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
H.H.Shri Swamiji Vs. The Commissioner. States Reorganisation Act, 1956 – The provisions of s.109(1) of the States Reorganisation Act do not support the argument that the Commissioner being a Corporation Sole the only authority competent to issue the notification under s. 122 was the Central Government. Commissioner of Religious Endowments -Body Corporate – Fee and Tax -What has to be seen is whether there is a fair correspondence between the fee charged and the cost of services rendered to the fee as a class. A vivisection of the amounts spent by the Commissioners establishment would have been speculative. It cannot be said that substantial prejudice had been caused to the appellants by reason of the non-supply of the information sought by them. 1981 (1) SCR 368.
Harishankar Rastogi Vs Girdhari Sharma and Another. Supreme Court Rules, 1966. Advocates, Act 1961 -Ss. 2(a), 29 and 30(1) and Criminal Procedure Code 1973-Ss. 2(q), 302. 303 and 304- Civil Procedure Code,1908-S. 2(15) read with Order IV- A private person who is not an Advocate. He has no right to barge into Court and claim to argue for a party. He must get the prior permission of the Court for which the motion must come from the party himself. It is open to the Court to grant or withhold permission in its discretion 1978 (3) SCR 493
Harjeet Singh Vs. Union of India. Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules-Valid – Neither the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules nor any other rule in the innumerable Rules and Regulations governing the recruitment, appointment and Regulation of seniority of officers of the Indian Police Service is designed to deprive an officer, the benefit of continuous officiation in a senior post. 1980 (3) SCR 459
Harsh Sawhney Vs Union Territory (Chandigarh Admn.). Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss. 437 and 439. Bail- An accused need not necessarily be taken into custody for purpose of search of premises in his presence or for the purposes of interrogation in connection with the investigation of the case so long as the principles bearing on grant or refusal of bail.1978 (3) SCR 129
Harshad Singh @ Baba Pahalvan Singh Thakura Vs State of Gujarat. Indian Penal Code, S. 34 – Common intention – The circumstance that one man stab falls on a less or more vulnerable part of the person of the victim is of no consequence to fix the guilt for murder. S. 34 l.P.C. fixes constructive liability in case of community of intent coupled with participatory presence or operation, and even if some of several accused are acquitted but the participating presence of a plurality of assailants is proved, the conjoint culpability for the crime is inescapable 1977 (1) SCR 626
Hasinuddin Khan Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation. U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1912 and U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Aniendment) Act, 1972 – The Court under its inherent powers condoned the delay in filing of S.L.P. challenging the decision of the High Court on merits and allowed the petitioner to urge additional grounds except on constitutional points.1980 (2) SCR 1207
Hemendra Prasad Baruh Vs. Collector. Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. The simple statutory test that settles the issue is to find out whether the land acquired is lying fallow or uncultivated. If it is, a small compensation alone is awardable, as laid down in s. 7(1A) of the Act. On the other hand, if it is a tea garden, the quantum is as under s. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A plethora of evidence adduced in this case clearly proceeds on the basis that the land in question is fallow.1976 (1) SCR 68
Hiralal Mallick Versus State of Bihar. Indian Penal Code, 1908 – Sec. 302 and 34 – Common intention – When a crime is committed by the concerted action of a plurality of persons, the degree of criminality may vary, depending not only on the injurious sequel but also on the part played and the circumstances present, a personalized approach with reference to each participant has to be made regarding the circumstances of involvement, his doli capax, age and expectation of consequences. 1978 (1) SCR 301
Hukam Chand Jute Mills Limited Vs Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The Act does not deal with customary bonus and is confined to profit-based or productivity-based bonus. The provisions of the Act have no say, on customary bonus and cannot, therefore, be inconsistent therewith. 1979 (3) SCR 644
Hussainbhai, Calicut Vs Alath Factory Thozhilali Union, Kozhikode and Others. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sec. 2 (s) & 2 (g) – – Where a worker or a group of workers labour to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is in fact the employer. He has economic control over the workers’ subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex-contractu is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, Courts discern the naked truth, though draped in the different perfect paper arrangements. that the real employer is the management, not the immediate contractor. AIR 1978 SC 1410: 1979 (3) SCR 1073
Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Vs Employees Insurance Court. Employees State Insurance Act 1948-Sec. 2(9) & 2(11), 38 – Section 2(9) defines employee to mean any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which the Act applies and includes any person employed for wages on any work and includes factory .or establishment or any part, department or branch thereof or with the purchase of raw materials for the distribution or sale of the products of the factory or establishment.1978 (2) SCR 345
Hyderabad Co-operative Commercial Centre Vs. Syed Mohiyuddin. Multi-unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942. The amount in dispute was not a mere budget provision but the documents show that the amount ripened into debt and an order for payment to the cooperative society. The sum was impressed with the character of a debt due to the cooperative society and it was validly attached. 1976 (1) SCR 159
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt Ltd vs Employees of Hindustan Tin Works. Utter Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act 1947 –Industrial jurisprudence -In the field of industrial jurisprudence a declaration can be given that the termination of service is bad and the workman continues to be in service Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. If the termination is illegal or motivated it may amount to unfair labour practice. In such circumstances reinstatement being the normal rule, it should be done with full back wages. 1979 (1) SCR 563.