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
Shamsher Singh and Anr Vs State of Punjab. Constitution of India – Articles 166(3), 154(1), 53(1)- It is clear from Art. 74(1) that it is the function of the Council of Ministers is to advise the President over the whole of the Central field. Nothing is left to his discretion or excepted from that field by this article. By way of contract see Article 163 which is the corresponding provision for Governors and which expressly excepts certain matters in which the Governor is, by or under the constitution, required to act in his discretion. There is no such exception in the case of the President. AIR 1974 SC 2192: (1974)2 SCC 831: 1975 (1) SCR 814. Comments
S.B. Noronah Vs Prem Kumari Khanna. Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 21- The sanction granted under section 21, if it has been procured by fraud and collusion cannot withstand invalidity because, otherwise, high public policy will be given as a hostage to successful collusion. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked to render valid a proceeding that the legislature has. on grounds of public policy subjected to mandatory conditions ·which are shown to be absent. 1980 (1)SCR 281
Sawan Ram Aggarwal vs Narish Chandra Jain. Constitution of India – Art. 133 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Order XXI Rule 3 – Settlement at the appellate stage in Supreme Court permissible. AIR 1980 SC 2137
S. Sharma and others Vs. Union of India and others. Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 –The court had the jurisdiction. to extend the time for deposit or payment of monthly rent falling due after the filing of the suit. Section 12(3) entitles a tenant to claim protection against eviction on the ground specified in section 12(1)(a) if he: makes payment or deposit as required by section 13. 1980 (2) SCR 334.
S.T.O. Vs. Dwarika Prasad. Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948-Sec. 8(9), S(IA)- The said sub-section provides that notwithstanding any judgment, decree etc. where any notice of assessment and demand in respect of any tax or other dues is served upon a dealer by an Assessing Authority and where as a result of appeal or revision filed by the assessee the amount of tax is reduced it shall not be necessary for the Assessing Authority to serve upon the dealer a fresh notice. 1977 (2) SCR 133
Sadhu Roy Vs State of West Bengal. Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. Sec. 3 – Preventive detention after discharge by the Criminal Court for offences which are grounds for detention. The discharge or acquittal by a criminal court is not necessarily a bar to preventive detention on the same facts for ‘security’ purposes. But if such discharge or acquittal proceeds on the footing that the charge is baseless or false, preventive detention on the same condemned facts may be vulnerable on the ground that the power of detention has been exercised in a mala fide or colourable manner. Merely to allege that witnesses were panicked away from testifying to truth cannot be swallowed gullibly when the witnesses are members of the Railway Protection Force and the offences against public property were of a grave character. AIR 1975 SC 919:1975 SCR (3) 291
Sanjay Gandhi Vs Union of India and Others. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Where the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Committing Magistrate has no power to discharge the accused. Nor has he power to take oral evidence save where a specific provision like S. 306 enjoins. Hence cross-examination by the accused is bound to the Magistrate save in the case of approvers. No Examination-in-Chief, no cross-examination. 1978 (2) SCR 861
Sant Ram Vs. Rajinder Lal. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Sec. 13(2) (ii) (b), as applied to Himachal Pradesh- Meaning of the word “used the building” – In the instant case, it is impossible to hold that if a tenant who takes out petty premises for carrying on a small trade also stays in the rear portion, cooks and eats, he so disastrously perverts the purpose of the lease. A different ‘purpose’ in the context is not minor variations but majuscule in the mode of enjoyment. This is not a case of a man switching over to a canteen business or closing down the cobbler shop and converting the place into residential accommodation. On the other hand, the common case is that the cobbler continued to be a cobbler and stayed in the shop at night on days when he was running his shop but left for his home on shop holidays. A sense of proportion in social assessment is of the judicial essence. 1979 (1) SCR 900
Santhosh Mehta Vs. Om Prakash. Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Sections 15(7) – First of all, there must be a failure to pay rent which, in the context, indicates willful failure, deliberate default or volitional non-performance. Secondly, the Section provides no automatic weapon but prescribes wise discretion, inscribes no mechanical consequences but invests the power to overcome intransigence. Thus, if a tenant fails or refuses to pay or deposit rent and the court discerns a mood of defiance or gross neglect, the tenant may forfeit his right to be heard in defence.1980 (3) SCR 325
Santosh Gupta vs State of Patiala. Industrial Disputes Act, 1941-Section 2 (00)- Industrial Disputes Act, 1941-Section 2 (00)- “Retrenchment “- The discharge of the workman on the ground that she did not pass the test which would have enabled him to be confirmed was “retrenchment” within the meaning of section 2(00) and, therefore, the requirements of section 25F had to be complied with. 1980 (3) SCR 884
Saraswati Devi and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. Motor Vehicles Act, 1959, Secs 68C and 68D -Section 68D gives the right to certain persons, associations and authorities to file objections to a scheme published under section 68C within the specified period of thirty days of its publication and also lays down the procedure for the hearing and disposal of such objections by the State Government. The procedure provided in section 68D is designed to (a) enable parties affected by the scheme to point out flaws therein; (b) enable the State Government to find out which flaws, if any, the scheme suffers from, and (c) enable the State Government either to remedy the flaws by a suitable modification of the scheme or to rescind the scheme altogether. 1981 (1) SCR 1005.
Sasanka Sekhar Maity and Others Etc Vs Union of India and Others. West Bengal Land &forms Act, 1955 – Chapter -11B- Retrospective effect – Constitution of India – Art. 31B – The fixation of a back date is a usual legislative device to prevent avoidance of change brought about by law. The date mentioned in s. 14 does bear a reasonable nexus with the object or purpose of the legislation. 1971 1980 (3) SCR 1209
Sasthi Keot Vs State of West Bengal. Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. Sec. 3(3). The grounds “desperate habits” and “dangerous character” cannot be regarded as anything but vague grounds. Apart from the vice of vagueness, every desperate or dangerous man cannot be run down under Sec. 3 of the Act. AIR 1974 SC 525:1974 SCR (3) 313
Satto and Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh Children Act 1952. -The offenders being children the dilemmatic issue is to fix the sentencing guidelines for juvenile delinquents. Directed to be released on probation of good conduct and committed to the care of their respective parents and if no surviving parents, then their guardian, executing a bond each without sureties to be responsible for the good behaviour of the youthful offender for a period of two years from the date of release and for the observance of a condition namely that the child shall he put to school or continue its studies if it is already at school and attend any recreational or meditational centre, if any, of the parents’ choice regularly.1979 (3) SCR 768
Savanth (K) Vs. Mysore Road Transport. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- The words “in other cases” occurring in the residuary part of sub-clause (c) of clause 4, make it abundantly clear that it is only where a case does not fall within the purview of the first part of sub-clause (c) of clause 4 that it would be governed by the second part of the sub-clause. AIR 1978 SC 1133: 1978 SCR (3) 398: 1978 SCC (2) 378
SBT Vs Gopalakrishna Panicker. Kerala HC- Agricultural Debt Relief Act, 1958 – Sec. 2 (a) – Meaning of “agricultural land – Nonagricultural land can be put to agricultural use a kitchen garden would be an example. And vice versa, for example, the recovery of clay from paddy land. It is its essential character, not a mere accidental use, that determines whether the land is agricultural land or not. It must, we think be obvious that land in the very heart of a town which (as the respondent’s own evidence shows would sell at Rs. 700/- a cent must essentially be a building site and what we have called its accidental use to grow vegetables cannot make it agricultural land.1969 KLT 149.
Seth Bevi Vs. Smt.Kumla Kumari. Indian Succession Act, 1975, S. 63(c)- The mere description of a signatory to a testamentary document as an attesting witness cannot take the place of evidence showing the due execution of the document. An attesting witness is one who signs the document in the presence of the executant after seeing the execution of the. document or after receiving a personal acknowledgement from the executant as regards the execution of the document. 1977 (1) SCR 578
Seth Nand Lal and Another Vs State of Haryana. Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – Sec. 8(3) . The amendments effected in the Principal Act by Amending Act 17 of 1976 will receive the protective umbrella of Art. 31B but not the amendments effected by Acts Nos. 40 & 47 of 1976, 14 of 1977 and 18 of 1978. Section 8 (3) of the Act does not violate the second proviso of s. 31A. 1980 (3) SCR 1181
Shahulameedu v. Subaida Beevi. Kerala HC – Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – Sec. 488 – Even if an action in a civil court by a Muslim wife, who declines to stay with her husband who has married another, may fail, the Criminal Court is bound to order maintenance in her favour. But the Civil Court cannot nullify the right of a Muslim woman ensured by the Criminal Procedure Code, provided the remedy is sought through those summary proceedings. The Criminal Court is bound to respect a decree of the Civil Court in regard to divorce or the quantum of maintenance; but merely because the Civil Court will not decree maintenance if the wife refuses to reside with her husband who has other wives, the Criminal Court cannot stay its hands in the face of the mandate of S.488(3) of the Code. Irrespective of the decree declining maintenance or declaring that she is not entitled thereto for the reason that she refuses to live with her polygamous husband the Criminal Court can and must order maintenance.1969 KLT 1075.
Shaik Hanif, Gudma Majhi and Kamal Saha Vs. State of West Bengal. Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.- If for the sufficient reason shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the affidavit of the person who passed the detention order could not be furnished, the counter-affidavit should be sworn by some responsible officer who personally dealt with the case in the Govt. Secretariat. AIR 1974 4SC 679: 1974 SCR (3) 258
Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Kaushalya Sawhney. Hindu Succession Act 1956 -A.t the Court’s suggestion the parties came to a compromise assisted by counsel on both sides. The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or union.1979 (3) SCR 639
Sham Lal Etc Vs Union of India and Others. Punjab Excise Act 1914—Section 59(f)(v). The desirability of neighbouring States to follow uniform policy in regard to prohibition. As Haryana and Punjab are neighbouring States, identical days of teetotalism have to be declared in both States failing which the exercise of prohibition will prove futile, at least in the border districts. If the days are different in the two States a massive trek -0f the drinking population from the border districts of one State to the other would ensue, thereby defeating the statutory purpose 1979 (1) SCR 159
Shambhu Nath Palit Vs. Corporation of Calcutta. Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, S. 202 – S. 202 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 is more or less a self-contained code with the result that what is leviable under that provision cannot be prejudiced by the existence of any other provision. The Thika Tenancy Act does not come in the way of the petitioner in recovering what is permissible u/s 202 of the Municipal Act. 1978 (2) SC 606
Shambu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank of Baroda. Industrial Disputes Act 1947-Sec. 2(k)- Section 2(k) of the Act defines industrial dispute which requires that there should be a dispute connected with the employment or non-employment or terms of employment inter alia between the employers and workmen. The Act nowhere contemplates that the dispute would come into existence in any particular specific or prescribed manner. 1978 (2) SCR 793
Shankar Chakravarthy Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Sec.33(2)(b)- It is both the right and obligation of the employer if it so chooses to adduce additional evidence to substantiate the chances of misconduct. It is for the employer to avail of such opportunity by a specific pleading or by a specific request. If such an opportunity is sought in the course of the proceeding, the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, should grant the opportunity to lead additional evidence to substantiate the charges.1979 (3) SCR 1165
Sharif Ahmed Vs. State of U.P. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act – Sec. 7 – Absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence. Non-mention in the Public Analyst’s report that the “colour which was mixed with powdered Chillies” was injurious to human life does not amount to the adulterant being non-injurious. When the High Court under this misconception has already reduced the sentence, this Court cannot under Art. 136 of the Constitution be pressurized further to follow the wrong path. 1980 (1) SCR 312
Shaw Wallace and Company Limited Vs Workmen. Constitution of India – Art. 136 – The special jurisdiction can be invoked ordinarily only where there is manifest injustice, a fundamental flaw in law or perverse findings of facts. Niceties of law cannot extricate the appellant from an obligation that flows directly from his act. AIR 1978 SC 977: (1978) 2 SCC 45.
Sher Mohammad @ Seru Vs State of West Bengal. Maintenance of Internal Security Act (26 of 1971), Sec. 3(4)- The State Government may directly issue an order of detention or, if it is done by a lesser authority, approve of such detention order as provided. Section 3(4) obligates the State Government to communicate, within 7 days of the order of detention it makes or approves, that fact to the Central Government, together with the grounds and other relevant particulars. The procedural mandate is inviolable except in peril of the order being avoided. AIR 1975 SC 2049: 1975 SCR (3) 154
Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Vs. The Collector. Bombay Sugarcane Cess Act, 1948, Ss, 4, 7 and Sec. 8 & Sugarcane Cess (Validation) Act 1961, Ss. 2(li) and 3(1)(c)- It cannot be said that there is a lack of authority in Parliament to pass the Central Act incorporating into it provisions of the State Act. Entry 97 in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, provides full legislative competence to Parliament in relation to the Central Act inasmuch as it vests’ all residuary powers of legislation in Parliament. 1980 (1) SCR 982
Shihabuddin Imbichi Koya Thangal Vs Ahammed Koya. Kerala HC – Muslim Law -Indian Penal Code – Bigamy – Khazi is accused of abetting the second marriage of a Muslim woman while her first marriage was subsisting. Ahmadiya sect is of Islam and not alien. The Ahamadiyaa are only a reformed sect of Mohammedans. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the dissolution of marriage as a by-product of apostasy Minor cults in every religion cannot be equated with major desertion of faith even if it may produce quakes in a section of the community. AIR 1971 Ker 206
Santha vs Cherukutty. Kerala HC – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Sec.8 – Mother acting as natural guardian without the sanction of the Court is voidable at the instance of the minor. No necessity to file a separate suit. Decree can be executed. AIR 1972 Kerala 71: 1972 KLT 1051.
Shikhir Chand Jain v. Digambar Jain Prabandhkarini Sabha . Constitution of India — Art.136 — Special Leave Appeal — Petition for recording compromise filed in appeal before Supreme Court — Terms of compromise reasonable and promoted best interest of parties — Direct that in substitution of the decree under appeal, a decree in terms of the compromise will be made. AIR 1975 SC 1407 : 1975 (3) SCC 866
Shiv Chand Vs Ujagar Singh and Another. Representation of the People Act, 1951- Sec. 86(4) – When the text is plain, in the absence of compelling reasons, there is no justification for truncating its sense. Section 82(b) requires the presence of every candidate against whom a corrupt practice has been alleged. What is imperative is the presence as a respondent of such a candidate not how or at whose instance he has been joined as a respondent 1979 (1) SCR 520
Shiv Charan Singh Vs. Maharat Kumar. Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sec.77 – Election expenses-Even if the account of election expenses was not maintained in the prescribed manner, that fact would not constitute: a corrupt practice. 1976 (1) SCR 416
Shiv Mohan Singh Vs State (Delhi Administration). Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 235(2)- Review by the Supreme Court – Recognised grounds such as manifest injustice induced by obvious’ curial error or oversight or new and important matter not reasonably within the ken or reach of the party seeking review on the prior occasion, may warrant interference to further justice. 1977 (3)SCR 172
Shiv Shanker dal Mills Etc. Vs. State of Haryana and others. Constitution of India 1950, Art.226. 3. Article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy which is essentially discretionary, although founded on the legal injury. It is perfectly open for the court exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates in equity projects. 1980 (1) SCR 1170
Shri H.D. Vasishtha Vs Messrs Glaxo Laboratories (I) Private Limited. Constitution of India – Art. 136 – High Court has dismissed the suit of a workman who was dismissed by his employer, the respondent. A suggestion from the Court, counsel for the respondent has agreed that his client would make an ex gratia payment of Rs. 5,000/- having regard to the overall circumstances of the case. AIR 1979 SC 134 : (1978) 1 SCC 170
Shri Ramakrishna Hegde Vs Election Commission of India and Another. Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, paragraphs 3, 6, 7, 8 and 18 of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 196B. Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to allot a symbol to the petitioner’s party on application forthwith. The battle for the ballot is won, if we may venture an obiter, not by the symbolic struggle for symbols but by the plurality of little Indians Making their little marks in the little booths for those who serve and deserve. (1980) 3 SCC 286,
Shrikrishnadas Tikara Vs State Government of Madhya Pradesh and Others. Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 –Rules – Rule 27(5)- Lease conditions of the contract had been broken and the obligations under the rules had been violated. The only plea is for condonation. The fact that in the second notice by the Collector, a personal hearing was offered, does not mean that the failure personally to hear the petitioner was a contravention of the canon of natural justice in the first case. It is well-established that the principles of natural justice cannot be prettified or fitted into rigid moulds. They are flexible and turn on the facts and circumstances of each case. AIR 1977 SC 1691 :(1977) 2 SCC 741
Shripad Gajanan Suthankar Vs Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law a widow’s adoption cannot be stultified by an anterior partition of the joint family and the adopted son can claim a share as if he were begotten and alive when the adoptive father breathed his last. AIR 1974 SC 878: 1974 SCR (3) 474
Shukla Manseta Industries Private Limited Vs Workmen Employed Under 17. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 19(2)- There is no legal bar to give advance intimation about the intention to terminate the settlement on the expiry of the agreed period and to start negotiation for a more favourable settlement immediately thereafter. The only condition to be fulfilled by such notice is that the period of two months from the date of notice must end on the expiry of the settlement and not before it. 1978 (1) SCR 249
Sita Ram and Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XXL, Rule 15(J)(c)- Article 134(1) (c) spells a measure of seriousness because the High Court which has heard the case certifies that it involves questions of such moment that the Supreme Court itself must resolve them. To dispose of such a matter by a preliminary hearing is to cast a reflection on the High Court’s capacity to understand the seriousness of a certification. 1979 (2) SCR 1085
Sivaprasad vs State of Kerala. Kerala HC – Indian Penal Code – Sec. 326- If a man comes armed with a knife, and not with a dagger or an axe or other deadlier weapon, there is no intention to murder on the part of the assailant. A knife is a lethal weapon and, in this case, the wound had proved nearly fatal. The circumstance that the companion did not carry a weapon is no reason to infer that the culprit, who buried his knife deep in the bosom of his cousin, did not possess the mens rea for murder. The offence, in this case, is serious as it involves knifing by a person in a public place. Violence is on the increase in the country a tragic commentary on the national trend of which we must take due note, particularly during the Gandhi Centenary year. 1969 KLT 862.
Smt. Mohini Vs Virender Kumar. Guardians and Wards Act – The guardianship and custody of a child 11 years old. Although the guardianship and custody of the minor will be with the mother it is fair that the father has occasion to meet his only child. AIR 1977 SC 1359, (1977) 3 SCC 513
Som Nath Vs. State of Haryana. Indian Evidence Act Section 32-Dying Declaration-The dying declarations under Section 32 of the Evidence Act are the groaning utterances of a dying woman in the grip of dreadful agony which cannot be judged by the standards of the fullness of particulars which witnesses may give in other situations. To discredit such dying declarations for shortfalls here and there or even in many places is unrealistic, unnatural and unconscionable if basically there is credibility. 1980 (3) SCR 280
Som Prakash Rekhi Vs. Union of India and another. Constitution of India- Art 12 – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd is “state” within the meaning of other authorities – Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 – The company was statutorily taken over by the force of the Act. Thereafter the Central Government took steps to vest the undertaking in the second respondent, Bharat Petroleum, which then became the statutory successor of the petitioner’s employer. His pensionary rights such as he had, therefore, became claimable from the second respondent. It is not possible to deduct from the full pension any sum based upon regulation 16 read with regulation 13. Sec. 12 and 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 has an overriding effect. AIR 1981 SC 212: 1981 (2) SCR 111.
Sow Chandra Kanta and Another Vs Sheik Habib. Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 137 and Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XL–Review of an order refusing special leave- A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. Even if the order refusing special leave was capable of a different course, a review of the earlier order is not permissible because such an order has the normal feature of finality. It is neither fair to the Court which decided nor to awareness of the precious public time lost what with a huge back-log of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for counsel ‘to issue easy certificates for the entertainment of review and fight over again the same battle which has been fought and lost. AIR 1975 SC 1500: 1975 SCC (4) 457: 1975 (3) SCR 933
Sreedhara Kurup Vs Mickel. Kerala HC – Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Order IX Rule 9 -Restoration of the suit on condition of payment of costs -Touch stone of case under O.9, R.9 is the presence of “sufficient cause” for non-appearance when is called on hearing – 1968 KLT 599.
Sreedharan Nair Vs Sreedharan. Payment of Wages Act, 1936 -Sec. 2 (vi) – Toddy Tappers – It takes in all remuneration, express or implied, payable under the terms of employment even though it may not be part of the terms of the contract of employment at the inception, Remuneration is a return for services rendered and, if at any time during the year of employment, the bonus is made payable in return for the service rendered, at that moment such bonus becomes wages due to the employee and recoverable under the Payment of Wages Act. 1968 KLT 701.
Sreethara Kamath Vs Jawala Prasad Gupta. Kerala HC – Indian Penal Code – Sec.415 -Cheating – Postdated cheque dishonouring- If a person gives a cheque which is dishonoured and from the circumstances, it could be presumed that he must have been aware and even intended that the cheque would be and should be dishonoured, he would prima facie be guilty under S.420 IPC. Of course, the position would be otherwise if he had no knowledge then that he had no sufficient money in the bank when issuing the cheque. A postdated cheque is a representation of a future event, the holding out of hope rather than the representation of a present fact and if such a cheque were to be dishonoured, it amounts to a broken promise but not to a criminal offence, although it may amount to discreditable conduct in business circles. 1970 KLT 45.
Srinivasa Enterprises and others Vs. Union of India and others. Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 – Art. 32 – There is a sufficient justification for undertaking legislation restricting the freedom to fleece through prize chits. The legislation cannot be struck down on the score of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In matters of economics, sociology and other specialized subjects, courts should not embark upon views of half-lit infallibility and reject what economists or social scientists have, after detailed studies, commanded as the correct course of action. The final word is with the Court in constitutional matters but judges hesitate to ‘rush in’ where even specialists ‘fear to tread’. If experts fall out, the court, perforce, must guide itself and pronounce upon the matter from the constitutional angle, since the final verdict, where constitutional contraventions are complained of, belongs to the judicial arm. 1981 (1) SCR 801.
Srirangan Vs State of Tamil Nadu. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sentencing jurisprudence – In this agonizingly sensitive area of sentencing, especially in the choice between life term and the death penalty, a wide spectrum of circumstances attract judicial attention since they are all inarticulately implied in the penological part of s. 302, I.P.C., read with Secs. 254(3) Cr. P.C., 1973. The plurality of factors bearing on the crime and the doer of the crime must carefully enter the judicial verdict. The winds of penological reform notwithstanding the prescription in s. 302 binds and the death penalty is still permissible in the punitive pharmacopoeia of India. 1978 (2) SCR 270
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Tikam Das. Foreign Liquor Rules framed under the Excise Act. 1915 Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915. This provision regarding subordinate legislation does contemplate not merely the power to make rules but to bring them into force from any previous date. Therefore, antedating the effect of the amendment of Rule IV is not obnoxious to the scheme nor ultra vires Section 62. Enhancement of duty but is made applicable to the reduction of duty when a refund of duty shall be made by the State. Rule IV virtually extends this kind of dealing with the balance of stocks when the subject matter is license fee as distinguished from duty. AIR. 1975 SC 1429: (1975) 2 SCC 100: 1975 Supp SCR 234
State Bank of India Vs N. Sundaramoney. Constitution of India-Art. 133(l) – The grant of a Constitutional passport to the Supreme Court by the High Court is not a matter of easy insouciance but an anxious advertence to the dual vital requirements built into Art. 133(1) by specific amendment substantial question of law of general importance is a sine quo non to certify fitness for hearing by the apex court.1976 (3) SCR 160
State of Assam and Another Vs J.N. Roy Biswas. Service -Government servant misappropriated government money – Exculpated after enquiry- But once a disciplinary case has closed and the official re-instated the government cannot restart the exercise in the absence of specific power to review or revise vested by rules in some authority. The basics of the rule of law cannot be breached without a legal provision or other vitiating factor invalidating earlier enquiry. 1970 (2) SCR 128
State of Bihar and Another Vs Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee and Others. Indian Medical Council Act, 1956- Sec. 2 – Meaning of ‘teaching experience’ – It is difficult to accept the contention that ‘assisting’ or ‘participating’ is different from ‘actual teaching’ it is not for, the Court to finally pronounce on it, the latter being essentially a technical one. These matters have to be decided by the appointing authority. AIR 1975 SC 192: 1975 SCR (2) 894
State of Gujarat and Another Vs Patel Chaturbhai Narsibhai. Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Land Acquisition (Gujarat Unification and Amendment) Act, 1963, Sections 39, 40 and 41 and Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, Rule 4- The owners of the land are, therefore, entitled to be heard at such an enquiry for the purpose of proving or disproving the reasonable efforts of the company to get such land by negotiation. AIR 1975 SC 629: 1975 SCR (3) 284
State of Gujarat Vs. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1954 -The Legislature did not intend nor did it provide for the payment of any solatium on the amount of compensation awardable to the jagirdars. 1976 (3) SCR 565
State of Gujarat Vs. Maharaj Shri.Amarshinji Himatsinhj. Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act 1953 – Having regard to the object and scheme of the Act as disclosed by the Preamble and material provisions and the definition of ‘Proprietary Jagir’ in Sec. 2(xviii) it is clear that an enquiry into the nature of the jagir under Sec.2(4)(i) is for the purpose of determining the quantum of compensation payable to a jagirdar and the determination of the question whether a jagir is proprietary or non-proprietary, does not necessarily involve the determination of the question whether the jagirdar had any rights to mines and mineral products on the appointed date. AIR 1978 SC 1167: 1978 SCR (3) 675: 1978 SCC (2) 619.
State of Haryana Vs. N.C.Tandon. Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 6( 1) (2 )- Unless a different intention appears the power to appoint to an office includes the power to dismiss or remove from that office as provided in Sec. 16 of the General Clauses Act. 1977 (3) SCR 593
State of Haryana Vs. Darshana Devi. Civil Procedure Code,1908- O. XXXIII – Motor Accident Claims – The State should frame appropriate rules to exempt from levy of court fees, and cases of claims of compensation where automobile accidents are the cause. Two principles are involved. Firstly, access to court, is an integral part of social justice, and the State has no rational litigation policy if it forgets this fundamental, and secondly, it is the State’s duty under Art. 41 of the Constitution to render assistance, without litigation, in cases of disablement and undeserved want. 1979 (3) SCR 184
State of Haryana Vs Jiwan Singh. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953-Proviso (ii) (a) to Section 2(3) – The contention that the words “as the case may be” in proviso (ii)(a) to section 2(3), gives a discretion to the authorities to determine the permissible area either in standard or in ordinary acres is not correct. 1976 (2) SCR 210.
State of Haryana and Another Vs Rattan Singh. Industrial Disputes Act -Domestic Enquiry – It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry, the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. – AIR 1977 SC 1512: (1977) 2 SCC 491.
State of Haryana Etc Vs Sampuran Singh Etc. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953-Section 10A and I9B- Interpretation of agrarian laws Validity of the Transfers reducing surplus land. Courts should favour an interpretation that promotes the general purpose of an Act rather than one that does not. The processual facility cannot be converted into an opportunity to pervert and thwart the substantive object of the law. After all, courts faced with special case situations, have creatively to interpret legislation. Legislation which has provided for ignoring decree diminishing surplus lands and has otherwise prevented the escape of excess area by voluntary transfers, cannot conceivably intend to permit inherited excesses. AIR 1975 SC 1952: 1976 (1) SCR 626
Stella Blaizue Pereira Vs Adima Abdul Lathef. Civil Procedure Code – Order XXII Rule 3- All legal heirs not impleaded within time for impleading – No illegality – There cannot be an abatement once an application has been filed under Order XXII Rule 3 C. P. C. within the time limit. Since such an application has been filed in this case all that remained to be done was for the Court to take steps to ascertain whether the persons mentioned as legal representatives before it was really so. It could not have dismissed the application for impleading the legal representatives without discharging this duty. AIR 1969 Ker 286
State of J & K. Vs. Raj Dulari Razpan. Jammu and Kashmir Constitution-Section 133 (2) (b). It is not provided by s. 133 of the Constitution that all the members of the Commission should have interviewed all or any of the candidates, or that it was not permissible for the Commission to entrust the selection to a committee consisting of only one of its members, so long as the Commission reserved to itself the right to approve or disapprove the committee’s report and actually discharged that constitutional responsibility. 1979 (2) SCR 870
State of Karnataka and Another Vs Shri Ranganatha Reddy and Another. Constitution of India -Article-31(2)- The acquisition for the purpose of the Road Transport Corporation is in the public interest. Section 4 (3) of the Karnataka contract carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, is worded with the object of putting the challenge to the factum of a public purpose beyond the pale of attack. The use of the words “deemed” does not necessarily imply an introduction of legal fiction, but it has to be read and understood in the context of the whole statute. 1978 (1) SCR 641
State of Kerala and Another Vs Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Wvg.) Company Limited Etc. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 31A-The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971- The Act was protected by Article 31A (1) of the Constitution – The forest lands in the State of Kerala have attained a peculiar character owing to their geography and climate and the evidence available shows that vast areas of these forests are still capable of supporting a large agricultural population. They are agricultural lands in the sense that they can be prudently and profitably exploited for nature stated in the Preamble that the private merely wanted to convey that they are prudently and profitably exploited. AIR 1973 SC 2734: 1974 SCR (1) 671
State of Kerala Vs M. K. Krishnan Nair and Others. Kerala Judicial Service Rules. 1966. Bifurcation of State Judicial Service into two wings, that is, Civil and Criminal – Power of the State Government – It is open to the State Government to constitute as many cadres in any particular service as it may choose according to administrative convenience and expediency and, therefore, if the State Government thought of bifurcating its Judicial Service into two wings-civil and criminal-and of framing statutory rules governing the recruitment and conditions of service of the incumbents of each wing, no fault could be found with that decision. Where two constructions are possible one which leads to unconstitutionality must be avoided and the other which tends to make provision constitutional should be adopted, even if straining of language is necessary. AIR 1978 SC 747: 1978 (2) SCR 864
State of Kerala Vs N. M. Thomas & Others. Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules. 1958. Rule 13AA- Constitution of India – Art. 14 and 16 – To relax on basic qualifications is to compromise with minimum administrative efficiency; to relent, for an on additional test qualifications as to take a calculated but controlled risk, assured of a basic standard performance to encourage the possession of higher exce1Ience is to upgrade the efficiency status of the public servant and eventually, of the department. This is the sense and essence of the situation arising in the present case, viewed from the angle of administrative requirements or fair ‘employment criteria. Efficiency means, in terms of good government, not marks in examinations only, but responsible and responsive service to the people. The danger is that this solution is calculatedly hidden from view by the higher “backward” groups with a vested interest in the plums of backwardism!. It is the enemy within-not the detractors without-that has become the main problem with quotas for the OBC’s. AIR 1976 SC 490 : 1976 (1) SCR 906
State of Kerala Vs. T.N.Peter. Cochin Town Planning Act-S.34(1)- The only discriminatory factor between section 34 of the Act and section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act vis-a-vis quantification of compensation is the non-payment of solatium in the former case because of the provisions of section 34(1) and that section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act shall have no application.1980 (3) SCR 290
State of Kerala Vs. T.P. Roshna. Constitution of India – Art. 14 – 1he principle of reservation with weightage for the geographical area of the Malabar District is approved. Current conditions warrant the classification of the .student community on the Zonal basis-not as a legitimation of endless perpetuation but as a transient panacea for a geo-human handicap which the State must actively strive to undo. 1979 (2) SCR 974
State of Kerala vs. Krishna Kurup. Limitation Act, 1963 – Sec. 14 – Appeal instituted before the wrong court. Returning of pleading or memo of appeal for presentation in the proper court – Extra period can be granted for presenting in the proper court. The order was passed in the presence of both parties and it may not be a case of bona fides or manifest absence of due care if either party chooses to act in this void direction. The act of the Court should not harm parties. AIR 1971 Kerala 211.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Etc Vs Ram Ragubir Prasad Agarwal. Madhya Pradesh Prathmik Middle School Tatha Madhyamik Shiksha (Pathya Pusthakon Sambandhi Vyavrutha) Adhinlyam, 1973. The syllabus for ‘Rapid Reading’, suffers invalidation under Sec. 3 because it has not been published. The publication must precede the
prescription of textbooks under s. 4 or their preparation under Sec.5 The laying down of the syllabus is a condition precedent to the prescription of textbooks because the courses of instruction follow upon and should be in conformity with the syllabus and textbooks are in the implementation of the courses of instruction. 1979 (3) SCR 41.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Orient Paper Mills Limited. Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958- Lease of forest area – Timber extracted is liable to tax – Going by the definition of ‘sale of goods’ under Sec.2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act and Sec. 2(g) of the Sales Tax Act standing timber is ‘movable property’ if under tile contract it is to be severed. But the severance must take place when the timber still vests in the contracting party. In the instant case, there was the sale of bamboo and salai wood under the contract and, in the contemplation of the parties, they were to be cut and severed pursuant to the contract itself.1977 (2) SCR 149.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Man Singh Surat. West Khandesh Mehwassl Estate (Proprietary Rights Abolition etc.) Regulation, 1951 included in the Ninth Schedule as Item 155-Constitutional validity is no longer open on the ground of violation of Art 19 (1)(f), when once it is included in the protective umbrella of the 11th Schedule. The Court directed the Central Government to sympathetically consider, if lands forming part of his Estate have been included in his assessment of wealth tax and if the income therefrom has been assessed to Income-tax, whether any such tax recovered from him for the period from and after the date of coming into force of the ·Regulation may in all fairness be refunded to him. 1978 (2)SCR 856
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shri. Chander Kant. Code of Civil Procedure,1908- Sec. 80- Sec. 80 C.P.C. was not applicable to suits filed under section 8 of the (M.P.) Public Trusts Act, 1951. Suit against the order of the Registrar of Public Trust, Amraoti, seeking a declaration that a particular Trust is a public trust. Section 8 of the Act indicates that the suit contemplated there is against the public officer in his official capacity within the meaning of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The words “Act purporting to be done in official capacity” apply to non-feasance as well as to misfeasance. No distinction can be made. between acts done illegally and in bad faith and acts did bonafide in an official capacity. 1977 (1) SCR 993
State of Mysore and Others Vs Hutchappa and Another. Mysore Land Acquisition Act – Sec. 3 ( c) – Deputy Commissioner The Assistant Commissioner does not require such separate empowerment or authorization. AIR 1977 SC 2030, (1977) 2 SCC 517
State of Mysore and Others Vs M. K. Gadgoli and Others. Constitution of India – Art. 311 – A person officiating in a post has no right to hold it for all times. Indeed, such a person is given a higher officiating post to test his suitability to be made permanent later and holds it on the implied term that he would have to be reverted if he was found unsuitable. The reversion in such a case on the ground of unsuitability is an action in accordance with the terms on which the officiating post was being held and is not a reduction in rank by way of punishment. AIR 1977 SC 1617 :(1977) 1 SCC 469
State of Mysore Vs R.V. Bidap. Constitution of India, 1950. Arts. 316, 317 and 319- Logically and legally there is automatic expiry of office of the member qua ordinary member on his assumption of office qua Chairman. When a member holding office of a member takes no the office of Chairman he by necessary implication and co-instance, relinquishes or ceases to hold his office as a member and the requirement. AIR 1973 SC 2555:1974 SCR (1) 589: 1974 SCC (3) 357
State of Mysore Vs West Coast Papers Mills Limited and Another. Mysore Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1959- Where some energy is not consumed but lost before it reaches the point of consumption, the question of levy of tax on consumption, of such energy would not in the very nature of things arise. AIR 1975 SC 5: 1975 SCR (2) 127
State of Mysore Vs C. R. Seshadri and Others. Constitution of India – Art.226 – Writ jurisdiction – The power to promote an officer belongs to the executive and the judicial power may control or review government action but cannot extend to acting as if it were the Executive. The Proper direction, therefore, can only be that the government should reconsider the case of the respondent afresh for purposes of notional promotion. If the service rule entitles him to promotion on the ground of seniority alone, Government should, except for the strongest reason, grant the benefit of promotion with effect from the date when his junior became Deputy Secretary especially, because, nothing had been suggested against the respondent in his career to disentitle him to promotion. AIR 1974 SC 460: 1974 SCR (3) 87
State of Punjab Vs New Rajasthan Mineral Syndicate. Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948- The directions given by the Corporation to the appellant to place the goods on board the ship is pursuant to the contract of sale between the appellant and the Corporation. These directions are not in the course of export, because the export sale is an independent one between the Corporation and the foreign buyer. The taking of the goods from the appellant’s place to the ship is completely separate from the transit pursuant to the export sale. AIR 1975 SC 1652: (1975) 4 SCC 555.
State of Punjab (Now Haryana) and Others Vs Amar Singh and Another. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (10 of 1953) Ss.10A and 18 – Tenants and merely because they were related to the landowner they could not be denied the rights and privileges under the Act. The allegations in the purchase application about the applicants’ being in continuous occupation of the lands comprised in their tenancy for the requisite period, coupled with admission by the landowner in the compromise, furnished sufficient material on the basis of which the authority could have been satisfied with the existence of all the facts essential for the exercise of his jurisdiction under Sec. 18. AIR 1974 SC 994: (1974) 2 SCC 70 : 1974 (3) SCR 152.
State of Punjab Vs M/s. Geeta Iron and Brass Works Limited. Arbitration Act, 1940 – Arbitration Act 1940-Section 34- Where parties have, by contract, agreed to refer their disputes to arbitration, the courts should as far as possible proceed to give an opportunity for resolution of disputes by arbitration rather than by judicial adjudication. Even so, there is a residual discretion vested in the court to stay or not to stay having regard to the totality of circumstances. One weighty factor obviously is to find out whether the party who invokes the arbitration clause has expressed his readiness to rely on it at the earliest stage. 1978 (1) SCR 746
State of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh. Land Acquisition Act 1894, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972-S. 1(3)(b)-Land Acquisition Act 1894 – It is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man’s property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and preemptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons. Save in real urgency where public interest does not brook even the minimum time needed to give a hearing, land acquisition authorities should not, having regard to Articles 14 and 19, burke an enquiry under S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. Legal malice is gibberish unless juristic clarity keeps it separate from the popular concept of personal vice. AIR 1980 SC 319: 1980 (1) SCR 1071.
State of Punjab Vs. Labour Court. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1973- Sec.1(3)(b)- There is no warrant for limiting the meaning of the expression “law” to a law which relates to both shops and establishments such as the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958. The expression is comprehensive in its scope and can mean a law in relation to shops as well as, separately, a law in relation to establishments or a law in relation to shops and commercial establishments and a law in relation to non-commercial establishments AIR 1979 SC 1981: 1980 (1) SCR 953
State of Punjab Vs. Shamlal Murari. Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 10-The Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. 5 Chapter 2-C-Rule 3-It is true that Rule in form, strikes a mandatory note and, in design, is intended to facilitate plurality of Judges hearing the appeal, equipped with a set of relevant papers. May be, there is force in the view, that certain basic records must be before the Court along with the appeal if the Court is to function satisfactorily in the exercise of its appellate power. In this sense, the needs of the Rule transcend the directory level and may perhaps be considered a mandatory need. 1976 (2) SCR 82
State of Rajasthan, Jaipur Vs Balchand @ Baliay. Supreme Court Rules 1966, Order XLVII, rule 6 -Granting of bail – The basic rule is bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. When considering the question of bail, the gravity of the offence involved and the heinousness of the crime which are likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice must weigh with the court. 1978 (1) SCR 535
State of Tamil Nadu Vs M. K. Kandaswami. Tamilnadu Central Sales Act, 1959, Sec 7-A(l)- Interpretation of Statutes -Provision of susceptible of two constructions. In interpreting such a provision, a construction which would defeat its purpose and, in effect, obliterate it from the statute book, should be eschewed. If more than one construction is possible that which prevails its workability and efficacy is to be preferred to the one which would render it otiose or sterile. 1976 (1) SCR 38
State of U.P. Vs. Modi Industries. U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948-S. 31- When S. 31 of the Act is valid and is retroactive and the Legislature has shown the intention of restoring the assessments and order; made before the amendment as good and valid in law as if they have been made duly that was enough to set the controversy at rest. 1977 (2) SCR 548
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Lalai Singh Yadav. Code of Criminal Procedure, S. 99-A- An order may be brief but not blank. A formal authoritative setting forth of the grounds is statutorily mandatory. Section 99-C enables the aggrieved party to apply to the High Court to set aside the prohibitory order and the Court examines the grounds of Government given in the order. The Court cannot make a roving enquiry beyond the grounds set forth in the order and if the grounds are altogether left out, the valuable right of appeal to the Court is defeated 1977 (1) SCR 616
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Bansi Dhar and Others. Trust Act, 1882 –Sec. 83 – Doctrine of Cyprus -Donation made for the construction of Hospital – Foundation stone laid – Donor died – Construction completed thereafter – A hospital for women is a charitable object and since the beneficiaries are a section of the public, it constitutes a public trust. The doctrine of cypres is applicable to both testamentary and non-testamentary gifts for public charitable purposes. The conditions having failed, the charity proved abortive, and the legal consequence is a resulting trust in favour of the door. Though s. 83 of the Trusts Act, of 1882 does not apply proprio vigore, it embodies a universal rule of equity and a good conscience and may be held to be applicable to public charitable trusts also. AIR 1974 SC 1084: 1974 SCR (2) 679.
State of West Bengal Vs Sudhir Chandra Ghose and Others. West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act 1953-Scction 2(/i)-Secs. 3, 4, 5- There is no substance in the contention of the respondent that the collective, though the uncertain body of villagers cannot be brought within the expression “or other persons”. The expression “intermediaries or persons other than intermediaries” embraces all persons, and the villagers who seek to exercise the right of grazing over the intermediaries’ lands are plainly “other person”.1977 (2) SCR 71
Statesman Limited Vs Their Workmen. Industrial Disputes Act – A bonus dispute was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, the workmen of the appellant resorted to rude tactics to press their earlier charter of demands, which took the turn of an illegal and disorderly strike. Lockout declared. Where the strike is illegal and the sequel of a lockout legal, the Court has to view the whole course of developments and not stop examining the initial legitimacy. The strike being illegal, the lockout that followed, became a legal, defensive measure. The court would interfere with the Award under challenge only if extraordinary flaws or grave injustices on our other recognised grounds are made out. AIR 1976 SC 758:1976 SCR (3) 228: 1976 SCC (2) 223.
Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited Vs Workmen. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -Sec. 4 (5) Option clause – Calculation of qualifying period . (c)- There is nothing fundamentally flawsome in the 5-year period being fixed as the qualifying service. Wages will mean and include basic wages and dearness allowance and nothing else. In the Payment of Gratuity Act also it is not basic wages but ‘gross wages inclusive of dearness allowance which had been taken as the basis. AIR 1977 SC 941: (1977)2 SCC 329: 1977 (3) SCR 91
Suba Singh Vs Mahendra Singh and Others. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953- Sec. 49 – There is no provision in the Act for’ any dispute of title which arises subsequent to confirmation of the statement under Section 23 to be decided by way of arbitration or otherwise. An application for mutation on the basis of inheritance when the cause of action arose, after the finalisation and publication of the scheme under Section 23, is not a matter in regard to which an application could be filed “under the provisions of this Act” within the meaning of Clause 2 of Section 49. AIR 1974 SC 1657 :(1974) 1 SCC 418,
Subhash Chand Jain Vs Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking. Constitution of India – Art. 14 – Two posts designated as steno-typist and junior stenographer. It is well-established law that qualifications for a particular post can be a rational differentia within the meaning of Article 16. It is equally clear that when a qualification has been prescribed for a post, that cannot be obliterated by posting those who do not have that qualification as against those who have that qualification. It is within the powers of the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking to prescribe relevant qualifications and the prescription of the stenographic ability of 100 words per minute is a relevant qualification. AIR 1981 SC 75 :(1979) 3 SCC 786
Subhash Chander Vs. State (Chandigarh Admn.) and others. Criminal Procedure Code, Secs 321, 494 – A prosecution discovered to be false and vexatious cannot be allowed to proceed. But the power must be cautiously exercised, and the statutory agency to be satisfied is the Public Prosecutor in the first instance, not the District Magistrate or other executive authority. Finally, the consent of the court is imperative.1980 (2) SCR 44
Subhash Chandra and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 51(2)- Regional Transport Authority imposing a condition that no permit shall be renewed in respect of vehicles which are 7 years old is ultra-vires Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. Mere lexical legalism cannot sterilise the sensible humanism writ large on s. 51(2) (x). If Indian life is not ultra vires Indian law every condition to save life and limb is intra vires such salvationary provision. 1980 (2) SCR 1024
Subramnya Bhatta vs Abdulla. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 40 Rule 1 (d) – Receiver allegation of mismanagement – The office of the receiver being a substitute for the owner, the Code vests in the Court the power to clothe the receiver with all or any of the powers of the owner. The receiver must keep the property committed to the Court’s charge by doing all such acts as the proprietor would, lest there should be inaction, attrition, waste and disrepair. If a receiver is sued by the owner for his legitimate acts and thus harassed, can he not look to the Court as its officer for protection even in the matter of financing his defence? The Court may, in such actions, refuse permission to sue but cannot acting under O.40 R.1(d), authorise expenditure from the estate. 1969 KLT 979: AIR 1971 Kerala 21
Sunil Batra (II) Vs. Delhi Administration. Prisons Act 1894—Sec. 30- The vires of section 30 and section 56 of the Prisons Act were upheld. The cardinal sentencing goal is correctional, changing the consciousness of the criminal to ensure social defence. Where prison treatment abandons the reformatory purpose and practices dehumanizing techniques it is wasteful, counter-productive and irrational hovering on the hostile brink of unreasonableness. Solitary confinement, even if mollified and modified marginally, is not sanctioned by Sec. 30 for prisoners ‘under sentence of death’. 1979 (1) SCR 392
Sunil Batra Etc Vs Delhi Administration and Others. Constitution of India 1950, Article 21 Prison jurisprudence – Court-appointed amicus curiae and authorised them to visit the prison, meet the prisoner, see relevant documents and interview necessary witnesses so as to enable them to inform themselves about the surrounding circumstances and the scenario of events. -1980 (2) SCR 557
Sunil Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal. All India Services Discipline and Appeal Rules 1969 – There is no substance in the contention that the 1955 rules and not the 1969 rules were followed. In the charges framed against the appellant as well as in the first show-cause notice, the reference was clearly to 1969 rules. The appellant himself mentioned in one of his letters that the charges had been framed under 1969 rules. 1980 (3) SCR 179
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs Girish Kumar Navalakha. Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14 – Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, Sec.23- When the purpose of a challenged classification is in doubt, the courts attribute to the classification the purpose thought to be most probable. Instead of asking what purpose or purposes the statute and other materials reflect, the court may ask what constitutionally permissible objective this statute and other relevant materials could plausibly be construed to reflect. The basis of classification was that in cases where there was the likelihood of getting sufficiently unimpeachable evidence as, for instance. in cases involving contravention of sections 14, 13(2), 15, 18 etc., where the Reserve Bank of India as a specialized agency comes into the picture and be in possession of relevant materials, those cases were left to be- dealt with under s. 23(IA) by criminal courts. The classification made in Sec. 23(IA) is, therefore, not discriminatory. AIR 1975 SC 1030: 1975 SCR (3) 802
Surendra Kumar Verma Vs. The Central Government. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 2(00), 25F and 25B – When an order terminating the services of a workman is struck down it is as if that order had never been passed and it must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the workman with full back wages. A workman who had actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of 12 months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months. 1981 (1) SCR 789.
Surendranath Sud (Dead) By L.Rs Vs Standard Vacuum Oil Company and Others. Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Special Leave Petition – Directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- on a fair understanding of the terms of the contract and the surrounding circumstances. AIR 1977 SC 1454 :(1977) 2 SCC 408
Suresh Chandra Vs State of Gujarat. Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Tax inspector trapped in the act of taking a bribe of Rs. 100/-. The crime is of the white-collar brand and deserves no sympathy, it is a matter for consideration of the prison authorities or others vested with the requisite power, whether the present petitioner should not be considered for parole after he has served a fair portion of his sentence. It is also open to the petitioner to move under Section 432. Criminal Procedure Code for earlier release before the full term has run out. AIR 1976 SC 2462 :(1976) 1 SCC 654
South India Corporation Pvt Ltd vs. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Order VI Rule 17 and Order XXIX Rule 1 – Amendment of pleadings should be allowed liberally since permission to amend is the rule and refusal the exception, the guiding principle being the promotion of justice. Even so, there is a limit to this liberality. Statement in the pleading he is duly authorised and able to depose on fact is sufficient. Even if he is not the Principal Officer of the Company he may still validly sign a pleading provided he is a person duly authorised to sign it or sue on behalf of the plaintiff. AIR 1970 Kerala 138.
Sushil Chowdhary and Others Vs State of Bihar. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 354(3), 360 and 365 – Sentencing Jurisprudence – Sentence for aged persons and youthful offenders- The child was aged 15 years at the time of the offence and there is no Children Act in Bihar. The court directed that he be placed either in an open prison or in a model prison or any other prison available in the State where young offenders are kept apart from adult offenders, The special direction for doing so is that adolescents should be separated from adults in prison campuses for obvious reasons. 1980 (1) SCR 187.
Sushil Kumar Sen Vs State of Bihar. Land Acquisition Act – Review – The decree that is subsequently passed on review, whether it modifies, reverses or confirms the decree originally passed, is a new decree superseding the original one. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in Judges to act ex debito justiciae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. AIR 1975 SC 1185 : 1975 SCR (3) 942
Sushila Devi Vs. Ramanandan Prasad. Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats) Act, 1951- Secs. 3, 7 13 and 16 – The application is not for an extension of time to pay the instalments but for permission to pay in a lump sum, and hence, is a fresh application. But, successive applications are not permitted under the Act, because, (i) the finality attached to the orders would become meaningless; (ii) there would be uncertainty and confusion; and (iii) that there should be finality in litigation and a person should not be vexed twice for the same cause, are well-established principles of general application. 1976 (2) SCR 845
Shyamcharan Sharma Vs. Dharamdas. Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961- Secs. 12, 13(1) and 13(6) – The court had the jurisdiction. to extend the time for deposit or payment of monthly rent falling due after the filing of the suit. 1980 (2) SCR 334
Swami Saran Saksena Vs. State of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act – Compulsory Retirement- There is no evidence to show that suddenly there was such deterioration in the quality of the appellant’s work or integrity that he deserved to be compulsorily retired. 1980 (1) SCR 923
Swaran Lata Vs. Union of India. Constitution-Art. 309 – It is not obligatory under proviso 10 to Art. 309 to make rules of recruitment before a service could be constituted or a post created or filled. The State Government has executive power in relation to all matters in respect of which the legislature of the State has the power to make laws. There was no statute or regulation having the force of law by which any qualifications were prescribed for the post. 1979 (2) SCR 953
Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Union of India – Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 – Secs. IBA (I)(b), IBAA(I)(a)- Taking over an industrial undertaking. The phrase ‘natural justice’ is not capable of a static and precise definition. It cannot be imprisoned in the straight jacket of a cast-iron formula. The rules of natural justice can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. If a statutory provision either specifically or by inevitable implication excludes the application of the rules of natural justice then the Court cannot ignore the mandate of the Legislature. 1981 (2) SCR 533.
Syed Ahmed AGA Vs. State of Mysore. Constitution-Articles 19(1) (g), 304(b) & 32 – A citizen is entitled to come to Court with the allegation that his fundamental right to carry on business or trade is affected adversely by a provision which does not legally exist The restrictions contemplated by Article 304 (b) may be of a character different from those of an individual citizen’s right to trade, but it cannot be denied that their impact on individual’s right is very often direct. It is only an additional restriction from the special point of view of Art. 304(b) which requires Presidential sanction.1975 (Supp 1) SCR 473