sentence with greater assurance that he has adopted the proper course. 1979 (2) SCR 1134
Divisional Personal Officer Vs. T.R.Challappan. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, s.12 and Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1968, Rules 14 (1). The conviction of the delinquent employee would be taken as sufficient proof of misconduct, and then, the authority will have to hold a ‘summary inquiry as to the nature and extent of the penalty to be imposed. If the authority is of the opinion that the offence is too trivial or d a technical nature it may not impose any penalty in spite of the conviction, If the authority is of the opinion that the employee has been guilty of. a serious offence involving moral turpitude, and therefore it was not desirable or conducive in the interests of administration to retain such a person in service, the disciplinary authority has the undoubted power, after heading the employee and considering the circumstances of the case, to inflict any penalty without any further departmental inquiry. 1970 (1) SCR 783
Dollar Company Vs. Collector of Customs. Land Acquisition Act-Section 23-Market Value – Market value is what a willing purchaser will pay a willing vendor. The best evidence of the value of the property is the sale of the very property to which the claimant is a party. If the sale was long ago, the Court would examine more recent sales of comparab1e lands as throwing better light on current land value. 1975 (Supp 1) SCR 403
Dr. Bhupinder Singh Vs Union of India and Others. Disciplinary proceedings-Service member of Indian Police Service – Disciplinary proceedings -Directions issued to complete in six weeks – Suspension pending enquiry. WP No. 1153 of 1979, dated 1-9-1980.
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar. Defence of India Rules, 1962, Rule. 30(1)(b)-“Public order” and “law and order”, difference between-Scope of rule. What was meant by the maintenance of public order was the prevention of disorder of a grave nature, a disorder which the authorities thought was necessary to prevent in view of the emergent situation created by external aggression; whereas, the expression “maintenance of law and order” may mean prevention of disorder of comparatively lesser gravity and of local significance only. AIR 1966 SC 740: 1966 (1) SCR 709.
Dr.J.P.Kulshethra and another Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad. The University of Allahabad issued under section 32(2) (/) of the Allahabad University Act, 1921 –Ordinance 9(2) – Though there is no flaw in the methodology of interviews, certainly, cases arise where the art of interviewing candidates deteriorates from strategy to strategem and undetectable manipulation of results is achieved by remote control tactics masked as viva voce tests. This, if allowed is surely sabotage of the purity or proceedings, a subterfuge whereby legal means to reach illegal ends is achieved. 1980 (3) SCR 902
Dwaraka Prasad Vs. Dwaraka Das. U.P. (Temporary) Control and Rent Eviction Act, 1947. The lease of accommodation must essentially be of a building, not the business or industry together with the building in which it is situated. 1976 (1) SCR 277.