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
P. Kumaraswamy Vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and Another. Motor Vehicles Act 1939, Sec. 47(1) Sec. 68A(a)- The rules or guidelines could not be discarded in the name of section 4 7 (1). The Rules made are really in implementation of section 47(1) but is not exhaustive of all the considerations that would prevail in a given situation. The jurisdiction is given to the Tribunal to take note of other considerations in public interest flowing out of section 47(1). In the name of public interest, something opposed to the Rules cannot be done. 1976 (2) SCR 214 P. P. Abubaker Vs Union of India
P. T. Ramanujan And Others Vs Bhaskaran. Kerala HC .Partnership Act – Sec. 69 (2) – There, the bar of S.69(2) obviously could not arise although the suit may fail for absence of his right to claim the sum. It is very different from saying that the plaintiff is a firm and being an unregistered one could not maintain the action on account of a legal bar although it had a right to sue. “A short cut may often prove to be a wrong cut.” 1971 KLT 624: 1971 KLJ 552.
P. Vasudevan Vs M. Pappu. Kerala HC –Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sec. 60 – Kerala Education Act – Sec. 9 (3) -School is not a legal entity – Maintenance grant cannot be treated as a property of the school. 1969 KLT 46.
P.M.Thankappan vs. Muhammed Kutty. Kerala HC. Insolvency Act – Sec. 5 & 25 – O.9 R.8 CPC. is rendered applicable because of S.5 of the Act and that S.25 does not stand in the way. “Bat does law lose its awe and learned look if commonsense is used as the compass to guide the Court, unless counsel, as in this case they have done, press precedents into service on the one side and canons of statutory interpretation on the other, to spin out scholarly arguments for and against? However, often, as in this case the simple route leads to the same end as the complicated one, although the former is preferable since a simple presentation of the law will make it more easily understood by the litigating public, to regulate whose rights laws are meant”.1969 KLT 104
P.N.Eswara Iyer Vs. registrar, Supreme Court of India. Supreme Court Rules 1966-0.XL rules 2 and 3 – Dismissal of review petition by circulation – Where oral presentation is not that essential its exclusion is not obnoxious. If on a close perusal of the paper book the judges find that there is no merit or statable case, and there is no special virtue in sanctifying the dismissal by an oral ritual. 1980 (2) SCR 889
P.N.Kaushal vs Union of India. Punjab Excise Act 1 of 1914, Section 59(f)(v)- Constitution of India, 1950-Part IV of the Constitution must enter the soul of Part III and the laws made by the State-Articles 38 and 47-Progressive implementation of the policy of prohibition is valid – Even restrictions under Article 19 may, depending on situations be pushed to the point of prohibition consistently with reasonableness. 1979 (1) SCR 122
P.S.R.Sadhanantham vs. Arunachalam and another. Constitution of India 1950, Article 136- High Court in appeal setting aside conviction and sentence by the trial court for murder -The Court should entertain a special leave petition filed by a private party, other than the complainant, in those cases only where it is convinced that the public interest justifies an appeal against the acquittal and that the State has refrained from petitioning for special leave for reasons which do not bear on the public interest but are prompted by private influence, want of bona fide and other extraneous considerations. 1980 (2) SCR 873
Palace Administration Board Vs Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran and Others. Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Sec. 114 – Review – In a petition for review, once a clear error in the judgment is revealed no sense of shame or infallibility complex abscesses or dissuades this Court from the anxiety to be ultimately right, not consistently wrong1980 (3) SCR 187
Pandurang Dnyan Lad Vs. Dadd Rama. Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act 1948-Section 320(6)-32(O) – By section 4 of the Abolition Act, all alienations in the Merged Territories were abolished with effect from the appointed date. Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Abolition Act provide for the grant of occupancy rights ln respect of the erstwhile lnam Lands. There is no provision in that Act by virtue of which the relationship of landlord and tenant between the ex-Inamdar and his tenant would stand extinguished. 1976 (3) SCR 493
Parasuram Dottery Workers Vs. I.T.O. Income Tax Act, 1961-Secs. 147, 148, 149, lllcome Tax Act 1922-Sec. 10 (2) vi- The Income Tax Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessmen and he must have reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. 1977 (2) SCR 92
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs Motor and General Traders. Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Section 10(3)(iii) (a) a11a (b)- Revision against the order of remand – It is unfair to drive parties to a new litigation of unknown duration and therefore, in the special circumstances of this case directions issued to take note of subsequent development and pass orders. AIR 1975 SC 1409:1975 SCR (3) 958
Pathumma and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others. Kerala Agricultural Debt Reliefs Act, 1970- Sec. 20 -There is no constitutional infirmity on the ground that the Act is violative of Art, 19(1))(f). The restrictions imposed are clearly reasonable within the meaning of cL (6) of that Article. AIR 1978 SC 771: 1978 (2) SCR 537
Phul Singh Vs State of Haryana. Criminal Procedure Code- Prison Reforms – It is desirable to superadd to the sentence of imprisonment a few directives to ensure that the carceral period reforms the convict. A set of positive prescriptions will ensure appellant turning a new leaf. One major method in securing this goal is to keep alive the family ties of the person. 1980 (1) SCR 589
Precision Bearings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Baroda Mazdoor Sabha. Industrial Disputes Act, Award – Award not covered by the reference must quashed. lt is true that in considering the question of dearness1 allowance the capacity of the Company to pay is one of the most important considerations. 1978 (2) SCR 466
Prem Chand Vs. Union of India and others. Delhi Police Act, 1978-Secs 47 and 50-The Delhi Police Act permits externment provided the action is bona fide. All power, including police power, must be informed by fairness if it is to service judicial scrutiny. 1981 (1) SCR 1262
Prem Ex-Servicemen Co-operative Tenant Farming Society Limited Vs State of Haryana. East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949. –Collector can interfere or pass any order under any provision of law or should the matter be left to be decided between the alleged lessees, the alleged private owners, and the Panchayats by such other legal proceedings as may be open to them for the purpose of getting their claims adjudicated upon. AIR 1974 SC 1121, (1974) 2 SCC 319
Prem Shankar Shukla Vs. Delhi Administrator. Constitution of India– Articles 14, 19 and 21- Personal liberty – Handcuffing – The authority responsible for the prisoner’s custody should consider the case of each prisoner individually and decide whether the prisoner is a person who having regard to his circumstances, general conduct, behaviour and character will attempt to escape or disturb the peace by becoming violent. It is the basic assumption that all individuals are entitled to enjoy that dignity that determines the rule that ordinarily no restraint should be imposed except in those cases where there is a reasonable fear of the prisoner attempting to escape or attempting violence. It is abhorrent to envisage a prisoner being handcuffed merely because it is assumed that he does not belong to “a better class”, and that he does not possess the basic dignity pertaining to every individual. 1989 (3) SCR 855
Premchand vs Union of India. Delhi Police Act, 1978-Sec.47 and Sec. 50 – The Delhi Police Act permits internment provided the action is bona fide. All power, including police power, must be informed by fairness if it is to survive judicial scrutiny. Mala fides is fatal if it is made out. 1981 (1) SCR 1262.
Premji Bhai Vs. Delhi. Constitution of India 1950 Articles 14 & 32 & Delhi Development Authority Act 1957. It is the Court has heard the petitions on merits and is not inclined to eject them on preliminary objections. It is undeniable that the camouflage of Art. 14 cannot conceal the real purpose motivating the petitions, mainly to get back a part of the purchase price of flats paid by the· petitioners with wide-open eyes after flats have been securely obtained. Petition to this Court under Art. 32 is not a proper remedy nor is the Supreme Court a proper forum for re-opening concluded contracts with a view to getting back a part of the purchase price paid after the benefit is lacking. 1980 (2) SCR 704.
Pritam Nath Hoon Vs Union of India and Others. Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 -COFEPOSA – Preventive Detention – Delay in furnishing to the detenu copies of the documents which form the basis of the grounds of detention amounts to denial to him of such opportunity. Copies of the panchnama prepared at the time of recovery of silver bags and supplied to the detenu in the instant case, cannot amount to giving him full notice of the case or furnishing of all materials which he needed to make his “representation. By not supplying promptly copies of the incriminating materials by an indifferent authority a detention is being judicially demolished. 1981 (1) SCR 682
Qudrat Ullah Vs Municipal Board, Bareilly. U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947- U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947- There is no simple litmus test to distinguish a lease as defined in s. 105, Transfer of Property Act from a licence as defined in Sec. 52, Easements Act, but the character of the transaction turns on the operative intent of the parties. If an interest in immovable property entitling the transferor to enjoyment is created, it is a lease, if permission is to use land without the right to exclusive possession alone granted, a licence is a legal result. 1974 (2) SCR 530.