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
Ibrahim Kunju vs. State of Kerala. Kerala HC – Travancore-Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951. -Sec. 42 – Natural Justice – Superseding the committee on the basis of the report, a copy of which is not given. If the average administrative officer had been better informed about his procedural obligations, many an order of his would not have been a casualty of judicial scrutiny and many an unwanted babe in the writ jurisdiction would not have been born. AIR 1970 Ker 65
In Re Special Courts bills -Presidential reference – Special Courts Bill-Parliament if has power to enact the Bill- The cynicism about ‘equal justice under the law’ sours into ‘show me the man and I will show you the law’. The democratic system must ensure that the business of power-public power-shall was not doing business. 1979 (2) SCR 476
In Re: Shri S. Mulgaokar. Contempt of Court – Newspaper article criticizing the judges of Supreme Court- National interest requires that all criticisms of the judiciary must be strictly rational and sober and proceed from the highest motives without being coloured by any partisan spirit or tactics. This should be a part of national ethics. (1978) 3 SCC 339:1978 (3) SCR 162
Income Tax Officer ‘A’ Ward, Calcutta Vs Ramnarayan Bhojnagarwala. lncome-tax Act,1961 – Disputed ownership of bank account- Either the uncle or nephew must pay the tax under normal circumstances and they cannot play off one against another to defeat the claims of the Revenue. 1976 (1) SCR 1014
Income Tax Officer Vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk. Income Tax Act, 1961-Scction 220(2) and (3)- Rate of interest on arrears of tax – It is manifest that the Income-tax Officer could not have passed any order against the statutory provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec. 220 either with or without the consent of the assessee. Even the order of the Income-tax Officer accepting the offer of the assesses to pay interest at the rate of 5 % p.a. was legally invalid because if the rate or interest fixed by the statute was 4% the parties could not be allowed to contract out of the statute. 1976 (1) SCR .855
Inder Singh and Another Versus State (Delhi Admn). Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – The rationale of Court sentence is social defence coupled with personal correction. Article 21 of the Constitution is the jurisdictional root for legal liberalism. Courts are responsible to ensure that deprivation of liberty as accompanied by curative strategy and human dignity, by issuing certain positive directions in this regard. 1978 (3) SCR 393
Inderjeet Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Section 7 read with Section 16- If a sentence, as in the instant Act, is prescribed as a mandatory minimum and that is too cruel to comport with Art. 21 and to torture some to be reasonably justifiable or socially defensible under Article 19, then a case for judicial review may arise. 1980 (1) SCR 255.
Indian Chambers of Commerce Vs Commissioner of Income Tax West Bengal. Income Tax Act, 1961- Sec. 2 (xv) Charitable purpose – The income of the assesses, which are chambers of commerce from three sources, namely, (a) arbitration fees levied by them; (b) fees collected for issuing certificates of origin; and (c) share of profit in another Company for issue of certificates of weight and measurement, which services are extended to members and non-members. that is, to trade generally, is. not entitled to the exemption, and is liable to tax. 1976 (1) SCR 855
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited Vs Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Employees Union and Others. Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136- Gratuity’ and its quantum, like other retirement benefits, has a bearing on the wage structure and vice versa. It is true that the wage structures to the emoluments during service, while gratuity is a terminal benefit or, rather, a retirement benefit. Although these two fall into two different compartments. They are inter-connected. A heavy wage scale may hence the same impact on the gratuity rate and a large provision for gratuity may have a retroactive effect on the wage structure. It is composite equity writ on the economic life of the worker. 1978 (3) SCR 473
Indian Performing Right Society Limited Vs Eastern India Motion Pictures Association. Copy Right Act,1957 – Copyright in a cinema film exists in law but section 13 (4) of the Act preserves the separate survival in its individuality of copyright enjoyed by any work notwithstanding its confluence in the film. 1977 (3) SCR 206.
Indira Nehru Gandhi Smt. Vs Raj Narain. Representation of the People Act, 1951, S.116B(2)- Election – Stay of Allahabad High Court judgment setting aside the election. If national crises and democratic considerations, and not mere balance of convenience and interests of justice, were to be major inputs in the Judge’s exercise of discretion, systematic changes and shifts in judicial attitude may perhaps be needed. But sitting in time-honoured forensic surroundings the Supreme Court is constrained to judge the issues before it by canons sanctified by the usage of this Court. At the stage when the Court is considering whether a stay should be granted or not, it is premature and perhaps unwise to pronounce on the merits of the appeal itself except where the judgment contained grotesque errors absurd conclusions or grossly erroneous propositions of law. The High Court’s finding, until upset, holds good, however weak it may ultimately. There will be a limitation regarding the appellants’ participation in the proceedings of the Lok Sabha in her capacity as a Member thereof, but. independently of the Membership, a Minister and a fortiori the Prime Minister. has the right to address both Houses of Parliament (without the right to vote. though) and has other functions to fulfil. AIR 1975 SC 1590: 1978 (2) SCR 405
Industrial Supplies Vs. Union of India. Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The word ‘occupier’ in s. 3(n) of the Nationalisation Act should be understood to have been used in the usual sense according to its plain meaning. In the legal sense, an occupier is a person in actual occupation. The appellant being “raising contractors” was under the terms of the agreement dated February 7, 1969. entitled to and were in fact in actual possession and enjoyment of the colliery and were, therefore, an occupier thereof. 1981 (1) SCR 375
Ishwari Kehtar Sugar Mills Vs. State of U.P. U, P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act 1971. Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 – A mere declaration unaccompanied by law is incompatible with entry 52 of List l But that does not mean that once a declaration is made in respect of an industry that industry as a whole is taken out of Entry 24, List II. AIR 1980 SC 1955: 1980 (3) SCR 331