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
Jolly George Varghese and another Vs. Bank of Cochin. Code of Civil Procedure-Section 51, Order 21, rule 37. To cast a person in prison because of his poverty and consequent on his inability to meet his contractual liability is appalling. To be poor is no crime and to “recover” debts by the procedure of putting one in prison is flagrantly violative of Article 21 unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of his willful failure to pay in spite of his sufficient means and absence of more terribly pressing claims on his means such as medical bills to treat cancer or other grave illness. Unreasonableness and unfairness in such a procedure are inferable from Article 11 of the Covenant But this is precisely the interpretation put on the proviso to section 51 C.P.C. and the lethal blow of Article 21 cannot strike down the provision as interpreted. 1980 (2) SCR 913 . Read article
J.K. Kapoor and Others Vs State of Gujarat and Others. Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923 – The notice making demand for payment would, therefore, be valid to the extent it relates to the one-year period. Clearer Provisions have to be made to make it viable if the tax due to the State is not to be lost. It is only proper that a legislative renovation process is undertaken by the State to make the statute knave-proof and foolproof and to ensure that the State is enabled to recover what is due to it, even if it be on account of the discovery of mistakes made in the original assessment. AIR 1974 SC 1996 :(1974) 4 SCC 92.
J.K.Cotton Manufacturer Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. Income Tax Act, 1922- Payment to Managing Agent compensation for terminating agency – Capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure. When a managing agency is terminated and if the termination is in terrorem, that is, if commercial expediency requires that the agency be terminated as it had become onerous, or it was creating difficulties or the agents are guilty of negligence, etc., or if any payments were made as retrenchment compensation or confirn1cnt of benefits on employees or for termination of other disadvantageous or onerous relationship, it would be a capital expenditure, but if it is purely voluntary or obtaining substantial benefits, it would be revenue· 1976 (1) SCR 648
Jagan Nath Biswas Vs State of West Bengal. Preventive Detention – The incidents themselves look rather serious but also state, having regard to the long gap between the occurrences and the order of detention. One should have expected some proximity in time to provide a rational nexus between the incidents relied on and the satisfaction arrived at. Directed to be released. AIR 1975 SC 1516 :(1975) 4 SCC 115
Jagdish Saran and other Vs. Union of India and others. Constitution of India 1950, Articles 15 and 16- Reservation of 70% is too high at the post-graduate level. But the rule is not invalidated because the facts are imperfect, the course has already started and the court must act only on sure ground, especially when matters of policy, socio-educational, investigation and expert evaluation of variables are involved. 1980 (2) SCR 831
Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab. Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch)- The resultant vacancy caused by the resignation of one of the Scheduled Castes candidates should have gone to the appellant who was entitled to it both on the basis of merit and the policy statement contained in the Government circular as well as on the fact that no competitive examination had been held by the Commission between 1972 and the end of 1974. 1978 (3) SCR 547
Jai Singh Jawam Tyagi Vs. Mamanchand Tatilal. The Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957. Res judicata – The executing Court had refused to exercise jurisdiction and to execute the decree on the ground that the decree was a nullity as the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, had no application to buildings in Cantonment areas. That defect having been removed and all decrees obtained on the basis that the Bombay rent law applied to the Kirkee Cantonment area having been validated by Act 22 of 1972, it cannot be said that the earlier decision holding that the decree was a nullity operated as res judicata. 1980 (3) SCR 224
Jai Singh V. Union of India. Constitution of India – Art.226 – Constitution of India – Art. 226 – After the dismissal of the writ petition the appellant has filed a suit, in which he has agitated the same question which is the subject matter of the writ petition. The appellant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time.1977 (2) SCR 137
Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate, Jaipur Vs Commissioner of Income Tax. Indian Income-tax Act, 192Z, S. 660. In exercising inherent power, the courts cannot override the express provisions of law. Where, however, as in the present case. there is no express or implied prohibition to recalling an earlier order made because of the absence of the party and to directing the disposal of the reference on merits, the courts, in our opinion, should not be loath to exercise such power provided the party concerned approaches the court with due diligence and shows sufficient cause for its non-appearance on the date of hearing. AIR 1977 SC 1348:1977) 1 SCC 508, 1977 (2) SCR 460
Jalan Trading Company, Private Limited Vs D. M. Aney and Another. Bonus Act – Sec. 10 – The restriction imposed by the Bonus Act in compelling the employer to pay the statutory minimum bonus even in years where there has been a loss sustained by the management is reasonable or in the public interest within the meaning of Articles 19(8) and 302. AIR 1979 SC 233: (1979) 3 SCC 220
Jamilabai Abdul Kadar Vs Shankerlal Gulabchand and Others. Advocates Act, 1961 – Compromising suit – Counsel should not rush in with a compromise ·where due care ·will make them fear to read that a junior should rarely consent on his own when there is a senior in the brief, that a party may validity impunge an act of compromise by pleader if he is available for consultation but is by-passed. The lawyer must be above board, especially if he is to agree to an adverse verdict. 1975 (Supp 1) SCR 336
Janardan Dattupa Vs. Govindprasad. Representation of the People Act 1951 -S. 97 – Every order of recount does not bring Sec. 97 into play. When the High Court directed the “physical” count of the votes cast in favour of the appellant, third respondent and others, what was intended was a mechanical recount of these votes and nothing more. It did not envisage any inquiry into their validity, and whether any of them had been improperly received. [ 1979 (3) SCR 897
Jasraj Inder Singh Vs Hem Raj Multan Chand. Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Set off- Counter-claim – Order 8, Rule 6, C.P.C. deals with a specific situation and does not prevent the Court where the facts call for wider relief from looking into the accounts in both places to do ultimate justice between the parties. The procedure is handmade and not the mistress of justice and, in this spirit, the trial Court’s adjudication cannot be faulted. AIR 1977 SC 1011: (1977) 2 SCC 155 : 1977 (2) SCR 973
Jatindra Nath Biswas Vs State of West Bengal. Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 – Preventive Detention – It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that even if the ground, out of two or more is found to vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, the order of detention fails. In such a situation one does not know whether the authority would have thought it fit to pass an order of detention only on the basis of the surviving grounds. The order stands vitiated if some out of many grounds are found to have no nexus with the object of detention. AIR 1975 SC 1215:(1975) 4 SCC 250,
Javed Niaz Beg Vs. Union of India. Competition to All India Civil Services-Paper-I on Indian Languages made optional but not compulsory for candidates hailing from the North Eastern States/Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland. Once it is understood that equalization is part of the dynamics of equality, this concession is not a contravention of equality but conducive to equality. It helps a handicapped group and does not hamper those who are ahead. 1980 (3) SCR 734
Jawaharlal Nehru University Vs. B.S.Narwal. Natural justice – University-Student-Unsatisfactory performance in studies–Name removed from University rolls–Opportunity to show cause whether to be given-Doctrine of audi alteram partem – In the absence of allegations of bias or malafides, the declaration by an academic body that a student’s academic performance is unsatisfactory is not liable to be questioned in a Court on the ground that the student was not given an opportunity of being heard. 1981 (1) SCR 618
Jivram Ranchhoddas Thakkar and Another Vs Tulshiram Ratanchand Mantri. Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Making a humanist approach we felt that it was right to adopt a course of ‘live and let Jive’ by the landlord and tenant in this case. Taking an overall view of the circumstances of the case, we suggested that the promises, which consist of three rooms, be divided in such a manner that half of the premises would continue with the tenant and the other half would be surrendered in one month’s time from today to the respondents. AIR 1977 SC 1357:(1977) 3 SCC 517.
Jogindar Singh Vs. State of Punjab. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Under s. 193 read with s. 209 of the Code when a case is committed to the Court of Sessions in respect of an offence the Court of Sessions takes cognizance of the offence and not of the accused and once the Session Court is properly seized of the case as a result of the committal order against some accused the power under s. 31_9(1) can come into play and such Court can add any person, not an accused before it, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with the other accused for the offence which such added accused appears to have committed, from the evidence recorded at the trial. 1979 (2) SCR 306
Joint Commercial Officer Vs. Spencer & Co. Madras General Safes Tax Act, 1959- Sections 2(q), 2(r) and 3(1)- Under the Act, the dealer has a statutory duty to collect the sales tax payable by him from his customer, and when the dealer passes on to the customer the amount of tax which the former is liable to pay, the said amount does not cease to be the price for the goods although the price is expressed as X -plus purchase tax. 1975 (Supp 1) SCR 439
Joint Director of Food, Vishakhapatnam vs State of Andhra Pradesh. Central Sales Tax Act, 1956–Sec. 2(b), 9–Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax. Act 1957–central Government selling food grains and fertilizer, whether a dealer Profit motive, if relevant–Whether State carries on business. State Sales Tax Officer is entitled 10 collect sales tax from the appellant in regard to Intra State sales even assuming that there is no profit motive or profit accrual. The reverse is the case so far as Central sales tax is concerned. AIR 1976 SC 2322: 1977 SCR (1) 59
Joint Secretary to Government of India Vs. Khillu Ram. Displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, Rule 30. The rights of the two rival claimants must be governed by Rule 30 which was in force when the dispute arose and was decided by the authorities under the Act. Neither by express words nor by implication the amendment of the rules in 1963 deleting Rule 30 has been made retrospective in operation. 1976 (2) SCR 78
Joseph Peter Vs State of Goa, Daman and Diu. Criminal Procedure Code,1973. Discretionary power to choose between a capital sentence and a life term is a limited one and leave should be refused when it is difficult to fault the court which has exercised such power. 1977 (3) SCR 771
Jugal Kishore Patnaik Vs Ratnakar Mohanty. Representation of the People Act, 1951- Sec. 9A- Contract signed as President of Grama Panchayat – The contract was not subsisting on the date of filing of the nomination paper. If Government money is involved in the execution of the work does the contract necessarily become one with the Government? It is very desirable that the disqualification net should not be cast too wide to disfranchise innumerable persons and must be easy of ascertainment if must be uncertainty is not to overhang elections AIR 1976 SC 2130: 1977 SCR (1) 49