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
Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs Shri Vardhichand and Others. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Sec. 133 & M. P. Municipalities Act 1961, Sec. 123-Municipality not providing sanitary facilities and construction of public conveniences for slum dwellers- RDO can compel the municipal body to carry out its duty to the community to provide amenities and abate the nuisance. A responsible municipal council constituted for the precise purpose of preserving public health and providing better finances cannot run away from its principal duty by pleading financial inability. Decency and dignity are non-negotiable facets of human rights and are a first charge on local self-governing bodies. Similarly, providing drainage systems not pompous and attractive, but in working condition and sufficient to meet the needs of the people-cannot be evaded if the municipality is to justify its existence. State Government will make available by way of loans or grants sufficient financial aid to the Ratlam Municipality to enable it to fulfil its obligations. 1981 (1) SCR 97. Read article
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India. Constitution of India Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) and 21- Personal liberty – Passports Act, 1967 – The right of free movement is a vital element of personal liberty. The right of free movement includes right to travel abroad. Among the great guaranteed rights life and liberty are the first among equals, carrying a universal connotation cardinal to a decent human order and protected by constitutional armour. Truncate liberty in Art. 21 traumatically and the several other freedoms fade out automatically. “To sum up , ‘procedure’ in Article 21 means fair not formal procedure. ‘Law’ is reasonable law, not any ‘enacted piece.’ ‘ law must be right, just and fair, and not arbitrary, fanciful, and oppressive – otherwise such a law would not satisfy the requirements of Article 14.AIR 1978 SC 597 : 1978 (2) SCR 621
Maru Ram Etc. Vs. Union of India and another. Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 433A –Clemency petition-Section 433A is supreme over the Remission Rules and short-sentencing Statutes made by the various States. All remissions and short-sentencing passed under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution are valid but release with follow. In life sentencing cases only on Government making an order en masse or individually, on that behalf. Section 433A of the Code does not contravene the provisions of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. 1981 (1) SCR 1196
M.C.Gupta Vs. A.K.Gupta. Indian M1dical Council Act, 1956. S. 2(f) – Medicine includes cardiology. The Medical Council of India, a body composed of experts, have in the regulations clearly manifested their approach when they said that cardiology is a specialist branch under medicine. Where general subject such as medicine or surgery is being dealt with, in a regulation, the specialist branch under it would be covered, though not vice versa, because if one wants to hold a post in the specialist branch, he must of necessity have teaching experience in the specialist branch 1979 (2) SCR 853.
M.Manik Lal Vs. State of Mysore. City of Bangalore Improvement Act 1945, Section 15(3), 16(2) – Section 15 (3) does not impose a. compulsory duty or a right in the appellant to claim a plot. It is clear from rule 10 made under the Act that the person displaced by the acquisition may be accommodated. However, this is a beneficent consideration and not a necessary obligation. 1977 (2) SCR 165
Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner. Constitution o1 India, 1950-Arts. 324 and 329(b) -The Election Commission is competent, in an appropriate case, to order the repoll of an entire constituency. If it does that it will be an exercise of power within the ambit of its functions under Art. 324. When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. – Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older 1978 (2) SCR 272
M.N.Samrath Vs. Marot Rao. Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960. The impact of Regulation 25(4) is not to impose ineligibility on a L.I.C. employee to be a member of a Municipal Corporation. It does mandate that the employee shall not participate in an election to a local authority and cannot be read as nullifying the election or disqualifying the candidate. The contravention of the Regulation invites disciplinary action which may range from censure to dismissal 1979 (3) SCR 1078
M.Naina Mohammed Vs K. A. Natarajan and Others. Constitution of India, Art. 226- Judicial review Tribunals matters on errors of law – Even if there were errors of law vitiating the Tribunals finding the same could not be finally decided by the High Court itself. The case must go back to Tribunal for fresh consideration. The boundaries of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Art. 226 are clearly and strongly built and cannot be breached without risking jurisprudential confusion. The power is supervisory in nature, although the Judges at both tiers, in the instant case, have unwittingly slipped into the subtle, fatal, error of exercising a kind of appellate review. AIR 1975 SC 1867:1976 SCR (1) 102
M.P.State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Sudhakar. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Sec. 110B – The husband may not be dependent on the wife’s income, the basis of assessing the damages payable to the husband for the death of his wife would be similar. In assessing damages certain other factors have to be taken note of such as the uncertainties of life and the fact of accelerated payment that the husband would be getting a lump sum payment which but for his wife’s death would have been available to him in driblets over a number of years. Allowance must be made for the uncertainties and the total figure scaled down accordingly.1977 (3) SCR 627
M.R.Mini (Minor) represented by her Guardian and father M.F. Vs. State of Kerala. University-wise allocation of seats for M.B.B.S. course in Kerala is valid. Too long has the State been seeking ad hoc solutions and improvising remedies where comprehensive studies and enduring recipes are the desideratum.1980 (2) SCR 829
M/s.Chidambaram Mulraj Co. Vs. CIT. Indian Income Tax Act, 1922-Sub-S. 5A of s. 10 introduced by the Finance Act of 1955- The High Court was right in holding that in enacting sub-section 5A, the Legislature was concerned only with providing a head under which the receipt which has been deemed to be income could be brought to tax and was not concerned with creating a new source for that deemed income. 1976 (2) SCR 773
Madan Lal Vs. State of U.P. Indian Forest Act, 1927-S. 17- This section does not state what would happen if the Forest Settlement Officer made an order under S. 11 without notice to the parties and in their absence. It is a fundamental principle of justice that a party whose rights are affected by an order must have notice of it. This principle is embodied in Order XX R. 1 of C.P.C. Though the Forest Settlement Officer adjudicating on the claims under the Act is not a court, yet the principle is really a principle of fair play and is applicable to all tribunals performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions, must also apply to him. 1976 (1) SCR 492
Madan Mohan Pathak Vs Union of India and Others Etc. Life Insurance Corporation (Modification of Settlen1ent) Act, 1976-S. 3 – Section 3 of the Life Insurance. Corporation (Modification of Settlement) Act, 1976 is struck by the provisions of Art. 19(1) (f) and is not saved by Art. 19(6) of the Constitution. AIR 1978 SC 803:1978 (3) SCR 334
Madhu Limaye v Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi and Others. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – Under the scheme of the Code the Magistrate can only ask for an interim bond if he could not complete the inquiry. The· expression ‘pending completion of the inquiry’ in Sec.117(3) postulates the commencement of the inquiry, which means, commencing the trial according to the summons procedure.1971 (2) SCR 742.
Madhuker G.E. Pankakar Vs Jaswant Chobbildas. Maharashtra Municipalities Act,1965 – Holding of office of profit – For holding an office of profit under the Government. one need not be in the service of Government and there need be no relationship of master and servant. One has to look at the substance, not the form. 1976 (3) SCR 832.
Madray Hyawadan Rao Vs. State. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – S. 363 read with S. 387, 388 – Free copy of the judgment right to get it. If a. prisoner who is sentenced to imprisonment is virtually unable to exercise his constitutional and statutory right of appeal, inclusive of special leave to appeal for want of legal assistance, there is implicit in the Court under Article. 142 read with Articles 21 and 39A of the Constitution power to assign counsel for such imprisoned individual “for doing complete justice. 1979 (1) SCR 192
Mahabir Jute Mills Vs. Shibban Lal. U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1941-Sec. 3- Administrative Order – Administrative decisions are not generally required to be accompanied by a statement of reasons. There is no reliable material on record to show that the Government order was passed mainly on the secret report of the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer or of the Labour Commissioner. 1975 (1) SCR 168
Mahadeva Iyer Vs Krishnammal. Kerala HC – Criminal Procedure Code- When a court disposes of a case it acts in public and notice is invariably put up. Even a party who is absent has thus an opportunity of knowing the order or about it, and thus there is constructive communication thereof. There is, therefore, no further need for personal communication of a judicial order of a court. Indeed, if limitation can begin in respect of setting aside orders or decrees of courts only after they are communicated to the party, strange results will follow. And it is useful to notice that where the Limitation Law makes knowledge of the order of a court relevant, it says so. R.18A of the T. C. Rules of Practice and R.27 of the Madras Criminal Rules of Practice make it clear that an advocate appearing in any criminal proceeding need not file a vakalath but may file a mere declaration that he has been instructed to appear for a party. The rejection of vakalath that it is in Tamil is incorrect. 1970 KLT 292
Maharaj Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950-Section 117 – The Government, despite vesting the estates in Gaon Sabhas has, and continues to have, a constant hold on these estates, when it chooses, to take away what it had given possession of to a Gaon Sabha. This is plainly ‘present legal interest’ in the Government and a sort of precarium tennas in the Sabha. The State is ‘a person aggrieved’. The nexus between the lis and the plaintiff need not necessarily be personal. A person aggrieved is an expression which has expanded with the larger urgencies and felt necessities of our time. 1977 (1) SCR 1072
Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji Vs. Union of India. Urban Land (Celling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – The legislation on the Ceiling and Regulation of urban lands is constitutionally valid, though section 27(1) is partially invalid. Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution are directly attracted and the fullest exploitation of the material resources of the community undoubtedly requires distribution of urban land geared to the common good. Section 27(1) of the Act, is invalid, partially 1985 (Supp 1) SCR 862
Mahindra Nath Shukla Vs. State. Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973- “Coal Mine” in the 1976 Act includes coking coal mine and section 3 (3) of that Act clamps down the ban on extraction of Coking Coal also. Cooking coal is more precious, strategically speaking, than other forms of coal and it would be an error, nay a blunder, to prevent private extraction of common coal and to permit removal of coking coal. 1980 (3) SCR 595
Management of Indian Oil Corporation vs Its Employees – Industrial Disputes Act,’ 1947, Section 9-A- The grant of compensatory allowance was an implied condition of service so as to attract the mandatory provisions of s. 9A of the Act. Twenty-one days’ notice has to be given to the workmen. 1976 (1) SCR 110.
Management of Borpukhurie Tea Estate Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Assam. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – The Courts charged with the duty of administering justice have to remember that it is not the form but the substance of the matter that has to be looked into and ·the parties cannot be penalized for inadvertent errors committed by them in the conduct of their cases- 1978 (3) SCR 439.
Mandyala Govindu Vs. CIT. Income Tax Act, 1922-Sec. 26A – Partnership firm not have been entitled but for s. 26A and such a right being a creature of a statute can be claimed only in accordance with the statute which confers it and the person who seeks relief under s. 26A must bring himself strictly within its terms before him can claim the benefit of it. 1976 (2) SCR 131
Mahapalika of The City of Agra vs. The Agra Brick Kiln Owners Association. Constitution of India-Art. 276, Government of India Act, 1935, Sec 142A(2) and U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam (U.P. 2 of 1959) – The period before the Constitution of India had come into force, that is, before January 26, 1950, will be governed by the maximum of Rs. 50/- fixed by the Government of India Act. Article 276 of the Constitution also sets a ceiling on such taxes, but, the maximum is not Rs. 50/- but Rs. 250/-.Therefore, for the period from January 26, 1950, to the date when the 1959 Act came into force, the maximum tax leviable will be Rs. 250/-. AIR 1976 SC 1160 : (1976) 3 SCC 42 :
Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Another Vs Rani Jethmalani. Supreme Court Rules 1966 read with section 406 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 – Transfer of cases – If there is general consternation or atmosphere of tension or raging masses of people in the entire region taking sides and polluting the climate, vitiating the necessary neutrality to hold a detached judicial trial, the situation may be said to have deteriorated to such an extent as to warrant transfer. 1979 (2) SCR 378
M.Manicklal vs The State of Mysore – City of Bangalore Improvement Act 1945, Section 15(3), 16(2). Section 15 (3) does not impose a. compulsory duty or a right in the appellant to claim a plot. It is clear from rule 10 made under the Act that the person displaced by the acquisition may be accommodated. However, this is a beneficent consideration and not a necessary obligation. 1977 (2) SCR 165.
Mani Subrat Jain Vs Raja Ram Vohra. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Section 2(1), 3, -‘Tenant’ meaning- The expression ‘tenant includes a ‘tenant’ continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour’. It thus includes, by express provision, a quondam tenant whose nexus with “the property is continuance in possession. The fact that a decree or any other process extinguishes the tenancy under the general law of real property does not terminate the status of a tenant under the Act having regard to the carefully drawn inclusive clause. 1980 (2) SCR 141
M.Chinnaswamy vs Dhandayuthapani Roadways (P) Ltd. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Sec. 47 – Two vehicles plying on the same route on the basis of court orders for the past 16 years. Both parties agree that there is a necessity for two buses. Status quo allowed to be maintained. AIR 1977 SC 2905.
Manjusri Raha Vs. B.L.Gupta. Motor Vehicles Act 1939-Sec. 95(2)(d)-Sec.110A- The death of a worker creates a serious economic problem for the family which he leaves behind. In these circumstances, it is only just and fair that the Legislature should make a suitable provision so as to pay adequate compensation by property evaluating the precious life of a citizen in its true perspective rather than devaluating human lives on the basis of an artificial mathematical formula. 1997 (2) SCR 944
Manohar Nathurao Samarth Vs Marotrao and Others. Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960, Regulations 25 and 39 vis-a-vis Section 15(g) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. Imposes a disqualification on or creates an ineligibility for the employees of Life Insurance Corporation to stand for election to any local authority. It is true that there is no common law rule applicable in this area and election statutes have to be strictly construed, but that does not doctrinally drive the Court to surrender to bizarre verbalism when a different construction may inject reasonableness into the provision. 1979 (3) SCR 1078.
Mantoo Majumdar Vs. State of Bihar. Code of Criminal Procedure 1914-Sec.167(2)-Detention in prison for over six years without investigation or framing of charges . The two petitioners have been imprisoned for seven years in various prisons on the basis that they were implicated in several cases of 1971 and 1972. In their habeas corpus petition, they impugned their continued detention in prison without trial. The petition was allowed. Apart from mentioning the sections in the Penal Code by way of passport into the prison house, there is no mention of any investigation of the cases, nor was a charge sheet laid before the court against either accused. Even the magistracy has bidden farewell to their primary obligation. AIR 1980 SC 847: (1980)2 SCC 406: 1980 (2) SCR 1105
M.L.Manchanda vs Union Territory of Chandigarh . Punjab. Industrial Housing Rules, 1972, R.4(3)- The allotment of accommodation to an industrial worker is not unconditional but is subject to conditions which can be changed unilatera1ly by the Government from time to time by altering the rules in exercise of the powers conferred on it under section 24 of the Act. 1977 (3) SCR 327.
Mariam and Others Vs Ouseph Xavier. Kerala HC – Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963- Sec. 2 (25) – Kudikidappukaran -Unlawful trespasser has no right. “In lawful possession” must be given its proper meaning and so the person who gives permission must be either actually in possession or at least constructively in possession. Where the occupant attorns with the one entitled to possession constructive possession and permission may be implied. 1971 K.L.T. 709
Martland Diary & Form Vs. Union of India. Central Sales Tax Act 1956-“Sealed Container”- Meaning – _ “Sealed container” merely means a container which is “so closed that access to the contents is impossible without breaking the fastening. The expression seal in this context does not involve an affixture of the seal of the seller such as impressing a signet in wax etc., as evidence or guarantee of authenticity. 1975 (Supp 1) SCR 265
Metalware & Co vs Bansilal Sharma – Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960-Sections 14(1)( b), 14(2)(b), 15 and 16 – The age and condition of the building would certainly be a relevant factor which will have to be taken into account while pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord under Sec.14( 1) (b) of the Act and the same cannot be ignored. The existing condition of the building far from being totally irrelevant is a vital factor which will have to be considered while pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement or the landlord under that provision which has to be done by having regard to “all the circumstances” and since in the instant case all the courts have totally ignored this vital factor their conclusion on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord deserves to be set aside. 1979 (3) SCR 1107.
Mathai Varkey vs. Mariam. Kerala HC – Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 – Sec.4A- “In lawful possession” must be given its proper meaning and so the person who gives permission must be either actually in possession or at least constructively in possession. Where the occupant attorns with the one entitled to possession constructive possession and permission may be implied. 1971 KLT 709
Md. Sahabuddin Vs District Magistrate, 24 Parganas and Others. Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 – Section 3 -Preventive Detention – On the basis that there is long unexplained delay between criminal occurrence and the order, this Court has held that such detention must be held illegal because the subjective satisfaction has no proximate rational nexus with the pre- judicial act. AIR 1975 SC 1722 : (1975)4 SCC 114.
Mathai Ouseph Panachakal vs. Joseph. Registration Act, 1908. Kerala HC – Sec. 77 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – A suit for specific performance to register the documents is maintainable. Moreover, any suit for the agreement being an equitable relief is subject to the discretion of the Court, AIR 1970 Kerala 261.
Mehtab Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Penal Code – Sec. 70 & 389 – A bare reading of Section 389 makes it clear that the appellate court has the power to suspend the execution of the sentence or order appealed against. If a sentence or fine is so suspended, it ceases to be in force pro temporo. The consequence is that during the period of suspension of the sentence of fine, there is no sentence of fine to be levied. AIR 1979 SC 1263 :(1979) 4 SCC 597,
Mirza Nausherwan Khan and Anr Vs Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act – The potential value of the land was taken into account. On a consideration of the totality of factors, the physical feature of the terrain, and the evidence placed on record, the High Court was justified in holding that the appellant had not substantiated the big potential value claimed by him on the basis of any unique features of the land. 1975 (2) SCR 184.
Misrilal Jain Etc Vs State of Orissa and Another. Orissa Taxation (On goods carried by Roads or Inland Waterways) Act 8 of 1968-Sections 3 and 27- ) The impugned enactment is a valid exercise of legislative power and is in no sense a fraud on the Constitution. Since it is well established that the power to legislate carries with it the power to legislate retrospectively as much as prospectively, the circumstance that an enactment operates entirely in the past and has no prospective life cannot affect the competence of the· Legislature; to pass the enactment if it falls with.in the list on which that competence can operate. 1977 (3) SCR 714.
Mohammad Abdul Salam Khan Vs Sarfaraz Ahmad Khan and Others. Practice and Procedure-Re-appraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court in spite of concurrent findings of fact, proper when a miscarriage of justice has occurred. A conviction of guilt has been rendered by both Courts, but certain grave factors conducive to the miscarriage of justice, induce us to make an exception. The accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt owing to the contemporaneous entry in the cash register coupled with the signature of the B.D.0. the same day, as against his ipsi dixit later. 1977 (1) SCR 689
Mohammed Bava Abubacker Vs South Indian Bank Ltd. And Others. Kerala HC – Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, Act 31 of 1958 – Sec. 15 – a judgment must not only be a record of right conclusions but should contain reasons lucidly expressed, unmistakably indicating the grounds on which the order is rested. The rights and liabilities of citizens should not be left to depend on dubious expression. 1969 KLT 57.
Mohammed Giasuddin Vs. State of A.P. Criminal Procedure Code 1973-Sec. 248(2) -Reformative punishment – Probation – The state should not hesitate to respect the personality of each convict in the spirit of the preamble to the Constitution and not to permit the colonial hang-over of putting people behind the bars and then forgetting about them. Humanitarian winds must blow into the prison barricade. AIR 1977 SC 1926: (1977)3 SCC 287: 1978 (1) SCR 153.
Mohammed Shafi Vs. Seventh Additional.& Ors. U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Sec. 21 (1) explanation (iv)- The language used by the Legislature in explanation (iv) is extremely clumsy. The. word building is used thrice in explanation (iv) and it is clear from the context in which it occurs that it is not intended to be used in its popular sense so as to mean the entire superstructure raised on the ground. 1977 (2) SCR 464
Mohan Lal Pangasa Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Reassessment of the evidence is not permissible in the ordinary course. Concurrent findings of fact in the Sessions Court and the High Court must normally be the last word. It is trite law that when the evidence against an accused person, particularly when he is charged with a grave offence like murder, if it consists of only circumstances and not direct oral evidence, it must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty. AIR 1974 SC 1144 :(1974) 4 SCC 607
Mohan Singh Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Special powers of the High Court under S. 439(2) in cancelling bail. Refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is confusion regarding the rationale of bail.1978 (3) SCR 127
Moni Lal Roy Choudhury Vs State of West Bengal. Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Preventive Detention – The plea put forward is that the detenu was a government servant and attending office on the alleged dates. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State explains how, notwithstanding the entry of attendance in the official register, the detenu was involved in criminal incidents and eyewitnesses evidence was available for the detaining authority in this behalf. It is not for the Supreme Court to investigate the alibi of the detenu – AIR 1975 SC 2056: (1976) 1 SCC 191
Moti Ram Vs. State of M.P. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Secs. 440(1), 441, 445 read with Sec. 389(1)- Bail Jurisprudence – Sureties- insistence from the same state is arbitrary – Bail covers release on one’s own bond with or without sureties. ‘Bail’ in Sec. 437 (2) suggests release, the accent being on undertaking to appear when directed, not on the production of sureties. But Sec. 437(2) distinguishes between bail and bond without sureties. Article 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. AIR 1978 SC 1594 : (1978)4 SCC 47: 1979 (1) SCR 335
Mrs.Kunda S. Kadam Vs. Dr.K.K.Soman and others. Constitution of India – Corporation will arrive at its own independent judgment, untrammelled by any observations on the merits made by the High Court, either expressly or which may be implied. AIR 1980 SC 881 :(1980) 2 SCC 355
Muktinarain Jha and Others Vs State of Bihar. Constitution of India – Art. 136 -Delay in despatching judgment to trial court. Accused therefore not allowed to surrender to judicial custody. Communication of orders passed in appeal, revision reference by the High Court in Criminal Cases should be sent without delay. The Court expressed its hope that more business-like procedures in such matters would be evolved so that the rule. of law would not suffer a new shock on account of a messy management of judicial business rectifiable by a little more promptitude and attention delay. AIR 1978 SC 770 : 1978 (2) SCR 602
Mukundan vs Nalini. Kerala HC . Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 – Sec. 51 – Art.11(g), Schedule – Where there is no such express provision, an application will attract court fee only under Schedule II and an appeal against an order on an application also only under the appropriate Article in Schedule II. A suit is different from a petition and an appeal in the scheme of the court fee law. AIR 1971 Kerala 183
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay Vs Messrs Abdulbhai Faizullabhai. Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 – Customary Bonus – Bonus Act does not bar claims to customary bonus or those based conditions of service. The demands referred by the State Govt. under Sec. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, specifically speak of payment of bonus by employers which had become custom or usage or a condition of service in the establishments. The subject matter of the dispute referred by the Govt. dealt with bonus based on custom or condition of service. The Tribunal was bound to investigate this question. AIR 1976 SC 1455: (1976)3 SCC 832 :1976 (3) SCR 591.
Mundrika Prasad Sinha Vs State of Bihar. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sec. 2 (7) Advocate appointed as Government Pleader to conduct all Government cases-Government, if has power to appoint Assistant Government Pleaders to withdraw cases from Government Pleader. Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders who had been appointed according to administrative rules of the State are Government Pleaders within the meaning of the definition in s. 2(7) of the Code. 1980 (1) SCR 759
Maganlal Chhagganlal (P) Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation. Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14–Provision in the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. 1888 and the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, for a speedy procedure of eviction in addition to the procedure in a civil suit valid- If for determination and enforcement of a liability two alternative procedures are available, one more drastic and prejudicial than the other and no guiding policy or principle is laid down by the legislature as to when one or the other procedure shall be followed, so that, either procedure may be indiscriminately adopted against persons similarly situated, the law providing for the more drastic and prejudicial procedure would be violative of the equal protection clause.- AIR 1974 SC 2009.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Rasal Singh, Etc . Public sector institutions should not enter into prolonged litigation and spend considerable sums of public money in cases which should have been adjusted by conciliatory and wise attitudes. (1976) 2 SCC 179
Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs Shri Vardhichand and Others. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Sec. 133 & M. P. Municipalities Act 1961, Sec. 123-Municipality not providing sanitary facilities and construction of public conveniences for slum dwellers- RDO can compel the municipal body to carry out its duty to the community to provide amenities and abate nuisance. A responsible municipal council constituted for the precise purpose of preserving public health and providing better finances cannot run away from its principal duty by pleading financial inability. Decency and dignity are non-negotiable facets of human rights and are a first charge on local self-governing bodies. Similarly, providing drainage systems not pompous and attractive, but in working condition and sufficient to meet the needs of the people-cannot be evaded if the municipality is to justify its existence. State Government will make available by way of loans or grants sufficient financial aid to the Ratlam Municipality to enable it to fulfil its obligations. 1981 (1) SCR 97
Munshi vs. Richpal – Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955-Ss. 7 and 1A-An order or decree directing eviction of a tenant is necessary to be obtained to bring about a determination of the tenancy. A fortiori, the person who has been in possession of the land with the right to possess it continuous to hold the land and be a tenant in spite of having been wrongfully put out of possession specially if he has initiated proceedings for recovery of possession. 1977 (3) SCR 1.
Murlidhar Meghraj Loya Vs State of Maharashtra. Prevention of Food Adulteration Art, 1954-S. 16, proviso – The proviso applies if the offence is under cl. (a)(ii), that is to say, the offence is not one of adulteration but is made up of a contravention of the other provisions of the Act or of any rule made thereunder. Since in this case, the offence falls under Sec. (i) (a) proviso (ii) has no application. AIR 1976 SC 1929: 1977 SCR (1) 1
Mythiankunju Vs Pareethkunju. Kerala HC . Transfer of Property Act – The right to a tree stems from ownership referable to the planting and upbringing of the tree through its roots and branches may, as part of the natural course of the growth of that tree, go into the land of the neighbour; and, if there is uncertainty in that aspect and if the tree is on the boundary between two properties, it could be taken that the tree belongs equally to the owners of the two adjoining lines on the boundary between which the tree stands.1971 KLT 826