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
V. C. Rangadurai Vs D. Gopalan and Others. Advocates Act, 1961. Sec. 35 (3) – Punishment has a functional duality-deterrence and correction. But conventional penalties have their punitive limitations and flaws, viewed from the reformatory angle. A therapeutic touch, a correctional twist, and a locus penitentiae, may have a rehabilitative impact if only Courts may experiment unorthodoxly but within the parameters of the law. 1979 (1) SCR 1054
V. Guruviah Vs. State of T.N. Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, Schedule ll, items 7(a) and (b)- Valid – Item 7(a) relates only to intra state sales and not to inter-state sales. This is clear from the language used in the item, especially the words “purchase in the State”‘. Assuming the language is ambiguous it should be so construed as would sustain its constitutional validity. The onus of showing that there would be discrimination between raw hides and skins purchased locally and then tanned, and raw hides and skins imported and then tanned is on the appellant, and the appellant has not discharged the onus. 1977 (1) SCR 1065
V.K.Gupta Vs. Nirmala Gupta. Hindu Marriage Act 1958-S. 13 (1) (b)-Dissolution -In this case the minor frictions which got distorted into disruption being really the wear and tear of wedded fabric and there being a child whose future is to be largely moulded by the sweetness and survival of the wedlock, the Court impressed upon counsel and the parties for resolution of the conflict and restoration of the conjugal home. They responded, put in their statements and the Court directed the husband and wife to live together in terms of their statements and hopefully, never to separate until death do them part. The Court further granted three months’ time to know whether the marriage is back on its wheels to run smoothly. 1980 (1) SCR 506
Vasant Narayan Powar Vs. State of Maharashtra. Indian Evidence Act – Sec. 32 – Dying Declaration by lady burnt by her husband (accused0 – The statement by the dying tragic woman that her husband should not be beaten, even though she was dying having been burnt, cannot be converted into one exculpative of the accused. This is a sentiment too touching for tears and stems from the values of the culture of the Indian womanhood. AIR 1980 SC 1270: 1980 (2) SCR 1209
Vital Nagaraj vs. R.Dayanand Sagar. Representation of the People Act,1951. Sec. 77, 101, and 123(6) – Where the trial count has watched the delivery or testimony by the witnesses its opinion on their credibility is entitled to much credibility by the appellate court. Absent visible welding of the electoral vice established into the numerical measure of the victory, the votes at the polls alone, not the writ of the Court, can seat him in the legislature. Vatal Nagaraj Versus R. Dayanand Sagar. AIR 1975 SC 349: 1975 SCR (2) 384
Ved Prakash Vs. State of Haryana. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Sec. 360- Sentencing jurisprudence – Sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting as a hunch. The social background and the personal factors of the crime-doer are very relevant, although in practice Criminal courts have hardly paid attention to the social milieu or the personal circumstances of the offender. Even if Section 360 Criminal Procedure Codie is not attracted, it is the duty of the sentencing court to be activist enough to collect such facts as have a bearing on punishment with a rehabilitating slant. The Bench must fulfil the humanizing mission of sentencing implicit in such enactments as the Probation of Offenders Act. 1981 (1) SCR 1279
Vijaysingh Rathore Vs Murarilal and Others. Advocates Act 1961-S. 35-Sectfon 35 of the Advocates Act permits reprimand provided the ends of public justice are met by this leniency. Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with a punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Tribunal except where strong circumstances involving principle are present. Censure has a better deterrent value on the· errant brethren in the profession in some situations than suspension for a month from professional practice.1980 (1) SCR 205
Vishesh Kumar Vs. Shanti Prasad. Code of Civil Procedure-S. 115 – The High Court is not vested with revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 115 Code of Civil Procedure over the revisional order made by the District ‘Court under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 1980 (3) SCR 32
Vishnu Agencies (P) Ltd. vs. C.T.O. West Bengal Cement Control Act 1948- Sec. 2 – Sale of cement by the allottees to the permit-holders and the transaction between the grower, and procuring agents as well as those between the rice sellers on the one hand and the wholesalers or retailers on the other, are sales exigible to sales-tax in the respective States. AIR 1978 SC 449: 1978 (2) SCR 433
V.Kamalaksha Pai vs. Keshava. Kerala HC . Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Order VII Rule 7- Relief can be granted to a plaintiff different from one stated in the plaint provided the defendant is not prejudiced. The court has jurisdiction to adjust the rights of the parties on the facts ascertained by it and to grant relief’ accordingly, the golden rule being that the defendant should not be taken by surprise or be embarrassed by such relief being granted or on account of the minor shifting of ground. AIR 1972 Kerala 110 :1971 KLJ 538.
Vishnu Awatar Vs. Shiv Awatar. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 115- Revision -Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (U.P.) Act, 1978 forbidding a revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. to the High Court from a Judgment or order in appeal by the District Court where the suit out of which the case arises is not one of the values of Rs. 20,000/- and above. After all, our District Courts are easier to access for litigants and the High Courts, especially in large States like Uttar Pradesh, are ‘untouchable’ and unapproachable for agrestic populations and even urban middle classes. -1980 (3) SCR 973
Vishnu Namboothiri Vs Sankara Pillai And Others. Kerala HC – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Sec. 115 – Revision -No revision will lie against an order impleading under Order 1 Rule 10 (2). 1968 KLT 457.
Vyankates Dhonddeo Deshpande Vs. Sou Kusum. Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883-Sec. 1- Hindu Law – Meaning of ‘borrower”- Karta of a joint Hindu family can be a borrower in a representative capacity. If the loan, for the recovery of which the suit property was brought to auction, was joint family debt and if the suit property was joint family property it would be liable to be sold for recovery of joint family debt. 1979 (1) SCR 955