question stringclasses 1
value | context stringlengths 51 9.23k | answer stringlengths 152 158k |
|---|---|---|
What is the summary of this judgment? | May be, in certain situations, possession may cover right to possess. It is thus clear that in Anglo American jurisprudence also, possession is actual possession and in a limited set of cases, may include constructive possession, but when (1) American Jurisprudence, Words & Phrases Vol. 33, p. 103. 753 there is a bare ... | Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1 950, transfers all interests in estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder to the State as from a date notified under section 4. Section 6 carves out of this land mass and leaves untouched, apart from raiyati holdings the bakasht lands in Khas possession of the 'inter... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | We have the uniform authority of this Court to hold that the possession of a trespasser, by no stretch of imagination, can be deemed to be khas possession or even constructive possession of the owner. In Surajnath Ahir (supra) this Court considered the definition of khas possession in the Act in the context of section ... | Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1 950, transfers all interests in estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder to the State as from a date notified under section 4. Section 6 carves out of this land mass and leaves untouched, apart from raiyati holdings the bakasht lands in Khas possession of the 'inter... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The same Full Bench(1) case earlier referred to was pressed before the learned Judges, and over ruling that case, Ayyangar,, J. speaking for the Court stated the law in these unmincing words: "Mr. Sarjoo Prasad however relied on certain observations in the judgment of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Sukdeo Da... | Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1 950, transfers all interests in estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder to the State as from a date notified under section 4. Section 6 carves out of this land mass and leaves untouched, apart from raiyati holdings the bakasht lands in Khas possession of the 'inter... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | In this context the plea made by the plaintiffs relevant to the character of the possession of the contesting defendants assumes crucial importance, for if they were admittedly trespassers then they could not be said to hold the property on behalf of the mortgagors and the entire basis of the argument as to the propert... | Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1 950, transfers all interests in estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder to the State as from a date notified under section 4. Section 6 carves out of this land mass and leaves untouched, apart from raiyati holdings the bakasht lands in Khas possession of the 'inter... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | His title was lost when section 4 was notified as applicable to the suit lands by section 3 in 1956. Without title he could not maintain the action for recovery of possession. But that is not the end of the matter. He is certainly entitled to mesne profits from the defendants, first party, until the date of vesting, i.... | Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1 950, transfers all interests in estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder to the State as from a date notified under section 4. Section 6 carves out of this land mass and leaves untouched, apart from raiyati holdings the bakasht lands in Khas possession of the 'inter... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Again, the contesting defendants, in paragraph 27 of their written statement, have admitted that they had no possession of or connection with some of the plots mentioned in Schedule to the plaint and set out therein. The High Court has dismissed the suit in entirety after noticing the admission of the contesting defend... | Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1 950, transfers all interests in estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder to the State as from a date notified under section 4. Section 6 carves out of this land mass and leaves untouched, apart from raiyati holdings the bakasht lands in Khas possession of the 'inter... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | were not in possession and defendants, second party,, were in possession, the plaintiff would still be entitled to a decree for possession of the same. It neither is in possession the presumption that the owner is in possession holds good and he is entitled to that 755 possession being restored to him. Therefore, a dec... | Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1 950, transfers all interests in estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder to the State as from a date notified under section 4. Section 6 carves out of this land mass and leaves untouched, apart from raiyati holdings the bakasht lands in Khas possession of the 'inter... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Likewise, if some third party is in possession of those items unclaimed by the defendants, first party, their possession, if any, also will not be prejudiced. After all, the decree of this Court can bind and regulate the rights of the parties to the litigation and not others. Inevitably, the mesne profits which we have... | Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1 950, transfers all interests in estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder to the State as from a date notified under section 4. Section 6 carves out of this land mass and leaves untouched, apart from raiyati holdings the bakasht lands in Khas possession of the 'inter... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Section 4(f) declares that the Collector shall be deemed to have taken charge of the estates and interests vested in the State This means he has a public duty to take charge of lands vested in the State. Surely, a responsible public officer like the Collector, charged with a duty of taking delivery of possession of lan... | Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1 950, transfers all interests in estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder to the State as from a date notified under section 4. Section 6 carves out of this land mass and leaves untouched, apart from raiyati holdings the bakasht lands in Khas possession of the 'inter... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Although we need not elaborately study the implications of this pro vision, it is fairly clear that this rule does not confer any right or equity to be in possession in favour of d trespasser. All that it does is to make the man in possession, be he trespasser or not, "liable to pay the rent or ground rent so fixed to ... | Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1 950, transfers all interests in estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder to the State as from a date notified under section 4. Section 6 carves out of this land mass and leaves untouched, apart from raiyati holdings the bakasht lands in Khas possession of the 'inter... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | We do not make any observation in that behalf but point out that prima facie section 4(f) and (g) and rule 7 H attract the jurisdiction of the State and its revenue 13 authorities. The policy of the Act includes the State taking over and managing lands not saved by sections 5, 6 and 7 and are not found to be in possess... | Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1 950, transfers all interests in estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder to the State as from a date notified under section 4. Section 6 carves out of this land mass and leaves untouched, apart from raiyati holdings the bakasht lands in Khas possession of the 'inter... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | ivil Appeal Nos.1756 59 of 1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.1.1990 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. Nos.10962,10901, 10902 and 10903 of 1987. Raju Rama Chandran for the Appellants. Prem Malhotra for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.JAGANNATHA SHETTY,J. | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | We grant Special Leave and proceed to dispose of these appeals. These appeals preferred against the decision of the Allahabad High Court raise common questions as to the scope of Regulations 17(2) and 17(3) of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (`the Regu... | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The Corporation has framed the Regulations inter alia prescribing medical test to drivers every year for the purpose of assessing their suitability for the job. Pursuant to these Regulations, the Managing Director of the Corporation issued a circular dated December 19,1986 stating that all drivers should be medically e... | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | In view of the medical report, the Corporation discharged them with immediate effect by paying them one month salary in lieu of notice and also retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents challenged their retrenchment by means of writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court. The High ... | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Regulation 17(2) requires that the drivers have to undergo medical test particularly vision test every year, or at such intervals as may be prescribed by the General Manager of the Corporation. Regulation 17(3) has two branches. The first branch provides power to the Corporation to remove the driver from the service wh... | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | However, sometimes the insertion of a proviso by the draftsman is not strictly adhered to its legitimate use and it may be in substance a substantive provision adding to and not merely excepting something out of or qualifying what goes before it. The proviso with which we are concerned in Regulation 17(3) does not carv... | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The driver who is found medically unfit to drive the vehicle on the public road certainly cannot be permitted to continue as a driver. His driving licence is liable to be revoked. His continuance as driver would, perhaps be perilous to the interests of passengers and pedestrians. The Corporation therefore, has been emp... | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | What does this mean in practical terms? Does it mean that the retrenched driver has a statutory right to get an alternative job? Is it obligatory for the Corporation to offer an alternative job to the driver who is certified to be medically unfit for the driver 's job? The High Court has expressed the view that the Cor... | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The discretion conferred by Regulation 17(3) confers no vested right on the retrenched workmen to get an alternative job in the Corporation. Like all other statutory discretion in the administrative law, Regulation 17(3) creates no legal right in favour of a person in respect of whom the discretion is required to be ex... | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Whether alternative job is to be offered or not is a matter left to the discretion of the competent authority of the Corporation and the Corporation has to exercise the discretion in individual cases. The Court cannot command the Corporation to exercise discretion in a particular manner and in favour of a particular pe... | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The circulars thus leave no scope for exercising discretion to consider the individual cases of retrenched drivers for any alternative job. It may be stated that the statutory discretion cannot be fettered by self created rules or policy. Although it is open to an authority to which discretion has been entrusted to lay... | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | These are, in our opinion, extreme contentions which are not sustainable under law. There are two aspects to be borne in mind in exercising the discretion. Firstly, there are constraints within which the Corporation has to exercise its discretion. The Corporation is a public utility organisation where medicating motion... | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | It is within these constraints the Corporation has to exercise its discretion and perform its task. The second aspect relates to the manner in which the statutory discretion is to be exercised. The discretion allowed by the statute to the holder of an office, as Lord Halsbury observed in Sharp vs Wakefield, at 179 is i... | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The purpose of discretionary decision making under Regulation 17(3) was intended to rehabilitate the disabled drivers to the extent possible and within the above said constraints. The Corporation therefore, cannot act mechanically. The discretion should not be exercised according to whim, caprice or ritual. The discret... | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Those drivers would have served 281 the Corporation till their superannuation but for their unfortunate medical unfitness to carry on the driver 's job. Therefore, it would not be improper if the discretion is exercised with greater concern for and sympathetic outlook to the disabled drivers subject of course to the pa... | The respondents were employed as drivers in the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation has framed the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, Regulations 17(2) inter alia requires the drivers to undergo medical test particularly vision test every ye... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Appeal No. 1898 of 1967. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 4th November, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2491 of 1965. Bishan Narain and D. N. Mishra, for the appellant. section N. Prasad and section P. Nayar, for respondents Nos. | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | 1 & 2. The Judgment of the Court were delivered by SARKARIA J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated November 4, 1965, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the appellant 's writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution in limine. The appellant was a Guard 'C '... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The Additional 180 District Magistrate, Ambala convicted and sentenced him on December 29, 1955 to three months simple imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Session. In Revision, the High Court of Punjab, on March 5, 1956, maintained his conviction but reduced the sentence. On April 2, 1956, the appell... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the order The High Court by its judgment, dated of his dismissal. September 2, 1958, issued the, writ directing the respondents to treat the dismissal of the appellant wholly void and ineffective.... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | 81.51 as his entire wages for the period ending March 7, 1959. On August 13, 1959, the appellant made an application under section 15(2) of the (Act 4 of 1936) (here inafter referred to a$ the Act) before the prescribed authority claim in, a sum of Rs. 9015.60 plus 10 times of, the said amount as compensation from the ... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The respondents resisted the appellant 's claim on various grounds including that of limitation. By an order dated August 7, 1963, the Authority directed respondent No. 1 (Union of India), in its capacity as employer, to refund the sum of Rs. 4863.20, (plus Rs. 100/ as costs) to the appellant holding that the same had ... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Against the order of the Authority, two appeals were carried to the Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge) One by the appellant and the other by the respondents. The Appellate Authority held that the appellant 's claim was barred by time as limitation had commenced from the date of dismissal from service and n... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The appellant 's writ petition impugning this order of the Appellate Authority was, as already stated, dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. The first question that falls to be considered is, whether the claim application filed by the appellant under section 15(2) of the Act was time barred? Mr. Bishan Narain... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Learned Counsel for the respondents does not dispute that this is a case of deduction of wages. His argument, however, is that irrespective of whether the case was one of deduction or of non payment of wages, the starting point of limitation would be the same viz., the date on which the wages fell due or accrued. The a... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | In the view propounded by the learned Counsel, limitation for making the application under section 1 5 (2) started from January 3, 1956, the date of the dismissal and the application made by the appellant 182 more than three years thereafter, was clearly time barred. Reference has been made to this Court 's decision in... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | This proviso ex facie indicates two 1. 183 alternative termini a quo for limitation, namely : (i) the date on which deduction from wages was made, or, (ii) the date, on which the payment of the wages was due to be made. From a reading of section 15, it is clear that the legislature has deliberately used, first, in sub ... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Conjunction "or", which in the context means "either", and the phrase "as the case may be" at the end of the Proviso are clinching indicia of this interpretation. They are not mere suplusages and must be given their full effect. The Legislature is not supposed to indulge in tautology; and when it uses analogous words o... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | That is to say "deduction from wages" may be 'the same thing as "deduction of wages". The deduction in the instant case is akin to this category covering the entire deficiency for the period of absence, the only difference being that here, the appellant absence from duty was involuntary. Such absence in official parlan... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | In the case in hand, therefore, the "deduction ' will coincide with the decision impliedly or expressly deducting the wages. Such a decision was taken 184 and put in the course of a communication to the appellant on February 18, 1959 whereby he was informed that the period from 3 1 1956 to 17 3 1959, would be treated a... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | That case, therefore, is of no assistance in determining the precise issue before us. It may be observed in passing that the, rule in Sheo Prasad vs Additional District Judge,(1) relied on by the Additional District Judge, was not followed by the same High Court in Ram Kishore Sharma vs Additional District Judge Sahara... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The second ground on which the order of the, Additional District Judge proceeds, is that since the deduction of the wages for the period of his inactive service from April 1, 1956 to February 17, 1959, had been made under the order of a co mpetent authority passed in accordance with rule 2044 of the Railway Establishme... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | 1962 All. 144. (2) [1959] All Law Journal p. 225. (3) (4) [1962] Supp. S.C.R. 315. | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | 185 was held therein, that r. 54 enables the State Government to fix the pay of a public servant when his dismissal is set aside in departmental appeal. But that rule has no application to cases in which dismissal is declared invalid by a decree of civil court and he is, in consequence, reinstated. Mr. Bishan Narain ne... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | While it is true that Rule s 17 and 18 of Order 6 of the Code do not, in terms, apply to amendment of an application under section 15(2), the Authority is competent to devise, consistently with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, its own procedure based on general principles of justice, equity and ... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Mr. Bishan Narain further contends that Running Allowance was a part of the pay or substantive wages. In support of this argument he has invited our attention to rule 2003 of the Railway Establishment Code, clause 2 of which defines 'average pay '. According to the second proviso to this clause in the case, of staff en... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Traveling allowance or running allowance is eligible if the officer has traveled or run, not otherwise. We therefore negative this contention. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and restore that of the Prescribed Authority. The appellant shall have his costs ... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | In this country the State is the largest litigant to day and the huge expenditure involved makes a big draft on the public exchequer. In the context of expanding dimensions of State activity and responsibility, is it unfair to expect finer sense and sensibility in its litigation policy, the absence of which, in the pre... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The State is. a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak, government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations which move, private parties to fight (1) Law Commission of India,.54th Report Civil... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | 187 in court. The lay out on litigation costs and executive time by the State and its agencies is so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into foren... | The appellant, a Railway Guard, was convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 509, I.P.C. The High Court uphold his conviction. On appeal this Court set aside.the conviction and acquitted him. In the meanwhile the appel lant, was dismissed from service with effect from 31st March, 1956. The appellant impugne... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | ION: Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 6th September, 1955, of the Madras High Court in Crimi nal Appeal No. 498 of 1954 and Criminal Revision Case No. 257 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated the 12th July, 1954 of the Special Judge, Coimbatore... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | H. J. Umrigar, H. R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellants. Krishnaswamy Iyengar and Sardar Bahadur, for the re spondent. September 26. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J. This is an appeal by the State of Madras from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras reversing the judgm... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | According to the prosecution the respondent in the end of September 1951 demanded from K.S. Narayana Iyer (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) who is a proprietor of a "Coffee Hotel" called Nehru cafe in Coimba tore with another similar hotel at Bhavanisagar a bribe of Rs. 1,000. The complainant had been assess... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | to show cause why a penalty should not be. imposed for underestimating his income. For the assessment year 195152 also the complainant in the usual course filed his return on August 11, 1951 and on a notice being issued to him produced his accounts before the Income tax Officer on September 27, 1951. He again appeared ... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | 1,000 as illegal gratification. The complainant mentioned this fact to his manager and also that he had been told by the Income tax Officer that his accounts were unsatisfactory. Because he was asked to do so the complainant saw the respondent at the latter 's house on October 6 or 7 and he asked the complainant if he ... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The complainant mentioned to the Inspector about the demand of a bribe by the respondent. At the instance of the In spector the complainant appeared before the Tehsildar Magis trate who recorded his statement P 17 wherein the whole story of the demand of the bribe has been set out. The Inspector then gave ten one hundr... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 200 which on his return he entered in his kacha account book which the High Court has rejected without sufficient reason. On the evening of November 15, the complainant again went to the house of the respondent and the latter told him that he would pass final orders and that money shou... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Two or three minutes later the Inspector P. W. 12 and the Magistrate P. W. 13 and one Sesha Ayyar who had joined the party en route also came into the house on receiving the signal from the complainant. They disclosed their identity to the respondent and told him that they had information that he had received Rs. 800 f... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | A pronote with four anna stamps affixed was later produced in the court by the respondent on July 17,1952 during the course of his state ment under section 342 Criminal Procedure Code but it was not mentioned to the Magistrate P. W. 13 by the respondent. The charge against the respondent was that he had obtained from t... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | At that time he was not aware that the complainant had an assessment pending before him. It was the complainant who told him on November 15 when he met him again that the anonymous letter was the " 'work of his enemies" and promised to advance the loan as previously promised and he also suggested that the respond ent s... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The respondent had the pronote ready and offered to hand it over in the morning but the complainant said he would take it when " he left the house ". The learned Special Judge accepted the story of the prosecu tion and after a careful analysis of the evidence found the respondent guilty of the offence charged and sente... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | (ii)" The result is that if the version of P. W. 8 and thatof the accused are balanced, the probability seems totilt the scale in favour of the accused 's version. In any case, the evidence is not enough to show that the explana tion offered by the accused 586 cannot reasonably be true, and so, the benefit of doubt mus... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | (v)" In my view, the evidence does not necessarily make out a case that the accused must have accepted the money only as a bribe. " (vi)" I do not therefore feel certain that the taking of a loan with an obligation to repay it with interest, would fall within the meaning of the term I gratification '. " The extent of t... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | 1285, 1301. (2) ;, 458, 587 The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramakrishna Ganpatrao Limsey (1) was also referred to by counsel for the respondent and it was contended that the Supreme Court should not interfere with the order of the High Court merely on the ground that it took a different view of the facts. That was an ap... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Even in State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramakrishna Ganpatrao (1) Mahajan J. was of the opinion that the Supreme Court can interfere where the High Court "acts perversely or otherwise improperly or has been deceived by fraud. " In Pritam Singh vs The State (3) Fazl Ali J. after a careful examination of article 136 along wit... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | See Mohinder Singh vs The King (1). An instance of this principle is the decision of the Privy Council in Stephen Seneviratne vs The King (2) which will be discussed later in this judgment and which has been approved of by this court. Interpreting the following words of section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935,... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | In Bhagwan Das vs The State of Rajasthan(4) the following, observation of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Stephen Seneviratne vs The King(2) at p. 299: (1) (I932) L.R. 59 I.A. 233, 235. (3) (1945) L.R. 72 I.A. 241, 255. | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | (2) ; A.I.R. 1936 P.C. 289. (4) 589 ".. there are here no grounds on the evidence, taken as a whole, upon which any tribunal could properly as a matter of legitimate inference, arrive at a conclusion that the appellant was guilty.. " was quoted with approval and after an examination of all the facts and circumstances o... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The findings of the High Court in the present case are, to say the least, halting, and the approach to the whole ques tion has been such that it falls within what Mr. Justice Mahajan in State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramakrishna Ganpatrao (1) described as " acting perversely or otherwise improperly ". Although the learned ... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | It may here be mentioned that the legislature has chosen to use the words ' shall presume ' and not 'may presume ', the former a presumption of law and latter of fact. Both these phrases have been de fined in the Indian Evidence Act, no doubt for the purpose of that Act, but section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Ac... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | At the time when the penalty notice was issued under section 28 of the Income tax Act the respondent was not the Income tax Officer at Coimbatore but by June 6, he had been posted at Coimbatore and the note on the Penalty File dated June 6,1951: "put up proposal to I.A.C. for levy of standard penalty," was made by him.... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | He then told me that the penalty paper was not disposed of and that the accounts for the current year had not also been gone through. " On the day following this the respondent asked the complain ant for illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000. Counsel for the respondent contended that there was no occasion for the responde... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | ant on the road, he told him that he was in financial difficulties and the complainant offered him a loan of Rs. 1,000 to be returned in easy instalments and that he did not know at that time that the complainant was an assessee before him. This statement of the respondent has been accepted by the High Court without co... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | So it is difficult to believe his statement about his not knowing that the complainant was an assessee before him and it is improbable that the respondent would mention his financial troubles to a more or less casual acquaintance who has neither been shown to be a banker, nor a money lender nor a wealthy person. The co... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The notes made by the respondent in P 7 and P 7(a) show that the accounts of the complainant were not being accepted in regard to Coimbatore Hotel. The portion of the order was : " All the defects that are usual in hotel accounts exist here. " In regard to Bhavanisagar hotel the note stated: : " Purchases are not fully... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The respondent during the pendency of assessment proceedings of the complainant allowed the complainant to visit him at his house and even paid visit to his cafe. Even according to the findings of the High Court the complainant was "needing the favours" of the respondent who on his own showing was himself in dire need ... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | In spite of this warning the respondent continued to have truck with the complainant and actually accepted Rs. 800 from him. It is true that when soon after the money was paid and the Inspector P. W. 12 and the Magistrate P.W. 13 arrived at the house of the respondent and asked him about this money he stated that he ha... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | was being prepared the accused volun teered and told me that he had received the 800 rupees as a loan from P.W. 8 the complainant. " This witness had also stated that when he went into the verandah of the house, he asked the respondent whether he had received an illegal gratification from the complainant and also asked... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The accused removed the towel. I saw some bulging at his waist in the dhoti be was wearing. I asked him again to produce the currency notes. He produced them from the folds of the dhoti be was wearing. When producing the currency notes the accused did not say anything." 594 No real cross examination was directed agains... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | 13 nor has the High Court correctly appreciated them or given them due weight. The respondent produced before the Special First Class Magistrate on July 11, 1952, an unsigned promote for Rs. 1,000 executed by him in favour of the complainant. That promote was not found in the house when the search was made by the Deput... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | These salient features of the case do not seem to have been properly appreciated or given due weight to by the High Court and in our opinion the learned judge 's approach to the question whether the sum of Rs. 800 was an illegal gratifi cation or a loan is such that the judgment falls within the words of Mahajan J. in ... | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judg ment and order of the High Court of Madras and restore that of the Special Judge of Coimbatore convicting the respondent of the offence he was charged with. The respondent must surrender to his bail bond. Appeal allowed. | Respondent, an Income tax Officer, called an assessee to his house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion, produced the money. The respondent 's defence was that he had taken the money as a loan and not as illegal, gratification. The Special j... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1207 of 1978. From the Judgment and Order dated 28 7 1977 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 1457 of 1977. Hardev Singh for the Petitioner. S.K. | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Sabharwal and Subhash Sharma for the Respondents. The following Orders were delivered: KRISHNA IYER, J. Every meritless petition for special leave commits a double sin and here we are scandalized that the sinner is the State itself. When thousands of humble litigants are waiting in the queue hungry for justice and the ... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Prof. Miller 's assertion that the Supreme Court "acting as the 'national conscience ' of the. people" does mandate standards towards which public and private behaviour must gravitate ' is as true in our jurisdiction as in his country. 1074 The factual matrix, enough to unfold why the High Court twice condemned the Sta... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Since he did not enter appearance, despite service of notice, we felt that a fresh opportunity or reminder should be afforded to him to deny, if he so desired, the sinister imputations made against him. The benefit of presumption of good faith belongs to every man, until rebutted. Fresh notice was directed and effected... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | We cannot dismiss truth in paper logged impatience but must try, with counsel 's services, to discover the justice of the cause. So we proceed to the facts. Punjab, the pride of the green revolution, is a great agricultural State and, naturally, grain markets are a developmental imperative. The whole litigation is abou... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | 4 and declaration under Sec. 6 were reportedly issued ten years ago (1969). But the very next year the proceedings were denotified and in 1971 the land of respondents 1 to 21 were notified. In Punjab, a province of peasant prosperity and private ownership, land is held dear even to the point of murder, and tragic facti... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | But, after a long interval, the State chased the same land and rushed through acquisition proceedings a second time invoking emergency powers under Sec. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. This too was assailed before the High Court on the ground of perversion of State power to satisfy the malefic appetite of a particular ... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Four issues may be formulated to focus specific attention. What is mala fides in the province of exercise of power ? 2. Is the acquisition proceeding in the instant case bad for bad faith ? 3. Where, in the setting of Sec. | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | 17 of the Act, do we draw the legal line between legitimate emergency power and illegitimate 'emergency excess ' ? 4. On the facts, here, do we bastardize or legitimize the State action under challenge ? First, what are the facts ? A grain market was the public purpose for which Government wanted land to be acquired. P... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Which land was to be taken ? This power to select is left to the responsible discretion of Government under the Act, subject to Articles 14, 19 and 31, (then). The Court is handcuffed in this jurisdiction and cannot raise its hand against what it thinks is a foolish choice. Wisdom in administrative action is the proper... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | Legal malice is gibberish unless juristic clarity keeps it separate from the popular concept of personal vice. Pithily put, bad faith which invalidates the exercise of power sometimes called colourable exercise or fraud on power and oftentimes overlaps 1076 motives, passions and satisfactions is the attainment of ends ... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | that all power is a trust that we are accountable for its exercise that, from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist". Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and embraces all cases in which the ... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | No that this land is needed for the mandi, in the judgment of Government, but that the mandi need is hijacked to reach the private destination of depriving an enemy of his land through back seat driving of the statutory engine ! To reach this conclusion, there is a big 'if ' to be proved if the real object is the illeg... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | But what have respondents 1 to 21 made out ? When power runs haywire under statutory cover, more needs to be said to make good the exposure. This takes me to a projection, in detail, on the screen of time, of the alleged politicking behind the taking of property challenged in this case. We assume the facts, stated in t... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | This spot belonged to a cousin of Shri Bajwa and was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of respondents 1 to 21. This venture of 1971 was shot down by judicial fire triggered by the admitted ground of mala fides. Years rolled by, but malice dies hard, if egged on by political scramble. So much so, the same land... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | We cannot appreciate the unusual step of quashing the acquisition twice over by the High Court on the rare score of fraud on power unless we are instructed in the bitter longevity of election hostility and the gentle genuflexion of administrative echelons when political bosses express their wishes. The version of the c... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | But should an M.L.A. oblige his cousin and crush his rival, according to poll dharma? We cannot answer but here Satnam 's 'influence ' postponed acquisition proceedings, notwithstanding the ceremonial stone. In 1967, again, elections came and Satnam won on the Congress ticket. But when the Akali Party formed the Govern... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
What is the summary of this judgment? | The Akali Government fell in 1969 but he fought as Akali, won the seat and became 'Forest Minister '. The respondents, all the time, resisted him in vain. When 'President 's Rule ' came, statutory notifications were issued for acquisition of the first site. The mandi project remained frozen till then and showed signs o... | In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone for it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respondent No. 22, an ex Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respondents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified in 1971. The landowners re... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.