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
N. Chandramouli Vs Chikkalakkaiah and Others. e State Reorganisation Act – Sec. 115 (5) Seniority of two groups – For the purposes of seniority, service must be counted with effect from November 2, 1956, so far as allottees are concerned. AIR 1980 SC 1273
N. K. V. Bros Private Limited Vs M. Karumai Ammal. Motor Vehicles Act- The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that therefore the civil suit must follow suit was rightly rejected by the Tribunal and the High Court. The requirement of culpable rashness under section 304A l.P.C. is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. “The Accident Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties and technicalities. 1980 (3) SCR 101
N. Krishna Iyer Vs Lakshmi Ammal. Evidence Act. Sec. 21 – The absence of a party or his failure to give evidence does not mean that the court can abdicate its duty to give consideration to the ensemble of circumstances in a case and follow the mechanical rule of decreeing what the plaintiff has asked for or her evidence formally warrants. The humanist compulsions of this case persuade me to moderate the rate of maintenance decreed. 1971 KLT 182.
N. Lakshmana Rao Vs. State of Karnataka. Karnataka State Service (Age of Compulsory Retirement) Rules, 1974 and Constitution of India, 1950. Article 309 and 311. The legislature can regulate conditions of service by law which can impair conditions or terms of service it, therefore, follows that teachers who exercised the form of option were subject to change in the conditions of service under Rules framed under Article 309. There is no constitutional limitation to reducing the age of retirement. ·A Government servant enjoys the status of a Government servant. He cannot be removed and his. services cannot be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Fixing an age of retirement does not amount to the removal of termination. 1975 (Supp 1) SCR 328
N.K. Chauhan and Others Vs State of Gujarat and Others. Constitution of India-Articles 14-16. Meaning of the term “as far as practicable” – Seniority, normally, is measured by the length of continuous officiating service the actual is easily accepted as legal. This does not preclude a different prescription, or constitutionality tests being satisfied.1977 (1) SCR 1037
N.L. Lalan Vs V.A. John. Kerala HC – Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923-. Secs 30- Substantial question of law – What is contemplated is not a question of law alone ; it must also possess the attribute of substantiality. If it is of great public importance or if it arises so frequently as to affect a large class of people or is so basic to the operation of the Act itself, one may designate the question of law as substantial. But, where it is covered already by precedents or the law on that aspect is well settled, the mere difficulty of applying the facts to that law cannot make it a substantial question of law. 1972 KLT 132: ILR (1972) I Kerala 273
Nadella Venkata Krishna Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh. Indian Penal Code – u/ss. 489C and 489D- Sentencing jurisprudence- Harsh and prolonged incarceration may sometimes be self-defeating. The most hurtful part of imprisonment is the initial stage when a person is confined in person. 1978 (2) SCR 403
Nandini Satpathy Vs. Dani (PL). Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 161(2)- Constitution of India – Art. 20 (3) – Right to silence – It is quite probable that the very act of directing a woman to come to the police station in violation of section 160(1) Cr. P.C. may make for tension and negate voluntariness. Insistence on answering is a form of pressure especially in the atmosphere of the police station unless certain safeguards erasing duress are adhered to. Frequent threats of prosecution if there is failure to answer may take on the complexion of undue pressure violating Art. 20(3). The accused person cannot be forced to answer questions merely because the answer thereto is not implicative when viewed in isolation and confined to that particular case. AIR 1978 SC 1025 : (1978)2 SCC 424: 1978 (3) SCR 608
Nanhu and other Vs. Delhi Administrator. Cycle-Rickshaw Bye-Law 1960- Bye-Law 3(1) C – The Delhi Administration will effectively publicize and notify applications for licences for plying of cycle rickshaws and all those who apply will be considered on their merits including length of service as cycle rickshaw pliers. The criteria that the Delhi Administration will adopt must be reasonable and relevant. 1981 (1) SCR 373
Narendra Bahadur Vs. State of U.P. U.P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act 1948 Sec. 2(7), 6 (1) – The recital in the earlier part of the notification as well as the operative part of the notification that the land shall be deemed to have been acquired permanently and shall vest in the State Government lends clear support to the conclusion that the State Government decided to acquire the land and the order of acquisition was merely an implementation of that decision. 1977 (2) SCR 226.
Narendra Madivalapa Kheni Vs Manikrao Patil and Others. Representation of the People Act, 1950 s. 23(3). The expression ‘last date for making nominations’ must mean the last hour of the last date during which presentation of nomination papers is permitted under s. 33 of the 1951 Act. The prohibition contained ins. 23(3) of the 1950 Act is based on public policy and serves a public purpose.1978 (1) SCR 193
Nasiruddin V. State. United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. The power of the Chief Justice to nominate Judges, who sit at Lucknow is to be exercised from time to time meaning thereby that the power can be exercised as often as may be necessary. 1976 (1) SCR 505
Nawabkhan Abbaskhan Vs State of Gujarat. Criminal Procedure Code, 1908- Sentencing jurisprudence – The husband, the appellant, was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, while the other accused were acquitted. No interference by Supreme Court. AIR 1978 SC 1542 :(1979) 4 SCC 505
Neelacanta Panicker Vs Govinda Pillai. – Delay in disposing suits- It is proper for Courts not to look upon litigation as leisurely 5-year plan projects. A judicial order may be brief but not a blank. 1968 KLT 691.
New Satgram Engineering Works and another vs. Union of India. Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, Sections 2(h), 18(2) read with Sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 19. Provisions of sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Coal Mines (Nationalization Act, 1973 are in pari materia with sub-section (3) of section 22 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The subsidy receivable from the erstwhile Coal Board established under section 4 of the Coal Mines (Conservation and Safety) Act, 1952, being a payment “by way of reimbursement was like any other dues, and, therefore, must be treated as ‘any money due to the coking coal mine’. 1981 (1) SCR 406
Newabganj Sugar Mills Vs. Union of India. Constitution of India – Art. 32 – The inherent power of the court has its roots in the necessity and its breadth is co-extensive with the necessity. The Court directed that the Bank guarantees furnished by the appellants should be encashed by the Registrar and kept in short-term, deposits. 1976 (1) SCR 803
Nimeon Sangma and Others Vs Home Secretary Government of Meghalaya. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – The State does consent to release all persons who have been in custody for over six months and whose trials have not commenced or against whom charge sheets have not been laid except in those cases under Sec.302 and 395 I.P.C. The Sessions Court concerned should dispose of the cases where charge sheets have been laid and commitment has been made within six months.1979 (3) SCR 783.
Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Karote. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Sec. 439 – Grant of bail is within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge but the court must not, in grave cases, gullibly dismiss the possibility of police-accused intimidating the witnesses with cavalier ease. The rule of law is not one-way traffic and the authority of the State is not for the police and against the people. AIR 1980 SC 785: (1980)2 SCC 559:1980 SCR (3) 15.
Northern India Caterers (India) Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi. Art. 137 – It is well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision in the case. AIR 1980 SC 674: 1980 SCC (2) 167: 1980 (3) SCR 650