|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 218 Records
-
1983 (10) TMI 298
Issues Involved:
1. Rise in urban population and its impact on medical education.
2. Proliferation of medical colleges and capitation fees.
3. Admission standards and favoritism in medical education.
4. Provisional admissions granted by courts.
5. Validity of government circulars and Medical Council of India rules.
6. Determination of merit for admission to M.D./M.S. courses.
7. Housemanship requirements for postgraduate medical courses.
8. Appeals related to admissions for the 1981-82 session.
9. Specific cases of candidates and state appeals.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Rise in Urban Population and Its Impact on Medical Education:
The judgment begins by discussing the increase in urban population post-independence due to industrialization, leading to the growth of educational institutions. This context sets the stage for the issues in medical education.
2. Proliferation of Medical Colleges and Capitation Fees:
The court highlights the problem of medical colleges charging high capitation fees without providing proper education, posing a health hazard. The need for high standards in medical education is emphasized to prevent the emergence of unqualified practitioners.
3. Admission Standards and Favoritism in Medical Education:
The judgment notes the rush for medical college admissions and the resulting favoritism and nepotism. To address this, the government and the Medical Council of India established rules and regulations to ensure merit-based admissions, but these were often flouted.
4. Provisional Admissions Granted by Courts:
The court criticizes the practice of granting provisional admissions through court orders, which leads to candidates completing courses despite initial rejections being justified. The court suggests that provisional admissions should only be granted in clear-cut cases where success is highly likely.
5. Validity of Government Circulars and Medical Council of India Rules:
The judgment examines the circulars and rules issued by the government and the Medical Council of India. The court emphasizes the importance of adhering to these rules to maintain standards in medical education and avoid arbitrary admissions.
6. Determination of Merit for Admission to M.D./M.S. Courses:
The government order dated 3.12.80, which bases admissions on merit determined by MBBS examination marks, is upheld. The court agrees with the High Court that merit should be the primary criterion for admissions to ensure competent medical practitioners.
7. Housemanship Requirements for Postgraduate Medical Courses:
The rules framed by the Medical Council of India require candidates to have completed one year of housemanship, preferably in the same subject, before admission to postgraduate courses. This requirement is crucial for ensuring proper training and competence.
8. Appeals Related to Admissions for the 1981-82 Session:
The judgment addresses various appeals related to admissions for the 1981-82 session. Some appeals were dismissed as not pressed, while others were decided on merits. The court directs that candidates who completed their courses under provisional admissions should have their results declared.
9. Specific Cases of Candidates and State Appeals:
- Dr. Rachna Saxena (C.A. No. 144/82): The appeal is dismissed as she could not secure admission due to lower marks compared to other candidates.
- Dr. V.K. Kohli (C.A. No. 145/82): The appeal is dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision.
- Dr. Vijay Narain Sinha (C.A. No. 595/82): The court finds the High Court's judgment unsustainable. Dr. Sinha, with low aggregate marks, could not be admitted based on merit. The High Court's decision to admit him despite his low marks is criticized, and the appeal by the State is allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment.
Conclusion:
The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining high standards in medical education through merit-based admissions and adherence to established rules and regulations. The court also criticizes the practice of granting provisional admissions lightly and emphasizes the need for judicial restraint in academic matters.
-
1983 (10) TMI 297
Issues Involved:
1. Disciplinary action for misconduct committed outside the premises.
2. Interpretation of Clauses 10, 16, and 30 of Standing Order 22.
3. Jurisdiction and scope of Labour Court and High Court in interpreting standing orders.
4. Applicability of misconduct provisions in Standing Order 22.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Disciplinary Action for Misconduct Committed Outside the Premises:
The appellant, a multinational company, charged the second respondent and other striking workmen with misconduct for acts committed outside the factory premises. The Labour Court held that the company could not charge-sheet the workmen for misconduct committed outside the establishment's premises or its vicinity. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the misconduct must occur within the premises or vicinity to be punishable under Clauses 10, 16, and 30 of Standing Order 22.
2. Interpretation of Clauses 10, 16, and 30 of Standing Order 22:
The central issue was whether the alleged misconduct fell within Clauses 10, 16, and 30 of S.O. 22. Clause 10 includes acts like drunkenness, fighting, and disorderly behavior committed within the premises or vicinity. Clause 16 pertains to conduct endangering the safety of other workmen or company property, and Clause 30 deals with rudeness towards officers, employees, customers, and visitors. The Labour Court and High Court interpreted these clauses to mean that misconduct must occur within the premises or vicinity to be punishable. The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation, emphasizing that the words "within the premises of the establishment or in the vicinity thereof" are limiting and must be strictly construed.
3. Jurisdiction and Scope of Labour Court and High Court in Interpreting Standing Orders:
The Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 11-C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was invoked to interpret the standing orders. The Labour Court framed eight issues, focusing on whether the misconduct occurred within the premises or vicinity. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, reviewed the Labour Court's interpretation and upheld it. The Supreme Court confined itself to determining whether the misconduct as alleged fell within the specified clauses of S.O. 22, excluding hypothetical scenarios.
4. Applicability of Misconduct Provisions in Standing Order 22:
The Supreme Court examined whether the alleged misconduct, even if true, would fall within Clauses 10, 16, and 30 of S.O. 22. The Court emphasized that the purpose of standing orders is to regulate behavior within the premises or vicinity to ensure peaceful industrial activity. The Court rejected the argument that misconduct could be punished irrespective of where it occurred, stating that such an interpretation would grant the employer undue power beyond the workplace. The Court also noted that penal provisions must be strictly construed, and the words of limitation in Clause 10 must be given due effect.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court and High Court's interpretation that Clauses 10, 16, and 30 of Standing Order 22 limit punishable misconduct to acts committed within the premises or vicinity. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the appellant company could not take disciplinary action for misconduct occurring outside these areas. The judgment reinforces the principle of strict construction of penal provisions in standing orders and the limited jurisdiction of employers over employee behavior outside the workplace. The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000.
-
1983 (10) TMI 296
Issues:
1. Eligibility of a cinema theatre for a telephone connection under special category.
2. Interpretation of "public institution" in the context of telephone allotment guidelines.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a cinema theatre proprietor, applied for a telephone connection under the Non-OYT special category but was rejected on the grounds that cinemas are not eligible for special category. The petitioner sought to challenge this decision and requested to quash the rejection order (Ext. P-7) and seek consequential reliefs.
2. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the OYT and Non-OYT schemes for telephone connections. Under the Non-OYT scheme, applicants make an advance deposit, and the petitioner in this case had applied under this scheme. The Non-OYT special category includes various entities like doctors, newspapers, public institutions, etc., based on specific criteria.
3. The court delved into the concept of "public institution" by referencing legal precedents and definitions. Various definitions were provided, including Lord Herschell's interpretation emphasizing a system or arrangement promoting public or social objectives. The judgment also cited Chief Justice Raman Nayar, who considered even private colleges as public institutions due to their service to the public.
4. The court examined the guidelines provided by the Postal Department regarding public institutions eligible for telephone connections. The guidelines specified that public institutions must be run by public funds and for the benefit of the general public. Examples included recognized schools, hospitals, social organizations, etc., clearly outlining the criteria for classification as a public institution.
5. Ultimately, the court concluded that a cinema theatre, being a private enterprise operated for profit, does not qualify as a public institution. Despite the petitioner's argument based on the guidelines' use of "et cetera," the court held that cinemas do not fall within the scope of public institutions for telephone allotment purposes. The petitioner was directed to follow the standard application process unless opting for the OYT scheme.
6. As a result, the court dismissed the petition, stating that no rights of the petitioner were infringed, and there were no merits in the case. The petitioner was not entitled to special category treatment for a telephone connection due to the nature of the business as a cinema theatre. The judgment concluded without awarding any costs to either party.
-
1983 (10) TMI 295
Issues: Jurisdiction of High Court to grant anticipatory bail when the offense is registered in another state
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Medical Practitioner residing in Bangalore City, filed an application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail as he was apprehensive of being arrested by the Cannanore Town Police in Kerala State for an offense under Section 420 of the Penal Code based on a complaint by the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India.
2. The State Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the High Court did not have jurisdiction over the police in Cannanore and only the Jurisdictional Sessions Judge and the High Court of Kerala could consider the petitioner's claim for anticipatory bail.
3. The petitioner's counsel relied on previous decisions and argued that since the petitioner resided within the jurisdiction of the High Court and anticipated arrest there, the High Court had jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail.
4. The Court examined Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for anticipatory bail when a person has reason to believe they may be arrested for a non-bailable offense. The Court noted that the relief is for the person "apprehending arrest," regardless of the jurisdiction of the Court over the offense.
5. Referring to the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail becomes effective at the moment of arrest, where the person is apprehended, irrespective of the jurisdiction of the arresting authority.
6. The Court considered Section 48 of the Code, which allows a police officer to pursue and arrest a person in any place in India, and questioned whether a person pursued by police from another state could seek anticipatory bail in the High Court or Court of Session where they reside.
7. The Court disagreed with the State Public Prosecutor's contention that the Court granting anticipatory bail should have jurisdiction over the offense, emphasizing that the provision is intended to provide conditional immunity from arrest and should be considered in favor of the citizen seeking relief.
8. Citing the views of the Calcutta High Court and the Delhi High Court, the Court concluded that the High Court where the petitioner resides has jurisdiction to entertain an application for anticipatory bail, even if the offense was registered outside its jurisdiction.
9. The Court allowed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail, considering the hardship the petitioner, a Medical Practitioner, would face if arrested by the Cannanore police and directing him to approach the appropriate Court in Kerala State within a specified time frame.
-
1983 (10) TMI 294
The High Court of Bombay dismissed a motion to condone a delay of 54 days in filing a Petition for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court. The delay was attributed to forgetfulness and archaic practices. The court found no justification for condoning the delay and ruled the notice of motion must fail, with costs. The petition was treated as barred by limitation and disposed of.
-
1983 (10) TMI 293
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest payment under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Nexus between borrowings and withdrawals by partners.
3. Applicability of case laws cited by both parties.
4. Treatment of partners' capital withdrawals and their impact on interest deduction.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Interest Payment under Section 36(1)(iii):
The assessee's appeal pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 60,475 out of the interest payment claimed as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) found that the borrowed sums of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 77,000 were not utilized for business purposes but were withdrawn by the partners. Relying on the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii), which permits deduction of interest on capital borrowed for business purposes, the ITO disallowed the interest attributable to these borrowings.
2. Nexus Between Borrowings and Withdrawals by Partners:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the ITO's disallowance, noting a direct nexus between the borrowings from Mansukhlal Investment and the withdrawals by the partners on the same date. The Commissioner emphasized that Section 36(1)(iii) does not allow deduction for interest on amounts borrowed but not used for business purposes. The Commissioner also distinguished the facts of the present case from the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 654, which was cited by the assessee.
3. Applicability of Case Laws Cited by Both Parties:
The assessee argued that the withdrawals by the partners did not reduce the firm's finances and relied on the Bombay High Court's decisions in Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT and CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd. The assessee contended that the partners' withdrawals were akin to depositors withdrawing their funds, and such withdrawals should not affect the interest deduction. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decisions in Milapchand R. Shah v. CIT [1965] 58 ITR 525 (Mad.), Roopchand Chabildass & Sons v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 166 (Mad.), and CIT v. United Breweries [1973] 89 ITR 17 (Mys.), supporting the disallowance.
4. Treatment of Partners' Capital Withdrawals and Their Impact on Interest Deduction:
The Tribunal considered whether partners could withdraw capital from borrowed funds and if the interest on such borrowings could be disallowed. The Tribunal noted that the partners had withdrawn their capital, resulting in nominal credit/debit balances in their accounts. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no bar against partners withdrawing their capital, and such withdrawals do not necessarily mean the borrowings were not for business purposes. The Tribunal referred to Kishinchand Chellaram's case, which allowed interest deduction to the extent of credit balances in partners' accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance of interest was not justified, as the partners' withdrawals were matched by borrowings from a third party, and the overall financial position of the firm remained constant.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the disallowance of interest was not warranted except for nominal overdrawings by two partners. The Tribunal found that the partners' withdrawals were within their credit balances and did not affect the firm's overall financial position. Therefore, the interest on borrowings was deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1983 (10) TMI 292
Issues:
- Suit based on promissory note
- Defendant's plea of payment and limitation
- Judgment of Subordinate Judge and Additional District Judge
- Challenge on the question of limitation in Second Appeal
Analysis:
The case involves a suit based on a promissory note where the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had taken a loan of Rs. 3,000 and failed to repay it along with the agreed interest. The defendant contended that he had repaid the loan in the presence of witnesses but the plaintiff did not return the promissory note. Additionally, the defendant raised a plea of limitation, arguing that the suit was time-barred. The Subordinate Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, rejecting the defendant's payment plea and finding the suit within the limitation period.
Upon appeal, the Additional District Judge affirmed the Subordinate Judge's decision, leading to a Second Appeal by the defendant. In the Second Appeal, the defendant challenged the lower courts' judgments on various grounds, with the question of limitation being a significant issue. The defendant argued that the suit, filed on 4-4-74, was beyond the limitation period, which should have ended on 2-4-74, as per the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The High Court examined the timeline of events and found that the suit was initially filed in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction on 2-4-74, the last day of limitation. The plaint was returned to the plaintiff and refiled in the proper court on the same day. However, the court held that as per Section 4 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff was not entitled to an extension of the limitation period since the suit was not presented in the proper court on the reopening day.
Consequently, despite the plaintiff succeeding on the merits in the lower courts, the High Court allowed the appeal, dismissing the suit as barred by limitation. The court emphasized that the plaintiff could not benefit from Section 4 to extend the limitation period, given the improper filing in the initial court. In the absence of any costs ordered due to the peculiar circumstances, the suit was ultimately dismissed on grounds of limitation.
-
1983 (10) TMI 291
Issues:
1. Validity of the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
2. Interpretation of Clause 23 of the Agreement regarding the appointment of a Superintending Engineer as an arbitrator.
3. Impact of subsequent legislation by the State Legislature inserting new Section 41A to the Act.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appeal challenges the order of the Orissa High Court summarily dismissing a revision filed by the appellant against the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Subordinate Judge had set aside the appointment of the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation by the Chief Engineer as the arbitrator and appointed a retired District & Sessions Judge instead.
Issue 2:
The dispute revolves around the interpretation of Clause 23 of the Agreement, which dictates that all questions and disputes relating to the contract shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a Superintending Engineer of the State Public Works Department unconnected with the work. The Subordinate Judge held that the appointment of the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation as an arbitrator was invalid as he was directly subordinate to the Chief Engineer, violating the terms of Clause 23. However, the Court found that the term "State Public Works Department" includes various departments like Irrigation, and the restriction of being "unconnected with the work" refers to the specific works contract in question, not the department.
Issue 3:
The subsequent legislation by the State Legislature inserted a new Section 41A to the Act, establishing an Arbitration Tribunal for disputes involving the State Government or related entities. This new provision supersedes the previous appointment of arbitrators under Section 8 and Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous orders and referring the dispute to the newly constituted Arbitration Tribunal as per Section 41A of the amended Act.
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the interpretation of contractual clauses, highlights the impact of subsequent legislative changes, and emphasizes the importance of adherence to legal provisions in arbitration proceedings.
-
1983 (10) TMI 290
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the true multiplier for compensation calculation.
2. Methodology for determining market value of acquired land.
3. Validity of the capitalisation method and the appropriate number of years' purchase.
4. Evaluation of potential value and appropriate compensation for agricultural land.
Summary:
Issue 1: Determination of the true multiplier for compensation calculation.
The primary issue in these appeals is the determination of the true multiplier to be adopted in calculating the compensation for land acquired around 1962-63, based on the capitalisation principle.
Issue 2: Methodology for determining market value of acquired land.
The Beas Project required the acquisition of approximately 70,000 acres of land. The Land Acquisition Officer initially adopted the principle of capitalisation, using a 20 years' purchase rule to determine the market value. This method was contested, and the District Judge, upon reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, also adopted the capitalisation method but did not consider other well-known methods of valuation such as bona fide transactions or expert opinions.
Issue 3: Validity of the capitalisation method and the appropriate number of years' purchase.
The Supreme Court noted that the capitalisation method was the only method adopted in these cases. The Court reviewed various precedents where different multipliers (33 1/3, 25, 20, 16 1/2, 11, and 8) were used based on the prevailing interest rates and the nature of the property. The Court concluded that for the years 1962 and 1963, a 15 years' purchase rule was more appropriate than the 20 years' purchase rule used by the lower courts.
Issue 4: Evaluation of potential value and appropriate compensation for agricultural land.
The Court found no evidence suggesting that the lands had potential value beyond agricultural use. The lands were situated in a hilly tract with no potential buyers other than for the project. The Court held that the compensation should be reduced by one-fourth, applying a 15 years' purchase rule instead of 20 years. Consequently, the compensation for the best category of land was reduced from Rs. 1,000 per kanal to Rs. 750 per kanal, with similar reductions for other categories. The claimants were entitled to a 15% solatium on the revised compensation and interest as ordered by the District Judge.
Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed in part, modifying the compensation awarded by the lower courts based on a 15 years' purchase rule. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
-
1983 (10) TMI 289
Issues Involved:
1. Doctrine of precedent and its binding nature.
2. Restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. Validity of the Full Bench decision in Smt. Kailash Wati v. Avodhia Parkash.
4. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution in the context of personal laws.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Doctrine of Precedent and Its Binding Nature:
The central issue in this case is the binding nature of judicial precedents. The judgment emphasizes that the doctrine of precedent is a cornerstone of the justice system, ensuring uniformity and certainty in the law. The court highlighted that precedents must be followed to maintain judicial decorum and legal propriety. It cited Blackstone's Commentaries and various English and Indian judgments to underscore that a single judge or a division bench is bound by the decisions of a Full Bench or superior courts, unless specific conditions for reconsideration are met.
2. Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
The case originated from a petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant-wife had withdrawn from the husband's society without any reasonable excuse, despite multiple requests and legal notices. The trial court found that the couple's inability to live together due to their separate employments was against the basic concept of marriage, which requires both spouses to live together and discharge matrimonial obligations. Consequently, the trial court granted a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the husband.
3. Validity of the Full Bench Decision in Smt. Kailash Wati v. Avodhia Parkash:
The appellant-wife's counsel challenged the trial court's decision by questioning the Full Bench ruling in Smt. Kailash Wati's case. The learned single judge, before whom the appeal was initially placed, differed from the Full Bench's reasoning and suggested reconsideration by a larger bench. However, the present judgment reaffirmed that the Full Bench's decision was binding and could not be reconsidered merely because a new argument was raised. The court emphasized that a precedent is binding unless it has been overruled by a superior court or rendered per incuriam.
4. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution in the Context of Personal Laws:
The appellant's counsel argued that the Full Bench decision should be reconsidered on the grounds of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality. This argument was not raised before the Full Bench. The court rejected this contention, stating that the binding nature of a precedent does not depend on whether every possible argument was considered in the original decision. The court cited previous Supreme Court judgments to support this view, emphasizing that the finality of binding precedents must not be undermined by new arguments.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Full Bench decision in Smt. Kailash Wati's case was binding on the learned single judge. Therefore, the reference for reconsideration was unnecessary. The case was sent back to the single bench for a decision on the merits in accordance with the law laid down in Smt. Kailash Wati's case. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to judicial precedents to maintain consistency and stability in the legal system.
-
1983 (10) TMI 288
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Applicability of the Indian Limitation Act vs. Portuguese Civil Code.
3. Computation of Limitation Period.
4. Merits of the Plaintiff's Claim.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal:
The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal, arguing that only one appeal was permitted under the Goa, Daman and Diu Civil Courts Act, 1965. However, the court noted the material change in law due to the High Court at Bombay (Extension of Jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act, 1981. Section 7(2) of this Act specifies that all proceedings transferred to the High Court at Bombay shall be disposed of as if they were entertained by that High Court. Consequently, the judgment delivered by Justice Rege was considered a judgment by a single Judge of the Bombay High Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, making the present appeal maintainable.
2. Applicability of the Indian Limitation Act vs. Portuguese Civil Code:
The core issue was whether the suit was governed by Article 14 of the Indian Limitation Act or Article 535 of the Portuguese Civil Code. The court examined the legislative history and noted that the Portuguese Civil Code continued in force in Goa until repealed or amended by competent legislation. The Supreme Court in Justiniano's case had held that the Portuguese Civil Code's provisions on limitation were local laws under Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, and thus continued to apply. However, the court distinguished the present case by noting that the cause of action arose outside the Portuguese Civil Code, making the Indian Limitation Act applicable.
3. Computation of Limitation Period:
The court referred to Section 19 of the Limitation Act, which allows a fresh period of limitation to be computed from the time a payment is made, provided the payment is acknowledged in writing. The plaintiff claimed a payment of Rs. 5,000 was made on 15th April 1968, which was not denied by the defendant. The court found evidence in Exhibit 33, where the payment was acknowledged in the handwriting of the defendant's accountant, thereby extending the limitation period.
4. Merits of the Plaintiff's Claim:
On the merits, the trial court had decreed the suit, finding that Rs. 8,521 was due to the plaintiff. The defendant's appeal was partly allowed by the Judicial Commissioner, who remitted the issue of limitation back to the trial court. Upon remand, the trial court held that the Portuguese Civil Code applied, providing a 30-year limitation period. However, the High Court disagreed, applying the Indian Limitation Act and finding the suit barred by time. Despite this, the acknowledgment of payment on 15th April 1968 under Section 19 of the Limitation Act rendered the suit within the limitation period. Therefore, the decree in favor of the plaintiff was sustained on merits.
Conclusion:
The Letters Patent appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff. The court clarified the applicability of the Indian Limitation Act over the Portuguese Civil Code for causes of action arising outside the latter, thereby providing a comprehensive analysis of the limitation period and sustaining the plaintiff's claim on merits.
-
1983 (10) TMI 287
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Alleged unreasonable restriction on the fundamental freedom to carry on trade guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
3. Constitutionality of Section 27A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890.
4. Validity of Paragraph (iii) of Priority 'C' of the Preferential Traffic Schedule under Section 27A.
5. Validity of Order No. TO(g) 1510/71 dated April 1, 1972 introducing abbreviation 'GX'.
6. Alleged total ban on transport of coal from wayside stations and colliery sidings.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Alleged Violation of Article 14:
The petitioners argued that the railway administration's action of giving priority to certain transporters of coal while denying the same to them was discriminatory and violated Article 14. The Court held that the Central and State Governments are in a class by themselves for the purpose of Article 14. The Preferential Traffic Schedule issued under Section 27A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, which provides priorities from 'A' to 'E', is a general order made in public interest. The Court found that the classification of those covered by Priority 'C' and the petitioners is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, the petitioners could not be said to be similarly situated with those grouped together in Priority 'C' (iii).
2. Alleged Unreasonable Restriction on Article 19(1)(g):
The petitioners contended that the cumulative effect of the impugned orders imposed a total ban on the transport of coal offered by them, thereby violating their fundamental freedom to carry on trade. The Court found this contention factually incorrect, noting that Priority 'E' in the Preferential Traffic Schedule provides for the transport of coal from collieries in accordance with targets laid down in advance. The Court also emphasized that the railway is not the only means of transport and that the restrictions imposed are reasonable and in the larger public interest.
3. Constitutionality of Section 27A:
The petitioners argued that if Section 27A enables the Central Government to impose a total ban on the transport of coal offered by them, it would be violative of Article 19(1)(g). The Court held that the restriction is reasonable and imposed in larger public interest, noting that the petitioners are not transporters of coal but coal merchants. The Court found that the direct impact of the policy laid down by the railway administration pursuant to the orders of the Central Government under Section 27A results in denial of allotment of wagons to the petitioners, the restriction is nonetheless reasonable.
4. Validity of Paragraph (iii) of Priority 'C':
The petitioners contended that Priority 'C' (iii) in the Preferential Traffic Schedule permits special facility or preference to individuals or groups of persons selected by the sponsoring authority or recommending body, which is ultra vires Section 27A. The Court rejected this contention, noting that the list of sponsoring authorities includes Central and State Governments and highly placed officials, who are expected to act responsibly in sponsoring persons for coal transport.
5. Validity of Order No. TO(g) 1510/71:
The petitioners argued that the order introducing the abbreviation 'GX' and appending it to all railway stations resulted in undue preference to Priority 'C' (iii) transporters and subjected them to undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. The Court found that the order is a regulatory measure necessary for the smooth functioning of the Zonal Distribution Scheme and planned movement of coal. The Court noted that coal in smalls can still be transported from wayside stations, thereby rejecting the contention.
6. Alleged Total Ban on Transport of Coal:
The petitioners contended that the abbreviation 'GX' imposed a total ban on the transport of coal offered by them, violating Article 19(1)(g). The Court found that the planned and regulated movement of coal is necessary and that the abbreviation 'GX' is a regulatory measure to ensure smooth functioning. The Court concluded that this does not impose an unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' fundamental freedom to carry on their trade.
Conclusion:
The Court dismissed all the writ petitions, finding that the impugned orders and the Preferential Traffic Schedule were in accordance with the law and did not violate the petitioners' constitutional rights. The Court emphasized the need for planned and regulated movement of coal in the larger public interest.
-
1983 (10) TMI 286
Issues:
Interim directions sought by the appellant in a disability pension case.
Analysis:
The appellant, an ex-serviceman injured during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan conflict, sought disability pension under Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for Armed Forces personnel. The appellant's disability, assessed at 20%, met the criteria for disability pension. The medical report confirmed the disability's origin in the conflict, despite initial resistance from Army authorities. The Court dismissed arguments about the legality of the appellant's discharge and focused on awarding disability pension.
The Court directed the respondents to compute the pension from April 1, 1968, considering the appellant's discharge due to disability. It noted the 15-year denial of pension, emphasizing the appellant's rightful entitlement and the respondents' unwarranted resistance. The Court ordered a lump sum payment of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant within four weeks, along with future monthly pension of Rs. 198 starting from October 1, 1983. The appellant was also entitled to interest, compensation for harassment, and litigation costs. The judgment ensured the appellant's prompt receipt of pension benefits and left room for additional benefits under liberalized pension rules.
In conclusion, the Court granted the appellant disability pension, acknowledging his rightful entitlement despite past denials and resistance. The judgment aimed to provide immediate relief through a lump sum payment and monthly pension, emphasizing the appellant's long-overdue compensation and adherence to pension regulations.
-
1983 (10) TMI 285
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Ananda Marga is a separate religion or a religious denomination within Hinduism.
2. Whether Tandava dance is an essential religious rite of Ananda Margis.
3. Validity and propriety of repetitive orders u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Summary:
1. Ananda Marga as a Separate Religion or Religious Denomination:
The Court held that Ananda Marga is not a separate religion but a religious denomination within the Shaivite order of Hinduism. The petitioner's claim that Ananda Marga is a new religious order was rejected based on the pleadings which stated that "Ananda Marga is more a denomination than an institutionalised religion" and that "Ananda Margis are Shaivites." The Court referenced the principle from *Sastri Yagnapurushadji v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya* and concluded that Ananda Marga adheres to the fundamental notions of Hindu religion and philosophy.
2. Tandava Dance as an Essential Religious Rite:
The Court examined whether Tandava dance is an essential religious rite of Ananda Margis. It was noted that Tandava dance was introduced as a religious rite in 1966, well after the establishment of Ananda Marga in 1955. The Court found no justification in the writings of Shri Ananda Murti or other literature of the Ananda Marga denomination that Tandava dance must be performed in public. Therefore, the performance of Tandava dance in public processions was not considered an essential religious rite, and the claim for protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution was rejected.
3. Validity and Propriety of Repetitive Orders u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The Court addressed the issue of repetitive prohibitory orders u/s 144 of the Code. It was noted that orders under this section are intended for immediate prevention of breach of peace or speedy remedy and are valid for two months unless extended by the State Government for a further period not exceeding six months. The Court emphasized that the scheme of the section does not contemplate repetitive orders and that such actions amount to an abuse of power. The Court referenced several High Court decisions and reaffirmed that the provision is intended to meet emergent situations and not to be semi-permanent in character. The impugned order of March 1982, although already ineffective by efflux of time, was not quashed on these grounds.
Conclusion:
The writ petitions were dismissed on the finding that performance of Tandava dance in public streets or gatherings is not an essential religious rite of Ananda Margis. The Court also highlighted that the impugned order did not ban processions or gatherings but only prohibited carrying specific items like daggers, trishuls, and skulls. There was no order as to costs.
-
1983 (10) TMI 284
The High Court of Bombay addressed three questions of law under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Question 2 was answered in favor of the assessee based on a previous court decision. Question 3 was answered in favor of the revenue based on a Supreme Court decision. Question 1 was ruled in favor of the assessee as the expenses were deemed integral to business activities, not entertainment expenditure.
-
1983 (10) TMI 283
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Fundamental Rights u/Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Implementation of Safety Measures and Recommendations by Various Committees.
3. Adequacy of Manpower and Training.
4. Inquiry and Accountability for Railway Accidents.
5. Law and Order Issues in Trains.
6. Improvements in Rolling Stock and Required Gadgets.
7. Introduction of Colour Light Signalling and Automatic Warning Systems.
8. Petitioner's Rejoinder and Additional Claims.
Summary of Judgment:
1. Violation of Fundamental Rights u/Articles 19 and 21:
The petitioner, a resident of Kerala, alleged that the Indian Railways failed to provide adequate safety and protection, violating fundamental rights u/Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought reliefs including the implementation of various committee reports and the appointment of a fact-finding commission to investigate train accidents.
2. Implementation of Safety Measures and Recommendations:
The Joint Director (Safety) countered that recommendations from the Kunzru, Wanchoo, and Sikri Committees were examined and implemented within financial and material limits. Unmanned level crossings were being gradually replaced by manned ones, and technical improvements were being made.
3. Adequacy of Manpower and Training:
The counter-affidavit asserted that direct recruits received proper training, and only qualified individuals were assigned to posts. Locomotive drivers had strict vision standards and were subject to periodic medical examinations.
4. Inquiry and Accountability for Railway Accidents:
Every accident was thoroughly investigated to fix responsibility and punish delinquents. Accidents involving significant loss were investigated by Commissioners of Railway Safety, independent of the Railway Administration.
5. Law and Order Issues in Trains:
Robberies and dacoities were addressed by Government Railway Police (GRP), Civil Police, and Railway Protection Force. The GRP, with a strength of 6,740, provided armed escorts, beat patrolling, and surveillance over criminals.
6. Improvements in Rolling Stock and Required Gadgets:
The Sixth Plan for the Railways was termed the 'Rehabilitation Plan,' focusing on withdrawing outdated gadgets and rebuilding bridges. Annual inspections and continuous records were maintained for bridges, with substantial funds allocated for rebuilding.
7. Introduction of Colour Light Signalling and Automatic Warning Systems:
Colour light signalling was being introduced on trunk and main routes. The automatic warning system was implemented in specific sections but faced issues due to theft of track magnets.
8. Petitioner's Rejoinder and Additional Claims:
The petitioner argued that the counter-affidavit indicated a negative approach and pointed out inadequacies in GRP strength and bridge safety. The petitioner also sought the introduction of the automatic warning system and an increase in compensation for accident victims.
Conclusion:
The Court recognized the petition as public interest litigation and emphasized the importance of efficient and safe railway services. Although no specific directions were issued, the Court hoped for early implementation of improvements. The petitioner was awarded consolidated costs of Rs. 5,000, recoverable from the Railway Ministry.
-
1983 (10) TMI 282
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and propriety of the Chief Minister's actions in issuing directions.
2. Scope and extent of a Minister's power to interfere with a statutory functionary's working.
3. Registrar's authority under bye-law 29 to reconstitute the Board of Directors.
4. Validity of the Minister's direction to reconstitute the Board of Directors.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality and Propriety of the Chief Minister's Actions:
The core issue was whether the Chief Minister had the authority to usurp the functions of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under bye-law 29. The Court found that the Chief Minister exceeded his powers by extending the term of the first Board of Directors from time to time, which was a statutory function of the Registrar. The Chief Minister's actions were deemed improper and violative of the statutory provisions, as the executive power of the State vested in the Governor does not include overriding statutory functions assigned to specific officers like the Registrar.
2. Scope and Extent of a Minister's Power:
The Court examined whether the Minister for Industries had the authority to issue directions to the Registrar for reconstituting the Board of Directors. It was concluded that neither the Chief Minister nor the Minister had the power to arrogate to themselves the statutory functions of the Registrar under bye-law 29. The Minister's action in forwarding a list of names to be nominated by the Registrar was found to be beyond his authority and thus invalid.
3. Registrar's Authority Under Bye-law 29:
The Court upheld that the Registrar had the power to reconstitute the first Board of Directors under bye-law 29. The proviso to bye-law 29 allows the Registrar to nominate the first Board for a period not exceeding one year at a time and not exceeding three cooperative years in aggregate. The Registrar also holds the power to modify the nomination if required. Therefore, the Registrar's authority to reconstitute the Board was affirmed, but it was noted that the impugned order was not made at the Registrar's discretion but at the Minister's behest, rendering it invalid.
4. Validity of the Minister's Direction:
The Minister for Industries' direction to the Registrar to reconstitute the Board and the forwarding of specific names was found to be an overreach of his authority. The Court ruled that the Minister exceeded his powers by directing the manner in which the Board was to be constituted, which was a statutory function reserved for the Registrar.
Conclusion and Directions:
The Court directed the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, to take over the Vaishalli District Central Cooperative Bank and to exercise all powers and perform all duties vested in the Committee of Management. The Registrar was instructed to call a general meeting to elect a new Board of Directors. The Court also prohibited the members of the first Board constituted on July 22, 1981, and the reconstituted Board of September 6, 1983, from interfering with the society's affairs. The appeal was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.
-
1983 (10) TMI 281
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional Validity of Clause (b) of Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
2. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Doctrine of Severability.
Summary:
1. Constitutional Validity of Clause (b) of Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960:
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of clause (b) of section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which exempts buildings constructed on and after August 26, 1957, from the operation of the Act. The provision was initially intended to provide an incentive for new construction, but its continued application for over 26 years was challenged.
2. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that the exemption under clause (b) of section 32 violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The Supreme Court noted that while the initial exemption might have been justified as a temporary measure to incentivize construction, its prolonged application had resulted in discrimination. The Court emphasized that "the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia" and "must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute." The Court found that the exemption had become discriminatory, as it created two classes of landlords and tenants without any rational basis, thus violating Article 14.
3. Doctrine of Severability:
The Court addressed the issue of severability, determining whether the invalidity of clause (b) of section 32 would affect the rest of the Act. It concluded that clause (b) was not so inextricably bound with the rest of the Act as to render the entire Act unworkable. The Court held that the rest of the Act could stand independently and that the Legislature would have enacted the Act even without the impugned provision. The Court cited principles from previous judgments, stating that "a statute bad in part is not necessarily void in its entirety" and that "the general rule is that when a provision which is in the nature of an exception to a general statute is invalid, the general provisions of the statute are not invalidated thereby."
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court declared clause (b) of section 32 of the Act as unconstitutional and quashed it. The Court acknowledged the potential adverse effects on recent builders but emphasized the necessity of equality before the law. The Court left it to the State Legislature or Government to decide on potential amendments or notifications to provide incentives for new construction. The petitions were allowed, and clause (b) of section 32 was struck down without affecting the validity of any final decrees for eviction already executed.
-
1983 (10) TMI 280
Issues involved:
Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus challenging preventive detention under National Security Act 1980.
Reasoning for dismissal of the writ petition:
The petitioner was detained under section 3 of the National Security Act 1980 for inciting communal hatred and violence, creating fear and tension in the town, leading to closure of schools and shops. The detention was deemed necessary to prevent further activities prejudicial to public order in a situation of grave communal disturbances. The grounds for detention were found relevant and essential for maintaining public order.
Delay in forwarding representation:
The petitioner argued that there was undue delay in forwarding his representation to the State Government. However, it was established that the District Magistrate promptly dealt with the representation despite facing urgent situations in other localities, ensuring no avoidable delay. The Court emphasized that promptness in dealing with representations should be assessed based on the circumstances of each case, not rigid timelines.
Alleged violation of section 10 of the Act:
The petitioner claimed a violation of section 10 as the Advisory Board did not consider his case within three weeks of detention. However, the Court clarified that the duty of the appropriate Government was to forward the relevant papers to the Advisory Board within three weeks, not to ensure consideration within that timeframe. The Advisory Board acted within the specified time limit of seven weeks for submitting its report.
Conclusion:
Based on the above analysis, the Court found no justification for interfering with the detention order against the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition.
-
1983 (10) TMI 279
Issues:
1. Validity of the amendment made to the recognition certificate under Section 4-B of the Sales Tax Act.
2. Compliance with the provisions of Rule 25-A regarding the amendment of the recognition certificate.
3. Requirement of specifying the date from which the amendment takes effect and the impact of non-communication of the amendment order on the assessee's right to appeal.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a revision by the Commissioner of Sales Tax regarding the assessment year 1978-79, focusing on the amendment made to the recognition certificate granted to the assessee under Section 4-B of the Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer amended the certificate with the consent of the assessee's representative.
2. Subsequently, during assessment proceedings, an issue arose regarding the misuse of the recognition certificate by the assessee. The Sales Tax Tribunal found that while the provisions of sub-section (9) of Rule 25-A had been complied with, the requirements of sub-rule (10) had not been met. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the date from which the certificate should be amended was not specified, and a copy of the amendment order was not sent to the assessee.
3. The Commissioner of Sales Tax contended that the opportunity for amendment had been provided to the assessee, and the date of the order should be considered as the effective date of the amendment. However, the assessee argued that the failure to specify the date of the amendment order and communicate it vitiated the amendment process. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's position, emphasizing the mandatory nature of specifying the effective date of the amendment.
4. The Court agreed with the Tribunal, highlighting the mandatory requirement of sub-rule (10) of Rule 25-A to specify the date from which the amendment takes effect. It noted that even though the assessee's representative was present during the amendment, the failure to communicate the order properly could impact the assessee's right to appeal. The Court emphasized that the communication of the amendment order was crucial for the amendment to be legally binding on the assessee.
5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the revision, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the amendment to the recognition certificate was not valid due to the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 25-A. The Court upheld the assessee's right to contest the validity of the amendment in the assessment proceedings, given the procedural lapses in the amendment process.
........
|
9911796707
