For greater good

A firm wanted to build a hotel and was given permission to do so, subject to sanction of a building plan. The plan was submitted in 1999 but it was not sanctioned because of some flaws. When the rectified plan was resubmitted, the authorities said they were unable to sanction it as the government had declared the area a heritage zone and had frozen all developmental activities. Contending that they had the right to build a hotel because they had submitted the building plan prior to the area being declared a heritage zone, the firm approached the court. Disagreeing, the Supreme Court held that as the plan had not been sanctioned the first time around, the firm had no such right. When a zone has been declared a heritage zone, no development can be permitted in violation of the law. In such cases, public interest should override private interest, the court ruled (Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Shimla vs Prem Lata Sood and others).

What’s in a word?

The term “emolument”, as defined under the Kerala Service Rules, includes pay and dearness allowance. The petitioner argued that in common parlance, the term included all allowances, so all his allowances should be taken into consideration while granting him pension. Rejecting his contention, the Supreme Court held that when a certain word has been defined in law, its general meaning should not be considered. Giving credence to the “general” meaning of a defined word would defeat the purpose of defining it, the court said (N.D.P. Namboodripad vs Union of India).

Seven-year hitch

A woman committed suicide 37 days after her wedding in 1982. Proceedings were initiated against her husband and mother-in-law. Meanwhile, Section 113A of the Evidence Act came into effect in 1983, which held that if a woman died within seven years of her marriage, the court would presume that her husband or his relatives had abetted it. The accused contended that the provision was not applicable in their case. Disagreeing, the Supreme Court held that since the provision only dealt with a presumption the court may make, it could have retrospective effect. And this case clearly attracted Section 113A, the court ruled (Arvind Kumar vs State of Madhya Pradesh).

SOLON