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
L. Michael and Another Vs Messrs Johnston Pumps India Limited. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Loss of confidence is no new armour for the management; otherwise, security of tenure, ensured by the new industrial jurisprudence and authenticated by a catena of cases of this Court can be subverted, by this neo formula Loss of confidence in the law will be the consequence of the Loss of Confidence doctrine. The Court will lift the veil to view the reality or substance of the order. But if the management, to cover up the inability to establish by an inquiry, illegitimately but ingeniously passes an innocent-looking order of termination simpliciter, such action is bad and is liable to be set aside. AIR 1975 SC 661: 1975 SCR (3) 489
Lakshmi Ammal Vs Madhavakrishnan (K. M.) and Others. Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, (Central Act) Section 17-D- Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, (Central Act) Section 17-D-Read with Civil Procedure Code, (Act V) 1908 Order Vll Rules l(i) and ll(b)- Court fee, if it seriously restricts the right of a person to seek his remedies in Courts of justice should be strictly construed. Since access to justice is the basis of the legal system, where there is a doubt, reasonable of course, the benefit must go to him who says that the lesser court fee alone is paid.1979 (1) SCR 68
Lakshmi Vs Kunju and Others. Kerala HC Kerala Prevention of Eviction Act, 1966 – Sec. 8 – Prima facie case – In reaching a conclusion as to whether a tenancy has been made out prima facie or not, the parties must have an opportunity to place their evidence. Munsiff in this case has made an error of law in treating a ‘prima facie‘ case, as equal to a mere plea of tenancy and in thinking that the evidence on record need not be considered for this purpose. Relied on 1968 KLT 23. 1969 KLT 664.
Lal Kamal Das Vs State of West Bengal. Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971- Sec. 3 – The power under S.3 of the Act can be exercised only if the detaining authority, on the basis of the past prejudicial conduct of the detenu is satisfied about the probability of the latter acting similarly in future. This means the past activity of the detenu on the basis of which such a prognosis is made, must be reasonably suggestive of a repetitive tendency or inclination on the part of the detenu to act likewise in future. A simple, solitary incident of theft, such as the one in the present case, without anything more, is hardly suggestive of such a tendency. AIR 1975 SC 753: (1975) 4 SCC 62.
Laxmi Narain Vs. District Excise Officer. U P Excise Act-Section 4(e)(v) & (J.P. Excise Rules-Rule 138. Valid – As the provisions of Rule 13B of the U.P. Excise Rules are in pari materia with Rule 37 of the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules 156, the decision in P. N. Kaushal v. Union of India. [1979] I S.C.R. 122 is applicable. 1979 (1) SCR 161
Lekshmi Starch Factory Ltd. Vs Muhammed Ismail. Contract Act, 1872. Sec. 74 – The compensation that can be awarded should not exceed the penalty stipulated, which shall be treated as the ceiling, as it were. As for the quantification of the compensation it is a matter entirely for the discretion of the Court subject to the built-in guidance of reasonableness in the award of compensation. If the plaintiff has sustained legal injury he is entitled to receive compensation whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused by the breach. The section dispenses with proof of actual loss or damage. 1968 KLT 713.
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. D.J.Bahadur and others. Life Insurance Corporation Act,1956 – Sec. 11, 29 and 49 -The Life Insurance Corporation Act is not a law for employment or disputes arising therefrom, but a nationalisation measure which incidentally like in any general take-over legislation, provides for recruitment, transfer promotions and the like. It is special vis-à-vis nationalisation of life insurance, but general regarding Contracts of employment or acquiring office building. Emergency measures are special, for sure, regular nationalisation statute are general even if they incidentally refer to conditions of service. 1981 (1) SCR 1083.
Lila Ram Vs. Union of India. Land Acquisition Act, Section 4- Freezing of land – According to section 23 of the Act, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the Court shall take into consideration, other factors. the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4. It is further provided in section 24 of the Act that the Court shall not take into consideration any outlay or improvement or disposal of the land acquired, commenced, made or affected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the notification under section 4. It is, therefore, obvious that the consequences of the “‘freezing of the land” are inherent in the nature of things once the notification under section 4 is issued. 1971 (1) SCR 341
Lingala Vijayakumar and Others Vs Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sentence enhancement – The Court has the responsibility to see that punishment serves social defence which is the validation of deprivation of citizens’ liberty. Correctional treatment with a rehabilitative orientation is an imperative of modem penology which has abandoned jus taliionis. – The court directed that the appellants being ‘”children” within the meaning of the “Saurashtra Children Act”, though not under the Andhra Children A is to be separated from adult prisoners.1978 AIR 1485, 1979 SCR (1) 2