|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 109 Records
-
1977 (10) TMI 128
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the workman's dismissal.
2. Authority of the Plant Manager to dismiss the workman.
3. Establishment of charges against the workman.
4. Relief entitled to the workman.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Justification of the Workman's Dismissal:
The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the dismissal of the workman, Mihir Majhi, a driver, was justified. The Tribunal found that the Company had established charges Nos. 2 and 3 against the workman but did not uphold the dismissal because it was not made by an authorized person. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that the Plant Manager, Mr. V. K. Balan, was competent to make the appointment and thus had the authority to dismiss the workman. The Court emphasized that the power to terminate service is a necessary adjunct of the power of appointment.
2. Authority of the Plant Manager to Dismiss the Workman:
The Tribunal held that the Plant Manager, Mr. V. K. Balan, was not authorized to dismiss the workman, stating that the General Manager was the appointing authority. However, the Supreme Court found that the Plant Manager was indeed the appointing authority as per the Standing Orders, and thus had the authority to dismiss the workman. The Court noted that the appointment card signed by Mr. Balan did not indicate he was acting on behalf of the General Manager and that there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.
3. Establishment of Charges Against the Workman:
The Tribunal found that charges Nos. 2 and 3 (picking up unauthorized passengers and allowing one to drive the truck) were established against the workman but did not find sufficient evidence for charges Nos. 1 and 4 (rash and negligent driving, and giving a false statement). The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on the establishment of charges, emphasizing that the findings were based on the evidence on record and did not warrant interference.
4. Relief Entitled to the Workman:
The Tribunal ordered reinstatement of the workman, stating that the dismissal was not by an authorized person. The Supreme Court, however, set aside this order, concluding that the Plant Manager was competent to dismiss the workman. The Court also noted that it was not open to them to substitute the order of discharge with benefits of past service for the dismissal. The workman was advised to approach the Company if he sought such relief.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the award of the Ninth Industrial Tribunal. The Court confirmed the Plant Manager's authority to dismiss the workman and upheld the charges established against him. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal to the respondents as per the Court's order dated June 1, 1977.
-
1977 (10) TMI 127
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Validity of notice of termination given before the expiry of the settlement period.
3. Competency of the reference made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal.
4. Applicability of previous judgments and decisions to the current case.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The core issue revolves around whether Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act mandates that a notice of termination can only be given after the expiry of the settlement period. The judgment clarifies that Section 19(2) ensures that a settlement remains binding for the agreed period and continues to operate until two months after a written notice of termination is given by one party to the other. The provision aims to maintain peace and accord between the parties during the settlement period and allows for its extension by operation of law unless terminated with proper notice.
2. Validity of notice of termination given before the expiry of the settlement period:
The workmen issued a notice on May 6, 1973, to terminate the settlement effective from July 5, 1973, coinciding with the end of the agreed settlement period. The judgment states that there is no legal impediment to giving advance notice of termination as long as it does not curtail the contractual or statutory period of the settlement. The notice in question was deemed valid as it complied with the requirement that the period of two months from the date of notice must end on or after the expiry of the settlement.
3. Competency of the reference made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal:
The employer challenged the reference made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, arguing that it was incompetent due to the alleged invalidity of the termination notice. The Tribunal overruled this objection, and the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the notice was valid and the reference was competent. The judgment emphasizes that settlements, if not duly terminated, continue to operate as binding conditions of service, and the reference was valid as the termination notice met the legal requirements.
4. Applicability of previous judgments and decisions to the current case:
The judgment examines several previous decisions cited by the appellant, including cases from the Supreme Court and High Courts. However, it finds that none of these cases directly address the specific issue at hand. For instance, the case of Management of Bangalore Woolen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen dealt with an award that had not been terminated, making the reference incompetent. The current case differs as the settlement was terminated with a valid notice. Similarly, the decisions in Indian Link Chain Manufactures Ltd. v. Their Workmen and the National Carbon Co. (India) Ltd. v. M. N. Gan did not provide relevant support to the appellant's arguments. The judgment concludes that advance notice of termination is permissible under Section 19(2), provided it does not infringe upon the agreed or statutory period of the settlement.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the notice given by the workmen was valid and the reference by the State Government was competent. The judgment underscores that Section 19(2) allows for advance notice of termination, ensuring continuity and stability in industrial relations while providing a mechanism for timely renegotiation of settlements. The Tribunal is directed to expedite the disposal of the case.
-
1977 (10) TMI 126
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition seeking to stay a suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The court emphasized the importance of parties resolving disputes through arbitration when agreed upon in the contract. The court highlighted the government's indifference towards litigative diligence and urged for accountability in wasteful litigative expenditure. The court criticized the government for unresponsiveness and failure to settle disputes through conciliation, emphasizing the need for a more proactive approach to governmental litigation to avoid waste of public money.
-
1977 (10) TMI 125
Issues:
1. Bail application rejection by Sessions Court and High Court.
2. Complainant's application for bail cancellation.
3. Interpretation of provisions under Section 167(2) and Chapter XXXIII of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Applicability of Section 437(5) for bail cancellation.
5. Valid grounds for bail cancellation post challan filing.
Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from the rejection of bail applications by the Sessions Court and the High Court for the three appellants in a case involving offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including causing death and injuries. The appellants were initially released on bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC due to the failure of the investigating agency to file a challan within sixty days of their arrest.
2. The complainant filed an application seeking the cancellation of bail for the appellants based on the rejection of their bail petitions on merits by the lower courts. The Sessions Judge relied on a precedent, emphasizing that bail considerations differ before and after the filing of a report under Section 173 of the CrPC. The Sessions Judge, following this precedent, granted the complainant's application and canceled the bail.
3. The Supreme Court delved into the relevant provisions of the CrPC, particularly Section 167(2 and Chapter XXXIII, to determine the legal implications of bail granted under Section 167(2) and its relation to bail under Chapter XXXIII. The Court highlighted that a person released under Section 167(2) is deemed to be released under Chapter XXXIII for legal purposes.
4. The Court examined the applicability of Section 437(5) for the cancellation of bail granted under Section 167(2). It emphasized that the power of the court to cancel bail is preserved under Section 437(5) for individuals released under Section 167(2). The Court clarified that the mere filing of a challan post-release is not sufficient grounds for bail cancellation under Section 437(5).
5. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning for bail cancellation post challan filing. It emphasized that the cancellation of bail should be based on valid grounds recognized by law, such as tampering with evidence or the accused's potential threat to justice. The Court highlighted that the mere dismissal of bail petitions on merits or the filing of a challan is not inherently indicative of grounds for bail cancellation under Section 437(5).
6. Referring to relevant case law, the Supreme Court upheld the view that bail granted under Section 167(2) holds the same legal implications as bail under Chapter XXXIII. Consequently, the Court concluded that the cancellation of bail by the High Court was unsound and directed the release of the appellants.
-
1977 (10) TMI 124
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the transaction (Pledge vs. Bailment)
2. Bank's liability for the non-delivery of the plant
3. Frustration of contract
4. Necessary parties to the suit
5. Delivery of possession
6. Knowledge of conditional permission by the Pakistan Government
7. Proof of the order by the Pakistan Government
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of the Transaction (Pledge vs. Bailment):
The court disagreed with the trial court's finding that the transaction was merely a bailment. It held that the transaction was a pledge, emphasizing that a pledge involves the delivery of goods as security for a debt, which includes the right to sell the goods on default. The bank had control and possession of the goods, which were stored with the Express Company, thus establishing it as a pledge rather than a lien or simple bailment.
2. Bank's Liability for Non-Delivery of the Plant:
The court found that the bank was responsible for the non-delivery of the plant. The sale to Akhtar Ali without the distillers' consent was deemed illegal, and the bank's failure to transfer Rs. 30,000 from India to Pakistan was a breach of its obligation. The bank's duty was to clear the obstacle imposed by the Pakistan Government, which required the repatriation of Rs. 30,000 for the plant's release.
3. Frustration of Contract:
The court rejected the bank's argument of frustration, holding that the condition imposed by the Pakistan Government (repatriation of Rs. 30,000) was not impossible to fulfill. The court noted that the Reserve Bank of India and the Ministry of Finance were agreeable to the transfer, and the bank's failure to act on this condition was a breach of contract. The doctrine of frustration does not apply when the frustrating event is caused by the party's own fault.
4. Necessary Parties to the Suit:
The court found no merit in the argument that the Punjab National Bank was a necessary party. The distillers had initially brought the suit against Bharat Nidhi (successor of Bharat Bank) and later added Punjab National Bank. However, the distillers gave up their claim against Punjab National Bank based on the banks' admission that there was no assignment of the claim in favor of Punjab National Bank. The court held that the suit against Bharat Nidhi was maintainable.
5. Delivery of Possession:
The court held that the bank did not deliver possession to the distillers by merely writing to the Express Company. The bank was obligated to ensure the actual delivery of the goods, which it failed to do. The court emphasized that the pledgee (bank) must be in a position to redeliver the goods upon payment of the debt, and failure to do so incurs liability.
6. Knowledge of Conditional Permission by the Pakistan Government:
The court found that the bank was aware of the condition imposed by the Pakistan Government (repatriation of Rs. 30,000) at least after the institution of the suit. The bank's defense that it was not informed was rejected, as the distillers had clearly stated this condition in the plaint, and the relevant correspondence was annexed.
7. Proof of the Order by the Pakistan Government:
The court accepted the evidence presented by the distillers, including the letter from the Department of Supply and Development, Government of Pakistan, which forbade the disposal of the machinery without prior permission. The evidence from the Express Company and the correspondence between the Indian High Commission and the Government of Pakistan supported the distillers' claim of the imposed restrictions.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, holding the bank liable for the non-delivery of the plant and passing a decree for Rs. 2,59,166/12 in favor of the distillers, with interest at 6% from the date of the suit until payment. The distillers were also entitled to costs throughout. The cross-objections filed by the bank were dismissed.
-
1977 (10) TMI 123
Issues Involved:
1. Public purpose of acquisition.
2. Compensation or amount provided for acquisition.
3. Legislative competence regarding acquisition of contract carriages with Inter-State permits.
4. Applicability of Article 31C in relation to Article 31(2) of the Constitution.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
Public Purpose:
The Court emphasized that any law providing for the acquisition of property must be for a public purpose, which is a justiciable issue. The intention of the legislature is primarily gathered from the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Preamble of the Act. The acquisition of vehicles, permits, and other assets for running them for the purposes of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation) was deemed to be for a public purpose. The Court rejected the argument that acquisition of chattels or movables cannot be for a public purpose, stating that the acquisition in question was not merely for augmenting state revenue but was aimed at preventing misuse of permits and providing better transport facilities, thus serving a public purpose within the meaning of Article 31(2).
Compensation or Amount Provided:
The High Court had concluded that the scheme for payment under the Act was illusory, violating Article 31(2). However, the Supreme Court clarified that the amount payable for acquired property, whether fixed by the legislature or determined on the basis of principles in the law of acquisition, cannot be arbitrary or illusory. The Court emphasized that the amount need not be the market value but should not be so inadequate as to be a mockery of the right to property. The Court accepted a reasonable and harmonious interpretation of the Act, ensuring that the amount determined by the arbitrator would be just and reasonable, taking into account the circumstances of each case and the provisions of the Schedule.
Legislative Competence:
The acquisition of contract carriages with Inter-State permits was challenged as ultra vires the legislative power of the State Legislature. The Court held that the pith and substance of the Act were within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 35 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The incidental encroachment on the topic of Inter-State trade and commerce did not invalidate the Act. The Court also clarified that vehicles registered and kept in Karnataka with Inter-State permits granted by Karnataka authorities were validly acquired. However, the countersigned portion of the permit, which authorized plying in other States, could not be acquired as it would involve extra-territorial operation beyond the competence of the Karnataka Legislature.
Applicability of Article 31C:
The Court addressed whether Article 31C barred the challenge to the Act as being violative of Article 31(2). Article 31C provides that laws giving effect to the principles specified in Article 39(b) and (c) cannot be challenged on the grounds of violating Articles 14, 19, or 31. The Court emphasized that the acquisition aimed at preventing misuse of permits and providing better transport facilities had a reasonable nexus with the principles in Article 39(b) and (c), thus falling within the protective ambit of Article 31C. The Court concluded that the Act was constitutionally valid and did not require further reliance on Article 31C for its defense.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The Act was upheld as being for a public purpose, providing a reasonable amount for the acquired property, and within the legislative competence of the Karnataka Legislature. The Court also emphasized the harmonious interpretation of the Act to ensure compliance with constitutional provisions. The decision reinforced the principle that legislative judgments on public purposes and compensation should be given due weight, provided they are not arbitrary or illusory.
-
1977 (10) TMI 122
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application under Article 226 of the Constitution is premature and, therefore, not maintainable.
2. Whether there was any rational and proximate nexus between the object of FERA of 1947 or 1973 and the condition imposed by the RBI that the shares cannot be sold to larger industrial houses or to persons connected therewith.
3. Whether the expressions "larger industrial houses" and "persons connected therewith" are vague, indefinite, and uncertain.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Prematurity and Maintainability of the Application under Article 226:
The appellant argued that the respondent could not be considered an aggrieved person since no penalty had been imposed yet, and the respondent was merely served with a show cause notice with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The appellant cited several Supreme Court decisions, including *Chanan Singh v. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Punjab* and *Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana*, to support the argument that a writ petition was premature as no punitive action had been taken.
However, the court held that the application was maintainable. It reasoned that certain grounds raised by the respondent, such as the lack of nexus between the object of the FERA and the impugned condition, and the vagueness of the condition, could not be addressed by the authorities under FERA. The court referred to decisions from the Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, emphasizing that a writ petition could be entertained if the challenge was on grounds that could not be determined by the statutory authority.
2. Rational and Proximate Nexus with the Object of FERA:
The court examined the object of the FERA, which was primarily to conserve and direct the limited supplies of foreign exchange and to control transactions in foreign exchange, securities, and gold. The court reviewed the legislative history and judicial interpretations of the FERA, concluding that the act was not concerned with the concentration of economic power within the country. The court found that the impugned condition imposed by the RBI, which restricted the sale of shares to larger industrial houses or persons connected therewith, had no rational or proximate nexus with the object of conserving foreign exchange. The court emphasized that the RBI's powers under Section 5(1)(a) of FERA were limited to ensuring that transactions were in order from the exchange angle and did not extend to imposing conditions unrelated to the conservation of foreign exchange.
3. Vagueness and Uncertainty of the Expressions:
The court addressed whether the expressions "larger industrial houses" and "persons connected therewith" were vague and indefinite. The court noted that while the expression "larger industrial houses" was not defined in any statute, it had acquired a definite connotation in business circles, as evidenced by various government reports and guidelines. The court concluded that the expression was not vague or uncertain.
Regarding the expression "persons connected therewith," the court referred to dictionary definitions and concluded that the term meant persons on whom a larger industrial house could exercise influence. The court found that the expression was not ambiguous in the context of the condition imposed by the RBI.
Severability of the Invalid Condition:
The court considered whether the invalid condition could be severed from the valid conditions. It referred to legal principles on severability and concluded that the invalid condition (prohibiting the sale of shares to larger industrial houses or persons connected therewith) could be severed from the other conditions without affecting the validity of the permission granted by the RBI.
Conclusion:
The court held that the RBI had exceeded its powers under FERA in imposing the condition restricting the sale of shares to larger industrial houses or persons connected therewith. The court directed the respondents to recall, cancel, and withdraw the impugned notices dated 13th Feb. 1975 and 14th Nov. 1975. The appeal was dismissed, and the rule was made absolute.
-
1977 (10) TMI 121
Issues Involved:
1. Proper valuation of the suit for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction.
2. Whether the relief of declaration is a surplusage or a substantive relief.
3. Applicability of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and the second proviso.
4. Whether the relief sought is with reference to any property as per the second proviso.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Proper Valuation of the Suit for Purposes of Court-Fees and Jurisdiction:
The trial court determined that the suit was not correctly valued for court-fees and jurisdiction, holding that the value should be Rs. 54,000. The court concluded that the suit should be valued under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, read with the second proviso, as applicable to Delhi. The trial court found that the property involved was not exclusively used for Ramdwara purposes and thus capable of valuation. The valuation included Rs. 55,000 for properties in dispute, Rs. 8,000 for agricultural land, and Rs. 10,000 for cash deposits in the bank.
2. Whether the Relief of Declaration is a Surplusage or a Substantive Relief:
The plaintiffs argued that the suit was mainly for permanent injunction and that the declaration was surplusage. However, the court held that the relief of declaration was necessary and not surplusage. The court emphasized that the substance of the plaint should be considered rather than its form. Since the defendants were in possession of the property and claimed ownership based on a will, the plaintiffs needed to challenge this will to obtain the injunction. Thus, the relief of declaration was essential to remove the legal obstacle posed by the will.
3. Applicability of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and the Second Proviso:
The court held that the suit fell under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, as it involved a declaratory relief with consequential relief. The court referred to the Full Bench decision in Mt. Zeb-ul-Nissa, which defined "consequential relief" as some relief following directly from the declaration, the valuation of which is not capable of being definitely ascertained. The court agreed that the relief of injunction was consequential to the declaration and thus, the suit was governed by Section 7(iv)(c).
4. Whether the Relief Sought is with Reference to Any Property as per the Second Proviso:
The court examined whether the relief sought was with reference to any property, as required by the second proviso to Section 7(iv)(c). The court held that the relief sought was indeed with reference to immovable property covered by the will, including the Ramdwara, agricultural land, and cash. The court clarified that the second proviso would apply to the extent that the relief sought was with reference to immovable property, which must be valued according to its market value. The trial court had determined the market value of the immovable property at Rs. 45,000, and the plaintiffs were entitled to value the cash separately.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the trial court's decision that the suit was not properly valued for court-fees and jurisdiction. The suit needed to be valued under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, considering the second proviso for immovable property. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper court. Parties were left to bear their own costs.
-
1977 (10) TMI 120
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation on the number of stage carriage permits.
2. Validity of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1972.
3. Issuance of permits by the Regional Transport Authority.
4. Effect of the notification dated September 24, 1975.
5. Retrospective effect of U.P. Amendment Act 15 of 1976.
6. Issuance of writ of mandamus.
Summary:
1. Limitation on the number of stage carriage permits:
Under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, limited the number of stage carriage permits to thirty for the route Meerut-Rohta-Sinali-Baraut. In 1971, eight permits were granted, and fifty applicants who were not granted permits filed appeals u/s 64 of the Central Act.
2. Validity of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1972:
The U.P. Motor Vehicles Amendment Ordinance No. 9 of 1972, replaced by the U.P. Act of 1972, inserted Section 43A in the Central Act, authorizing the State Government to issue directions regarding road transport. The Act aimed to remove the limit on the number of permits. The constitutional validity of the Act and the notification dated March 30, 1972, was upheld by the Supreme Court in Hans Raj Kehar & Ors. v. The State of U.P. and Ors.
3. Issuance of permits by the Regional Transport Authority:
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals on February 19, 1975, granting permits to the fifty applicants, provided they met certain conditions by March 31, 1975. The appellants complied, but permits were not issued due to further litigation initiated by those initially granted permits by the Regional Transport Authority.
4. Effect of the notification dated September 24, 1975:
The notification proposed a policy change, staying the disposal of pending applications for permits. The High Court misinterpreted this notification, thinking it prevented the issuance of permits. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the notification did not affect permits already granted by the Appellate Tribunal.
5. Retrospective effect of U.P. Amendment Act 15 of 1976:
The U.P. Amendment Act 15 of 1976, which came into force on May 1, 1976, amended Section 43-A with retrospective effect. The argument that this made the Appellate Tribunal's order illegal was rejected. The order was legal when made, and the retrospective change in law did not nullify it.
6. Issuance of writ of mandamus:
The Supreme Court held that the Regional Transport Authority failed in its legal duty by not issuing the permits as ordered by the Appellate Tribunal. The Court directed the issuance of a writ of mandamus, compelling the Authority to issue the permits. The total period of temporary permits issued must be deducted from the three-year permit period.
Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the Regional Transport Authority was directed to implement the Appellate Tribunal's orders and issue the permits to the appellants. No order as to costs was made.
-
1977 (10) TMI 119
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
2. Interpretation of "a male Hindu dying intestate" under Section 8.
3. The effect of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act on the widow's inherited property.
4. The legal status of reversionary heirs.
5. The impact of prior judicial decisions on the current case.
6. The admissibility and reliability of public registers as evidence.
7. The effect of the Hindu Succession Act on reversionary succession.
8. The amendment of pleadings in light of new evidence.
9. The interpretation of Class II heirs under the Hindu Succession Act.
10. The applicability of res judicata.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The primary issue was whether Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies to a case where the husband died intestate before the Act came into force, and his widow inherited his properties but was not in possession of those properties and died after the commencement of the Act. The court referred to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Daya Singh v. Dhankaur, which affirmed that Section 8 is applicable in such scenarios.
2. Interpretation of "a male Hindu dying intestate" under Section 8:
The court examined whether the phrase "a male Hindu dying intestate" refers only to the status of the person at the time of death. The Privy Council had previously interpreted similar language to mean that the status of the person dying intestate is relevant, not the time of death. Therefore, Section 8 would apply to the husband's death before the Act.
3. The effect of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act on the widow's inherited property:
Section 14 of the Act transforms any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, into her full ownership. The court discussed whether this provision would affect the scope of Section 8, especially when the widow was not in possession of the property.
4. The legal status of reversionary heirs:
The court addressed whether the reversionary heirs should be determined as of the widow's death date, implying that the husband's death date should be presumed to be the same. This presumption was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Daya Singh v. Dhankaur.
5. The impact of prior judicial decisions on the current case:
The court noted that the Supreme Court in Daya Singh v. Dhankaur had resolved the conflict of opinions among various High Courts. The Supreme Court's interpretation was binding, and the court followed it to answer the question in the affirmative.
6. The admissibility and reliability of public registers as evidence:
The court scrutinized the evidence provided by the defendants, particularly the public register (Ex. B-62), which was challenged for its genuineness. The trial and appellate courts had not adequately examined the discrepancies in the register, leading to a lack of legal adjudication on this issue. The court concluded that the register was unreliable.
7. The effect of the Hindu Succession Act on reversionary succession:
The Full Bench of the court held that succession to Peria Ramana Gounder's estate should be determined under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, following the death of his widow, Sengammal, in 1958. This decision was consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation in Daya Singh v. Dhankaur.
8. The amendment of pleadings in light of new evidence:
The plaintiffs sought to amend their pleadings to introduce new facts regarding the extinguishment of title under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court denied the amendment, stating that it introduced a new cause of action and lacked bona fides.
9. The interpretation of Class II heirs under the Hindu Succession Act:
The court clarified that the enumeration of heirs in Class II of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act should not be interpreted to mean that all such heirs take cumulatively. Instead, the heirs in each item exclude those in the subsequent items. Therefore, Kaliammal, as the sister of Peria Ramana Gounder, was the nearest heir and inherited the property as a full owner under Sections 14 to 18 of the Act.
10. The applicability of res judicata:
The court considered whether the plaintiffs' claim was barred by res judicata due to a prior decision (Ex. B-25 and Ex. B-26) that upheld the will of Chinna Nanjappan, which bequeathed the suit properties to the predecessors-in-interest of defendants 2 and 3. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to institute the suit, and the prior decision was binding on them.
Conclusion:
The second appeal was allowed, and the court emphasized the need to conclude the long-drawn litigation without awarding costs. The court's decision was guided by the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in Daya Singh v. Dhankaur and the interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, regarding reversionary succession and the status of heirs.
-
1977 (10) TMI 118
Issues:
- Appeal against suit for eviction and other reliefs
- Interpretation of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961
- Determination of personal necessity for eviction
- Decree for damages post-termination of contractual tenancy
Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by special leave against a suit for eviction and other reliefs filed by the plaintiff-respondent for a shop premises. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court decreed it. The High Court upheld the decree, leading to the current appeal.
2. The main contention revolved around the interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, specifically regarding the landlord's personal necessity for eviction. The plaintiff claimed bona fide personal necessity for eviction due to wanting to shift his sweetmeat business to the shop premises in question.
3. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Act and previous judgments to determine the landlord's rights under the law. It was established that the plaintiff's business of the sweetmeat shop was indeed his own, and the defendants could not dispute this fact at a later stage of the litigation.
4. The Court further delved into the provisions of the Act related to the definition of a tenant, emphasizing that even after the termination of a contractual tenancy, the occupant remains a statutory tenant until a decree for eviction is passed. This distinction was crucial in determining the liability for damages post-termination of the tenancy.
5. The judgment also addressed the issue of decree for damages, highlighting that damages could only be awarded from the date of the eviction decree and not from the termination of the contractual tenancy. The defendants were held liable to pay damages from the date of the eviction decree until the delivery of vacant possession.
6. Ultimately, the Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the decree for damages for the period pre-eviction decree and post-termination of the contractual tenancy. The defendants were directed to pay damages from the date of the eviction decree until the delivery of vacant possession. No costs were awarded in the Supreme Court.
-
1977 (10) TMI 117
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Magistrate can issue notice to the complainant, record statements, and issue processes u/s 204 after directing investigation u/s 156(3) and receiving the final report.
2. Interpretation of the term "taking cognizance" as used in sections 190, 200, and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. The scope and ambit of sections 156(3), 190, 200, 202, and 204 of the Code.
Summary:
Issue 1: Magistrate's Authority Post-Investigation u/s 156(3)
The Supreme Court examined whether a Magistrate, after directing an investigation u/s 156(3) and receiving a final report, can issue notice to the complainant, record statements, and issue processes u/s 204. The Court held that a Magistrate can indeed take such actions. The Magistrate's powers under section 156(3) are exercised before taking cognizance, and once cognizance is taken, the Magistrate can proceed under sections 190, 200, and 204.
Issue 2: Interpretation of "Taking Cognizance"
The Court clarified that "taking cognizance" occurs when a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offense for the purpose of proceeding under the subsequent provisions of the Code. This does not involve any formal action but is a judicial application of the mind to the facts mentioned in the complaint.
Issue 3: Scope and Ambit of Relevant Sections
The Court analyzed the scheme of the Code and concluded:
1. A Magistrate can order investigation u/s 156(3) only at the pre-cognizance stage.
2. Upon taking cognizance, a Magistrate can:
- Issue process if satisfied with the complaint.
- Postpone the issue of process and conduct an inquiry.
- Direct an inquiry by another person or an investigation by the police.
3. If not satisfied with the grounds for proceeding, the Magistrate can dismiss the complaint.
4. After receiving a report from an investigation ordered u/s 156(3), the Magistrate can act on the report, discharge the accused, or take cognizance and proceed u/s 190.
The Court found that the Magistrate in this case acted within his powers by issuing notice to the complainant, recording statements, and issuing processes after receiving the final report from the police. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.
-
1977 (10) TMI 116
Issues involved: Abuse of process of the court, vexatious litigation, judicial misconduct, legal legerdemain, contempt of court.
Abuse of process of the court: The petitioner, son of the 2nd respondent, engaged in a series of legal proceedings to contest an eviction order obtained by his father, including filing a suit for declaration of fraud and collusion. The High Court granted time for vacating the premises, but the petitioner exploited this by filing another suit to gain more time. The litigative acrobatics continued with the petitioner and his father instituting another suit before a different Munsif, leading to the grant of an ex parte injunction which was later vacated. Despite repeated defeats, the petitioner managed to obtain injunctions through various legal maneuvers, including moving to the High Court in revision. The High Court dismissed the revision, condemning the petitioner for gross abuse of the court process.
Vexatious litigation: The High Court found the suit pending before the First Munsif's Court to be a flagrant misuse of legal mercies, urging the Munsif to scrutinize vexatious suits at the outset and nip cleverly drafted causes of action in the bud. Emphasizing the need for activist judges to combat irresponsible lawsuits, the Court highlighted the importance of examining parties at the first hearing to weed out bogus litigation promptly. The Penal Code was cited as a resource to address such misconduct, with a call for deterrent action against vexatious motives in litigation.
Judicial misconduct: The Court criticized the petitioner for repeatedly abusing the court process and condemned the party for inflicting an ordeal upon the High Court judge. The judge's torment was evident from his order, where he mentioned spending a sleepless night due to the petitioner's tactics. The Court emphasized the need for judges to resist bullying tactics and improper advocacy, ensuring that fruitless proceedings do not deter the pursuit of justice.
Legal legerdemain and contempt of court: The petitioner's legal maneuvers, including filing multiple suits and obtaining injunctions through deceptive means, were deemed as legal legerdemain that undermined the credibility of the judicial system. While the Court refrained from taking contempt action due to counsel's reasonableness, it highlighted the contempt power as a tool to address litigants like the petitioner who abuse the court process. The Court dismissed the petition, urging the trial court to dispose of the vexatious suit promptly and take deterrent action if inspired by groundless motives.
-
1977 (10) TMI 115
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of voluntary retirement under F.R. 56(c).
2. Applicability of Rule 119 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 (DISI Rules).
3. Government's authority to revoke permission for voluntary retirement.
4. Legal status of the appellant's employment and its termination.
Summary:
1. Validity of Voluntary Retirement under F.R. 56(c):
The appellant, a District and Sessions Judge, served a notice to the Government u/r F.R. 56(c) to voluntarily retire after attaining the age of 50 years. The Government initially allowed the retirement but later revoked this permission. The Supreme Court held that under F.R. 56(c), a Government servant has the right to voluntarily retire by giving three months' notice, and there is no requirement for the Government's acceptance of this request. The appellant lawfully retired as notified by him with effect from 2nd August, 1976.
2. Applicability of Rule 119 of the DISI Rules:
The Government argued that Rule 119 of the DISI Rules, which requires previous consent of the employer for termination of employment, was super-imposed on F.R. 56(c). The Supreme Court found that Rule 119, particularly Explanation 2, applies to contractual employment and not to statutory conditions of service like those under F.R. 56. Therefore, Rule 119 was not applicable to the appellant's case.
3. Government's Authority to Revoke Permission for Voluntary Retirement:
The Supreme Court held that the Government's order of July 28, 1976, revoking the permission for voluntary retirement, was ineffectual in law and null and void. The appellant had fulfilled the conditions of F.R. 56(c) and thus had lawfully retired.
4. Legal Status of the Appellant's Employment and its Termination:
The Court emphasized that the employment of a Government servant is a matter of status, not contract, and is governed by statutory rules. The appellant's voluntary retirement was in pursuance of a statutory rule, not an express or implied term of a contract of employment. The High Court's order transferring the appellant to Dhubri was invalid and quashed.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the writ petition, and ruled in favor of the appellant, confirming his lawful retirement from 2nd August, 1976. The appeal was allowed with costs in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
-
1977 (10) TMI 114
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the compromise decree.
2. Applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955.
3. Requirement for registration of the decree.
4. Grounds for eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955.
Summary:
1. Validity of the Compromise Decree:
The Supreme Court examined whether the compromise decree was a nullity. The High Court had previously held that the decree was invalid as it purported to create a lease without registration and was passed in contravention of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The Supreme Court, however, found that the decree did not create a lease but was a lawful compromise for eviction, stating, "the intention of the parties was not to enter into the relationship of a landlord and tenant." The Court concluded that the decree was not a nullity and was executable.
2. Applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955:
The tenants argued that the decree was invalid as it was passed in violation of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955. The Supreme Court noted that a landlord cannot obtain eviction unless the requirements of the Act are satisfied. The Court found that the trial court had applied its mind to the relevant questions and was satisfied that a valid decree under the Act could be passed. The Court stated, "the compromise decree in this case is a lawful decree of eviction founded on permissible statutory ground."
3. Requirement for Registration of the Decree:
The tenants contended that the decree was invalid due to non-registration u/s 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, relying on its previous decision in Girdharilal v. Hukam Singh, which held that a compromise decree does not require registration unless it necessarily involves the execution of a deed of conveyance. The Court found no intention to create a lease and thus no requirement for registration.
4. Grounds for Eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955:
The tenants argued that the eviction was sought for a composite purpose (residential and business), which was not permissible since the premises were let for non-residential use. The Supreme Court distinguished the provisions of the M.P. Act from those of the Delhi Act, stating that under the M.P. Act, a landlord can seek eviction for business purposes even if the premises were let for non-residential use. The Court concluded that the grounds for eviction were valid and the decree was lawful.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, restoring the orders of the lower courts. The appeal was allowed with costs. The Court also stayed the execution of the decree until January 31, 1978, based on the respondents' undertaking to vacate the premises and pay mesne profits.
-
1977 (10) TMI 113
Issues Involved:
1. Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court over the judicial authority under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act.
2. Justification for the High Court's interference with the appellate authority's decision on confiscation of food grains.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The primary issue was whether the judicial authority constituted under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is an inferior criminal court subordinate to the High Court and thus amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court held that the Sessions Judge, appointed as a judicial authority under Section 6C, is not a persona designata but functions as a court. The term "judicial authority" implies a pre-existing judicial authority exercising the judicial power of the State. The Sessions Judge, being the highest judicial officer in the district, fits this description. The Court noted that the legislative history and the language of the statute indicate that the appellate authority must be a judicial authority, not an executive one.
The Court referred to the Defence of India Rules, 1962, and the amendments made by Act No. 25 of 1966, which introduced Sections 6A to 6D in the Essential Commodities Act, highlighting the shift from an executive to a judicial appellate forum. The Sessions Court, constituted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, is an inferior criminal court in relation to the High Court. Therefore, orders made by the Sessions Judge under Section 6C are subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code.
2. Justification for High Court's Interference:
The second issue was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Sessions Judge's order setting aside the confiscation of food grains.
The Court emphasized that Section 6A confers discretionary power on the Collector to confiscate seized essential commodities if there is a contravention of an order made under Section 3. The Act provides for two independent proceedings: confiscation by the Collector under Section 6A and prosecution under Section 7. The Sessions Judge, acting as the appellate authority under Section 6C, annulled the confiscation order, considering the cancellation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit as sufficient penalties.
The Court reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where there is a manifest illegality or a gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court should not interfere merely because it holds a different view. The Sessions Judge, exercising appellate jurisdiction, found that confiscation was not justified in the given circumstances. The High Court's interference without establishing any recognized grounds for revisional jurisdiction was deemed incorrect.
The Court noted the facts that the licensee had died, leaving behind minor children and a widow, and the business could no longer be carried on due to the cancellation of the license. Considering these factors, the Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the Sessions Judge's order.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the Sessions Judge's order was restored. The Court emphasized the importance of exercising revisional jurisdiction judiciously and respecting the discretionary powers of the appellate authority under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act.
-
1977 (10) TMI 112
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the suit filed by the Collector as Administrator.
2. Execution of the decree by the trustees after the creation of the trust.
3. Authority of the District Magistrate as President of the Trust to execute the decree.
4. Application of the principles of constructive res judicata.
5. Amendment of the execution application and its implications on limitation.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Suit Filed by the Collector as Administrator:
The judgment-debtor argued that the decree was a nullity because the suit had been instituted by the Collector, Hamirpur cum Administrator of the Idol, instead of the Maharaja of Charkhari, who was the Shebait. The court noted that it is settled law that normally only the Shebait can file a suit on behalf of the Idol, but in exceptional circumstances, others can institute a suit. The court referred to the case of Behari Lal v. Thakur Radha Ballabh Ji, which established that when a Shebait is negligent or the guilty party, others interested in the endowment can file suits. The court presumed that the Collector of Hamirpur had taken over the management of the idol and its properties in his capacity as Administrator after the merger of Charkhari in U.P. Thus, the objection was not open to the judgment-debtor in the execution application, and the Collector was functioning as the de facto manager, allowing him to bring the suit.
2. Execution of the Decree by the Trustees After the Creation of the Trust:
The judgment-debtor contended that after the creation of the trust, the decree could only be executed by the trustees, not by the District Magistrate in his capacity as Chairman of the Trust. The court found this argument to have considerable force, noting that the trust deed did not authorize the President alone to institute legal proceedings. According to the Indian Trusts Act, where there are multiple trustees, all must join in the execution of the trust unless the instrument of trust provides otherwise. Since no such provision existed, the decree could not be executed based on the application filed solely by the District Magistrate.
3. Authority of the District Magistrate as President of the Trust to Execute the Decree:
The court examined whether the District Magistrate, as President of the Trust, had the authority to execute the decree. It was found that the execution application was filed by the District Magistrate in his capacity as President of the Trust, but without the authorization of the trust deed to institute legal proceedings alone. Therefore, all trustees should have joined in the execution application. The court also noted that the Indian Trusts Act principles apply to public trusts, and all trustees must join in the execution unless the trust deed provides otherwise.
4. Application of the Principles of Constructive Res Judicata:
The execution court had dismissed the judgment-debtor's objections, holding them barred by the principle of constructive res judicata because similar objections had been dismissed in default previously. The court found this view incorrect, referring to the Full Bench decision in Genda Lal v. Hazari Lal, which established that if an objection is dismissed for default and the application does not become fructuous, the judgment-debtor is not barred from raising the issue again. Since the previous objection had been dismissed in default, the principles of constructive res judicata did not apply.
5. Amendment of the Execution Application and Its Implications on Limitation:
The lower appellate court had directed amendments to the execution application to reflect the formation of the trust and the names of the trustees and Chairman. The judgment-debtor argued that this amendment, ordered after the limitation period had expired, defeated his vested rights. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgments in L. J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. and Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, which held that amendments should not be allowed if they take away a legal right accrued by lapse of time unless special circumstances justify it. The court found no special circumstances justifying the amendment and noted that the respondents did not take timely steps to rectify the defects. Therefore, the amendment was wrongly allowed.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the orders of the lower appellate court and the execution court were set aside, and the execution application was dismissed. The court found that the defects in the execution application rendered it not maintainable in law and rejected the application of Section 99, C.P.C., which pertains to non-material errors. No order as to costs was made due to the special circumstances of the case.
-
1977 (10) TMI 111
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the revision application under section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions to take cognizance of the offence.
3. Validity of the sanction given by the Chief Secretary.
4. Application of inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the 1973 Code.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Revision Application under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The High Court rejected the revision application filed by the appellant under section 397(1) of the 1973 Code, citing the bar contained in subsection (2) of section 397. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the case. The Supreme Court reiterated the view taken in Amar Nath's case but modified it, stating that the inherent powers under section 482 of the 1973 Code are not entirely barred by section 397(2). The Court emphasized that the inherent powers should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions to Take Cognizance of the Offence:
The appellant contended that the allegations against Shri Antulay were not in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions and hence, the Court of Sessions could not take cognizance without the case being committed to it. The Supreme Court clarified that the order taking cognizance of an offence, whether done illegally or without jurisdiction, is not a final order and hence, could be considered an interlocutory one. However, the inherent power of the High Court can still be invoked for quashing such a criminal proceeding if it is necessary to secure the ends of justice.
3. Validity of the Sanction Given by the Chief Secretary:
The appellant argued that the sanction given was invalid as it was not given by the State Government but by the Chief Secretary and that the Chief Secretary had not applied his mind to the entire conspectus of the facts. The Supreme Court did not specifically address the validity of the sanction in this judgment but emphasized that the High Court must consider such contentions on their merits.
4. Application of Inherent Powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the 1973 Code:
The Supreme Court discussed the scope of the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the 1973 Code. It was stated that the inherent power should not be exercised against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. The Court highlighted that the bar under section 397(2) operates only in the exercise of revisional power and not in the exercise of inherent power. The inherent power can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, particularly in cases where the criminal proceeding is initiated illegally, vexatiously, or without jurisdiction.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, and remitted the case back to the High Court to dispose of the appellant's petition on merits in accordance with the law and in light of this judgment. The Court emphasized the need for the High Court to consider the merits of the contentions raised by the appellant and to exercise its inherent powers judiciously to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.
-
1977 (10) TMI 110
Issues involved: Dispute regarding termination of services, applicability of section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, vires of section 2A, objection under Article 14 of the Constitution, refusal to interfere with the award under Article 226.
Dispute regarding termination of services: The workman was recruited as a labourer, promoted to various positions, and eventually offered a fitter position after reorganization. The management found him unsuitable for a post and offered him a different position, which he did not accept due to personal reasons. The management then automatically struck off his name from the rolls for continued absence without intimation, leading to a prolonged legal battle.
Applicability of section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act: The Labour Court reinstated the workman with full back wages, emphasizing that any dispute regarding termination of services of an individual workman amounts to an industrial dispute under section 2A. The management objected, arguing that the workman's case was not espoused by other workmen or a union, raising a new point on the vires of section 2A.
Vires of section 2A: The management challenged the vires of section 2A, contending that it was ultra vires the powers of the Legislature under the Constitution. However, the objection was not raised before the Labour Court or the High Court, leading to a dismissal of the argument by the Supreme Court.
Objection under Article 14 of the Constitution: The management raised objections under Article 14, arguing that there could be no reference under section 2A after the termination of the workman's employment. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, citing precedent and holding that there was no error of law or jurisdiction in the award.
Refusal to interfere with the award under Article 226: The Supreme Court found no manifest error of law or jurisdiction in the award, upholding the reinstatement of the workman and dismissing the appeal with costs. The order striking off the workman's name from the rolls was deemed erroneous, as it did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
-
1977 (10) TMI 109
Issues Involved:
1. Public Purpose
2. Compensation/Amount for Acquired Property
3. Legislative Competence Regarding Contract Carriages with Inter-State Permits
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Public Purpose:
The Supreme Court addressed whether the acquisition of contract carriages by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) under the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 served a public purpose. The Court reaffirmed that any law providing for the acquisition of property must be for a public purpose, as established in previous judgments, including the Kesavananda Bharati case. The intention of the legislature must be gathered from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act and its Preamble. The Act's purpose was to prevent misuse of contract carriages and provide better transport facilities, aligning with Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution. The Court found that the acquisition was indeed for a public purpose, as it aimed to prevent misuse of permits and improve public transport services, thus promoting the common good.
2. Compensation/Amount for Acquired Property:
The Court examined whether the compensation provided under the Act was illusory and arbitrary, thus violating Article 31(2) of the Constitution. The history of Article 31(2) was reviewed, noting amendments that shifted from "compensation" to "amount" to avoid judicial scrutiny of adequacy. The Court emphasized that the amount must not be arbitrary or illusory. The Act provided for arbitration to determine a just and reasonable amount, considering the acquisition cost and other relevant factors. The Court harmonized various sections of the Act, ensuring that deductions for secured creditors were accounted for and that the amount was not arbitrary or illusory. The Court concluded that the Act's provisions for determining the amount were reasonable and did not violate Article 31(2).
3. Legislative Competence Regarding Contract Carriages with Inter-State Permits:
The Court addressed whether the Karnataka Legislature had the competence to acquire contract carriages with Inter-State permits. The High Court had found that such acquisition was ultra vires, falling under Entry 42 of List I (Inter-State trade and commerce). The Supreme Court, however, applied the doctrine of pith and substance, determining that the primary purpose of the Act was to acquire contract carriages within Karnataka. The incidental encroachment on Inter-State trade and commerce did not invalidate the Act. The Court also noted that the Act received Presidential assent, curing any repugnancy with the Motor Vehicles Act. The acquisition of vehicles registered and normally kept in Karnataka was upheld, but the acquisition of the countersigned portion of Inter-State permits was not, as it would constitute extra-territorial legislation.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment that had declared the Act unconstitutional. The Court affirmed that the acquisition served a public purpose, the compensation was not illusory or arbitrary, and the legislative competence extended to acquiring vehicles within Karnataka, with limitations on Inter-State permits. The Court emphasized the need for early and expeditious determination and payment of the amounts for the acquired property. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting constitutional provisions in a manner that supports social and economic justice, aligning with the Directive Principles of State Policy.
........
|
9911796707
