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
R.R. Engineering Company Vs. Zila Parishad, Bareilly and another. U. P. KJhetra Samitis & Zila Parishads Act 1961 – Profession Tax – While income tax can only be levied on income, tax on circumstances and property can be on the total turnover of the assessee from his trade or calling or the fact of his having an interest in the property. For the levy of tax on circumstances and property it is not necessary that there should be income in the hands of the assessee, in the sense of the Income Tax Act A person can be subjected to tax on circumstances and property in relation to the status which he occupies by reason of the pursuit by him of a beneficial calling or the possession by him of an interest in the property.1980 (3) SCR 1.
R.R.Verma Vs. Union of India. Constitution of India, 1950, Article 133- All India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary matters) Rules, 1960- The Writ Petition having been dismissed as infructuous it is not proper on the part of the High Court to grant a certificate of fitness under Article 133 D of the Constitution. 1980 (3) SCR 478
R.S. Joshi, S.T.O. Gujarat Etc Vs Ajit Mills Limited, Ahmedabad and Another. Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959-Secs. 37, 46, 63 – The punitive impost in s. 37(1)(a) is legitimate and valid. The High Court was wrong in denouncing the impugned legislation as exceeding legislative competence or as a colorable device or as supplementary, not complementary. AIR 1977 SC 2279: 1978 (1) SCR 338
R.S.Kallolimath Vs., State of Mysore. Service law-Entry of a Government servant’s date of birth in the service register is revised to an earlier date. Government Notification granting an extension of service equal to half the period of difference between the original. and revised dates-Denial of extension of service to appellant justified AIR 1977 SC 1980: 1978 SCR (1) 145
Rabindra Kumar Ghosel Alias Buli Vs State of West Bengal. Maintenance of Internal Security Act -Preventive Detention – Actual order of detention was passed only around three months thereafter. District Magistrate sleeping over the matter for well last three months and then claimed that there is a real and imminent danger of prejudicial activity affecting public order. The chain of connection between the dangerous activities relied on and the detention order passed is snapped by this long and unexplained delay. AIR 1975 SC 1408: (1975) 4 SCC 111.
Rafiq Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. Constitution of India 1950 Art. 136–Concurrent findings oi fact-Appeal by special leave against conviction for rape by Lower Courts. The special jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution which is meant mainly to correct manifest injustices or errors of law of great moment. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of a prosecutrix is not a matter of Jaw, but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. AIR 1981 SC 559: 1981 SCR (1) 402
Raghubir Singh Vs State of Haryana. Constitution of India – Criminal Trials-Death of a suspect in police custody-Use of third-degree methods by police in the investigation. No interference – It is disturbing to find a diabolical recurrence of police tortures resulting in a terrible scare in the minds of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under new peril when the guardians of the law gore human rights to death. Police lock-ups are becoming more and more awesome cells. This development is disastrous to human rights awareness and the humanist constitutional order. 1980 (2) SCR 277
Raj Kapoor vs Laxman. Cinematograph Act 1952 – Secs. 79 and 292- Cinema film granted censor certificate for public exhibition. Complaint for the prosecution of producer that film is obscene The prosecution is unsustainable because section 79 I.P.C. is exculpatory when read with section 5·A of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the certificate issued thereunder, and is therefore quashed.1980 (2) SCR 512
Raj Kapoor vs State. Cinematograph Act 1952-Section 5A- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 482 and 397. Inherent powers – There is no total ban on the exercise of inherent power where abuse of the process Of the Court or other extraordinary situations excites the Court’s jurisdiction. In a trial for the offences under sections 292/293 of the Indian Penal Code certificate granted under s. 6 of the Cinematograph Act by the Board of ‘Censors does not provide an irrebuttable defence to accused who have been granted such a certificate, but it is certainly a relevant fact of some weight to be taken into consideration by the criminal Court in deciding whether the offence charged is established. 1980 (1) SCR 1081
Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Limited Vs Girni Kamgar Sanghathana, Poona. Industrial Disputes Act – Dearness allowance – Dearness Allowance of the Textile Workers in this Poona Industry must once and for all be related solely to the Poona-based Consumer Price Index This involves not merely a delinking with the Sholapur Consumer Price Index but a basic equation at seine point of time so that it may be released from the Sholapur based indices. Therefore, we direct that the Consumer Price index for Poona (GPl) will be adapted for Poona. AIR 1981 SC 409:(1979) 4 SCC 531
Raja Jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Other. Constitution of India-Article 226- The writ jurisdiction is not measured by statutory finality to orders regardless of their illegality. If the levy is illegal the constitutional remedy goes into action. However, Art. 226 is not blanket power regardless of temporary and discretionary restraint. If a party is inexplicably and unduly delayed due to laches the Court may ordinarily deny redress. 1976 (1) SCR 49
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Vs. Narian Shankar. Motor Vehicles Act 1939, S. 110A and Constitution of India 1950, Article- 41-Accident claim. The respondents lost their limbs in a road accident while travelling in a nationalised transport system. The plea by the operator to escape the liability for compensation was that the lights of the bus accidentally failed, which resulted in the accident. Not accepted. Common experiences on Indian highways disclose callousness and blunted consciousness on the part of public corporations which acquire a monopoly under the Motor Vehicles Act in plying buses. It is a pity that State Road Transport vehicles should become mobile menaces. 1980 (2) SCR 866
Rajendra Kumar Jain vs State, Attorney General of India. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 –Sec. 321 – Competency of the Magistrate’s Court to permit withdrawal- The Magistrate has to be satisfied that an offence is prima facie disclosed and the offence so disclosed is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. If no· offence is disclosed the Magistrate may refuse to take cognizance of the case or if the offence. disclosed is one not triable exclusively by the Court of Session he may proceed to deal with it under the other provisions · of the Code. To that extent, the Court of the Committing Magistrate does discharge a judicial function.1980 (3) SCR 982
Rajendra Kumar Vs. Ram Adhar. Representation of the People Act,1951- Sec.87 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -Order XI – An application for delivery of interrogatories is One of the logical steps in aid of the prosecution of an election petition and is fully covered by s. 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Order 23 Rule 1 cannot be equated with the provisions of 0. XI. Having regard to the nature of an election petition which is a matter of a moment and concern to the entire constituency the notion of abandonment of the claim or withdrawal is absolutely foreign to the scope of such proceeding and must, therefore, be held to be excluded by the necessary intendment of s. 87 itself 1976 (1) SCR 255
Rajendra Prasad vs State of UP. Indian Penal Code – Sec. 302 – In other words, the legislative trend seems to be while formerly the rule was to sentence to death a person who is convicted of murder, it is now to impose a lesser sentence for reasons to be recorded in writing. Formerly, capital punishment was to be imposed unless special reasons could be found to justify the lesser sentence. After 1955 courts, were left equally free to award either sentence. The 1973 Code has made an unmistakable shift in legislative emphasise under which life imprisonment for murder is the rule and capital sentence the exception for reasons to be stated. 1979 (3) SCR 41
Ram Autar Singh Vs. Ramgopal. Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 -Sec. 97 and 100 (1) (d) (i). The returned candidate had not categorically and specifically admitted the allegations in the Election Petition with regard to the improper rejection of the ballot papers. Since the appellant could not dispense with the proof of facts of those facts altogether. 1976 (1) SCR 191
Ram Chander Singh Sagar Vs State of Tamil Nadu. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sec. 406 – The Cr PC clothes the Supreme Court power u/s 406 to transfer a case for appeal from one High Court or a Court subordinate to one High Court to another High Court or to a Court subordinate thereto, but not with the power to transfer investigations from one police station to another in the country simply because the first information or a remand report is forwarded to a Court. To come to this Court directly seeking an order to transfer in such a case is travelling along the wrong street. If justice is denied, there are other redresses, not u/s 406. AIR 1978 SC 475: 1978 SCR (2) 604
Ram Kishan Aggarwala Vs State of Orissa. Indian Penal Code – Sec. 376 – The evidence in the trial court is explicit enough to implicate the accused, even apart from the depositions in the committal court which have been read as evidence under Section 288 Cr.P.C. There are corroborating materials inescapably fixing the quilt on the accused, such as the blood stain on his clothing. According to temporal laws and lights we judge. Who knows this jail life of an old man may, by a process beyond our ken, kindle in him a new flame of the search for the truth and make him a finer person, inside and outside? No one is too old to become good and De Profundis was written in prison by a sex pervert who was also a literary genius. AIR 1976 SC 1774:(1976) 2 SCC 177.
Ram Parkash Sharma Vs State of Haryana. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sec. 497-Whenever the claimant asks for the property back, it does not mean that he should be given back the said property. That has to be decided on its own merits in each case and the discretion of the Court has to be exercised after due consideration of the interests of justice including the prospective necessity of the production of these seized articles at the time of the trial. If the release of the property seized will, in any manner, affect or prejudice the course of justice at the time of the trial, it will be wise discretion to reject the claim for return. 1978 (3) SCR 691
Ram Prasad Sahu and Others Vs State of Bihar. Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Every error does not confer a visa into this Court lest the flood gates of litigation should flow as an irresistible stream making the Supreme Court a superior High Court of appeal. Doing so, in the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution, would condemn the court to functional futility and defeat the design of the founding fathers that ordinarily it shall operate as the nation’s summit court deliberating and pronouncing upon issues of great moment and constitutional portent. 1980 (1) SCR 927
Ram Rattan Vs. State of U.P. Indian Penal Code, Sec. 441-A true owner has every right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser while he is in the act or process of trespassing but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances, the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies under, the law. 1977 (2) SCR 232
Ram Surat Singh Vs Harish Chandra Mahto. Representation of People Act – Inspection of ballot papers or their counterfoils is not to be allowed as a matter of course as such an order touches upon the secrecy of the ballot. Such inspection can be allowed only if a good ground for the same is made out by the petitioner. He must adequately state all the material facts in the election petition on which he relies for such a claim. Furthermore, the Court must be satisfied that for the purpose of deciding the case and doing complete and effectual justice between the parties, it is imperatively necessary to order the inspection. AIR 1975 SC 701 : (1975) 3 SCC 802
Ram Swaroop Rai Vs Lilavathi. U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972- Sec. 2 (2) – Exemption from application of the provisions of the Act for the period of ten years in respect of new constructions -Burden of Proof is upon the landlord and not upon the tenant. 1980 (3) SCR 1034
Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P . Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1954 -Market Committees to be constituted in a regular manner and on a permanent basis. Declaration of big areas as Market Areas does not offend any provision of law. 1980 (3) SCR 104.
Rama Verma Bharathan Vs. State. Valiamma Thampuram Kovilakam Estate and the Palace (Partition) and the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Amendment Act, 1978 (Act 15 of 1978) -Valid – The legislation in question has taken note of all facts namely; (a) absence of any complaint to their management ever since the Boord’s creation; (b) sanctification of the Board by the principal Act 16 of 1961 by conferring powers of partitioning the “Kovilagam” properties on this very Board; and does nothing .more What was good and valid in 1961 could not become vicious and invalid in 1978. 1980 (1) SCR 136
Raman Pillai vs. Govindan Nanoo. Kerala HC. Civil Procedure Code, 1908- O.23 Rule 3A – While the duty of the Court, when the oath is not taken, is to decide the case on the merits the circumstance that a party withdrew from his earlier agreement to make an oath can be taken due note of and relied upon as evidence by the conduct of a party. 1969 KLT 787.
Rambagh Palace Hotel, Jaipur Vs Rajasthan Hotel Workers’ Union. Industrial Disputes Act – Award – Tips not payment by management – The true character of tips cannot be treated as any payment made by the Management out of its pocket but a transfer of what is collected to the staff as it is intended by the payer to be so distributed. It may also happen that more money comes in by way of tips into the pockets of the Management that is distributed by it. AIR 1976 SC 2303 :(1976) 4 SCC 817.
Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs Veena Kaushal and Others. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Sec. 125 – Mere divorce does not end the right to maintenance. Whether the appeal is in divorce or not, the wife’s claim for maintenance qua wife under the definition contained in Explanation (b) to Sec. 125 of the Code continues unless parties make adjustments and come to terms regarding the quantum or the right to maintenance. 1978 (3) SCR 782
Ramesh Kaushik Vs. Superintendent. Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Prison jurisprudence. Prison torture is not beyond the reach of the Supreme Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. A Prison term in Tihar Jail is not a post-graduate training in tough crime. The human rights of common prisoners are at a discount and in our Socialist Republic moneyed ‘B’ class convicts operate to oppress the humbler inmates. There cannot be inequality in prison too on the score of social and financial status. Bank robbers in ‘B’ class because they are rich by robbery and nameless little men in “C” class because they are only common Indians. Article 14 is suffocated if this classification is permitted, and yet that, according to the rule itself, is prevalent. Therefore, the Supreme Court must act, will act, to restore the rule of law and respect the residual fundamental rights of any harassed petitioner. 1980 (3) SCR 927
Rameshwar and Others Vs Jot Ram and Others. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953- It is absolutely plain that on the deposit of the first instalment of the purchase price, the tenant shall be deemed to have become the owner of the land. Where rights have already vested in a party, they cannot be nullified or negated by subsequent events save where there is a change in law and it is made applicable at any stage. 1970 (1)SCR 847
Ranjit Singh and etc. Vs. Union of India. Constitution of India 1950, Art. 19(1) (g) and 32 and Arms Act 1959- Petitioner granted licence to manufacture a specified number of guns-curtailment of quota-. AIR 1981 SC 461:1981 SCR (1) 847: 1980 SCC (4) 311
Ratan Singh Vs State of Punjab. Indian Penal Code- Sec. 304A -Rash and negligent driving – Punishment – Rashness and negligence are relative concepts, not absolute abstractions. The law under s. 304A IPC and under the rubric of negligence must have regard to the fatal frequency of rash driving of heavy-duty vehicles and of speeding menaces. It is fair, therefore, to apply the role of res ipsa loquitur with care. When a life has been lost and the circumstances of driving are harsh no compassion can be shown. 1980 (1) SCR 846
Ratnam Chettiar and ors. Vs. S.M.Kuppuswami. Hindu Law-Partition -A partition effected between the members of a Hindu Undivided Family by their own volition and with their consent cannot be reopened unless it is shown that it was obtained by fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence. In such a case, the Court should require strict proof of facts, because, an act inter vivos cannot be lightly set aside. 1976 (1) SCR 863.
Rattan Lal Vs Vardesh Chander and Others. Transfer of Property Act-Secs. 106 and 111 (a) and 111 (g)-Eviction – Once a certificate of fitness has been granted under Article 133, the appeal. in all its amplitude, is before the Court -and every point may be urged by the appellant provided this Court permits it having regard to the circumstances. It is, however, within the court’s discretion not to allow a new point to be taken up. 1976 (2) SCR 906
Regional Transport Officer Chittoor Etc Vs Associated Transport, Madras Private Limited. Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act, 1954, ·Section 4(1) -Power to make rules – A delegate cannot exercise the same power of the delegator unless there is special conferment thereof. The mere fact that the rules framed by the State Government (delegate) had to be , placed on the table of the Legislature does not automatically empower the former to make retrospective rules. AIR 1980 SC 1872: 1981 SCR (1) 627
Rehman Jeo Wangnoo Vs. Ram Chand. Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shop Rent Control Act, 1966, S. 11(1)(11)-Second Proviso to Explanation, I – The court must proceed on the footing that the absence of a specific pleading under the said proviso does not stand in the way of the obligation of the court to act in compliance with the mandate of the statute. 1978 (2) SCR 380
Reserve Bank of India and Another Vs Ramkrishna Govind Morey. Civil Procedure Code – Amendment of pleadings -Application for an amendment that the respondent had filed in the High Court about 19 years after the institution of the suit to be dismissed. AIR 1976 SC 830: (1976) 1 SCC 803.
Rohtas Industries Limited and Another Vs Rohtas Industries Staff Union and Others. Constitution of India Article 226 and 226 – It is one thing to affirm the jurisdiction and another to authorise free exercise. This Court has spelt out wise and clear restraints on the use of this extraordinary remedy and High Courts will not go beyond those wholesome for inhibitions except where the monstrosity of the situation or other exceptional circumstances cry for timely judicial interdict or mandate. 1970 (3) SCR 12
Roshanlal Kuthiala and Others Vs R.B. Mohan Singh Oberai. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 –Sec. 13 – Enforcement of foreign awards – A foreign judgment is enforceable by a suit upon the judgment and it shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties subject· to the exceptions enumerated ins. 13, C.P.C. In the present case, the Judgment of the Pakistan Court was in favour of the respondent, and none of the nullifying clauses in that section being attracted, it is conclusive under Sec.13. AIR 1975 SC 824: 1975 SCR (2) 491
Royal Talkies Vs. ESI. Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, Sec. 2(9) (i) –Employees in canteen and cycle stand. Keeping a cycle stand and running a canteen are incidental or adjuncts to the primary purpose of the theatre. 1979 (1) SCR 80
Ratlam Municipal Council,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