Trace Your Case

Menu

Author: TYC

Categories
Trade Unionism

Rangaswami v. Registrar of Trade Unions, 1960 SCC OnLine Mad 243.

ISSUE:

Whether the employees of the Madras Raj Bhavan are employed in an "industry" within the meaning of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and thus entitled to register their union as a trade union under the Act?

Whether the Industrial Disputes Act and Trade Unions Act can be read together as forming one whole system?

Whether the Test of Cooperation between employers and employees has been satisfied in the present dispute?

Whether sale of unserviceable material and surplus garden produce amounts to a trade or business activity?

RULE:

The term "industry" includes any trade, business, manufacture, or undertaking which is broader than the common conception of trade or business and implies cooperation between the employer and employees for achieving a particular result.

To register a union under the Trade Unions Act, the employees must be engaged in an activity that qualifies as a trade or business.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Industry

Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G. Sharma, (1997) 4 SCC 257

ISSUE:

Whether the Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) is considered an "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act (I.D. Act), and whether it is subject to the provisions of the Act, including the recognition of employees as "workmen"?

RULE:

An activity qualifies as "industry" if it involves collaboration between an employer and employees with the goal of producing or distributing goods or services that satisfy the needs of consumers.

Sovereign functions (such as legislative, judicial, or law enforcement activities) are exempt from being classified as "industry."

The "dominant nature test" is applied when an organization carries out a mix of activities, some of which may be exempt, but the overall nature of the activities determines whether it qualifies as an industry.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Evidentiary Presumptions

Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik AIR 2014 SC 932

ISSUE:

Whether the DNA test results could rebut the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Whether the appellant could be absolved of the liability to pay maintenance for a child scientifically proven not to be his biological offspring?

To what extent modern scientific evidence, such as DNA testing, should override the conclusive presumption of legitimacy established under law?

RULE:

Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act provides a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage, which can only be rebutted if it is proven that the husband had no access to the wife during the period of conception.

DNA test results, being scientifically accurate, can serve as credible evidence to rebut the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 if they conclusively establish the absence of biological paternity.

When there is a conflict between legal presumptions and scientifically proven facts, scientific truth prevails in the interest of justice.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Evidentiary Presumptions

Hans Raj v. State of Haryana (2004) 12 SCC 257

ISSUE:

Whether the husband failure to disclose the conversation preceding his wife’s suicide, combined with allegations of cruelty against him, is sufficient to presume that he abetted the suicide under Section 113 A of Indian Evidence Act, of 1872?

RULE:

Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act permits the court to presume that a woman’s suicide within seven years of marriage was abetted by her husband or his relatives if it is proven that she was subjected to cruelty by them. This presumption, however, is discretionary and not mandatory.

The court must evaluate whether the proven cruelty was of a nature likely to drive the woman to suicide, considering the totality of the circumstances.

Mere proof of cruelty and suicide within seven years is insufficient to establish abetment without a causal link between the two.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Electronic Evidence

Marwari Kumhar v. B.G. Ganeshpuri AIR 2000 SC 2629

ISSUE:

Whether the uncertified copy of the 1948 judgment could be admitted as evidence, considering that the original judgment was lost?

Whether the earlier judgment, which affirmed the appellants' title to the property, is binding on the respondents, preventing them from challenging the appellants' title in the current suit?

Whether the respondents could claim ownership of the property by adverse possession, despite the prior judgment that established the appellants’ title?

RULE:

Admissibility of Secondary Evidence: Under Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act, an uncertified copy of a public document is admissible as secondary evidence if the original is lost or destroyed.

Res Judicata: A final judgment is binding on the parties under the principle of res judicata, preventing them from re-litigating the same issue.

Adverse Possession: To claim ownership by adverse possession, the party must show that their possession was hostile and adverse after the relevant judgment.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Burden of Proof

Collector of Customs, Madras and Ors. v. D. Bhoormul, 1974 AIR 859

ISSUE:

Whether the Customs Department adequately discharged its burden to prove the goods were smuggled?

Can the confiscation of goods be justified solely based on circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the alleged owner?

RULE:

The onus of proof does not demand perfect or absolute certainty; it often relies on a prudent person's reasonable assessment of the case's probabilities.

The prosecution is not required to prove facts that lie exclusively within the accused's knowledge, as this would impose an unreasonably high burden.

Instead, the burden shifts to the accused to provide a satisfactory explanation for such facts, particularly when the prosecution has presented circumstantial evidence supporting its claims.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Testimony

Laxmipat Choraria and Ors v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938

ISSUE:

Whether the testimony of an accomplice, who was not prosecuted or tendered a pardon, was admissible as evidence?

Whether photostatic copies of documents could be used as evidence when the originals were unavailable?

Whether prior exposure of a witness to suspects' photographs invalidated the witness’s identification?

Whether selective prosecution and the use of an accomplice as a witness violated constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 20?

RULE:

Accomplice testimony is admissible if it is corroborated, regardless of whether the accomplice is prosecuted or tendered a pardon.

Photostatic copies are admissible as secondary evidence if originals are unavailable and there is no suggestion of fabrication.

Witness identification remains valid if corroborated by independent evidence, even if the witness has prior exposure to suspects' photographs.

Selective prosecution of an accomplice as a witness does not violate constitutional protections, provided it is a legitimate prosecutorial strategy.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Electronic Evidence

Anvar v. P. K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473

ISSUE:

Whether electronic records, such as CDs submitted by the appellant, can be admitted as evidence without compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Whether the evidence presented by the appellant met the standard of proof required to establish corrupt practices akin to a criminal charge?

RULE:

Compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records.

Secondary electronic evidence must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4) certifying its authenticity; otherwise, it is inadmissible.

Allegations of corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, akin to the standard required for criminal charges.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Burden of Proof

Amba Lal v. The Union of India and Others, 1961 AIR 264

ISSUE:

Whether the burden of proving that the seized goods were smuggled into India after the establishment of customs barriers in March 1948 lay with the customs authorities or the appellant?

RULE:

The burden of proving that goods were smuggled into India in contravention of customs laws lies upon the customs authorities, and such burden cannot be shifted to the accused unless expressly provided by law.

The prosecution must adduce evidence to establish its case beyond doubt, adhering to the principles of criminal jurisprudence and natural justice.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Supply

Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. v. Union of India, W.P. No. 5130 of 2022

ISSUE:

Whether the issuance of gift vouchers by Kalyan Jewellers constitutes a supply of goods or services under the GST Act?

If the issuance of gift vouchers is deemed taxable, determining when the tax liability arises—at the time of issuance or at the time of redemption?

Whether gift vouchers qualify as “actionable claims” under Section 2(1) of the GST Act, thereby exempting them from GST according to Schedule III?

RULE:

Vouchers, as payment instruments, are not taxable as goods or services unless linked to specific goods or services at issuance; otherwise, tax arises at redemption when the supply is identified.

Actionable claims, representing rights to future payment, are exempt from tax to avoid premature taxation, and PPIs are treated under financial standards, not as sales transactions, impacting their GST treatment.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here