E Krishnan Nayanar Vs Dr M A Kuttappan & Others 1997 Crl L J 2036

Hon'ble Court observed as under "12. A reading of Section 3 shows that two kinds of insults against the member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are made punishable - one as defined under sub-section (ii) and the other as defined under sub-section (x) of the said section.

A combined reading of the two sub-sections shows that under section (ii) insult can be caused to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood, and to cause such insult, the dumping of excreta etc. need not necessarily be done in the presence of the person insulted and whereas under sub-section (x) insult can be caused to the person insulted only if he is present in view of the expression "in any place within public view"

M/s. Bengal Waterproof Limited Vs. M/s. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and Another (1997) 1 SCC 99

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"... ... ...It is now well settled that an action for passing off is a common law remedy being an action in substance of deceit under the Law of Torts. Wherever and whenever fresh deceitful act is committed the person deceived would naturally have a fresh cause of action in his favour. Thus every time when a person passes off his goods as those of another he commits the act of such deceit. Similarly whenever and wherever a person commits breach of a registered trade mark of another he commits a recurring act of breach or infringement of such trade mark giving a recurring and fresh cause of action at each time of such infringement to the party aggrieved. ... ... ..."

S Jagannath Vs UOI, AIR 1997 SC 811

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under, "we direct all the respondent-States not to permit the setting up of any industry or the construction of any type on the area at least up to 500 metres from the sea water at the maximum High Tide. The abovesaid area i.e. from the High Tide Level up to 500 metres shall be kept free from all construction of any type.”

M C Mehta Vs Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under, "This Court took notice of the news item appearing in the Indian Express dated 25.2.1996 under the caption – “Kamal Nath dares the mighty Beas to keep his dreams afloat.”….
To ecologists, the need for preserving sensitive resources does not reflect value choices but rather is the necessary result of objective observations of the laws of nature. In sum, ecologists view the environmental sciences as providing us with certain laws of nature….
Under the English common law, however, the Sovereign could own these resources but the ownership was limited in nature, the Crown could not grant these properties to private owners if the effect was to interfere with the public interests in navigation or fishing. Resources that were suitable for these uses were deemed to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the public….
large area of the bank of River Beas which is part of protected forest has been given on a lease purely for commercial purposes to the Motels. We have no hesitation in holding that the Himachal Pradesh Government committed patent breach of public trust by leasing the ecologically fragile land to the Motel management….
The public trust doctrine, as discussed by us in this judgment is a part of the law of the land.”

M C Mehta Vs Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “The issues presented in this case illustrate the classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests, parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibilities who, under the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly complex society, find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate to change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the legislature and not the courts.”

DR K. MADAN v. KRISHNAWATI (SMT) AIR 1997 SC 579

the premises in question were residential and according to the terms of the lease given by the Government the said premises could not be used for any other purposes. A doctor was allowed to use the premises up to 500 square feet as his clinic provided the doctor resided in the said premises. Inasmuch as the appellant had shifted from the Lajpat Nagar house to her own house in East of Kailash, therefore, the submission was that her continued user of the premises in question only as a clinic was against the terms of the lease.
In any case there can be no estoppel against the statute. We are of the view that the appellant is liable to be evicted unless he has already stopped or stops immediately the misuser of the premises and pays the misuse charges for the period of misuse. Continued wrongful user cannot be permitted by levying penalty but if the authorities do not require the stoppage of misuser, but merely ask for payment of penalty or compensation, then in such a case, an order of eviction or for stoppage of premises need not be passed and it will be sufficient if compensation is required to be paid.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416

Police is, no doubt, under a legal duty and has legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to interrogate him during the investigation of an offence but it must be remembered that the law does not permit use of third-degree methods or torture of accused in custody during interrogation and investigation with a view to solve the crime. End cannot justify the means. The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true sense purposeful to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using third-degree methods, the police would be accomplishing behind the closed doors what the demands of our legal order forbid. No society can permit it.
State terrorism is no answer to combat terrorism. State terrorism would only provide legitimacy to "terrorism".
It is now an accepted rule of judicial construction that regard must be had to international conventions and norms for construing domestic law when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in the domestic law.

Tanvi Ben Pankaj Kumar Divetia v. state of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 2193

This Court has clearly sounded a note of caution that in case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always danger that conjectures and surmises may take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused.

K.S. Vidyanadam and others v. Vairavan, AIR 1997 SC 1751 the apex Court, while dealing with Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), held that when there was total inaction on the part of the purchaser in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the delay coupled with substantial rise in the prices of properties, it would be inequitable to grant relief of specific performance to the purchaser.

CrPC- Sec 313 Rattan Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 768, “Learned counsel for the appellant tried to make out much from the fact that no finger impression of Sheela Devi was found on the gun. We do not find any consequence on account of it in this case. In fact, appellant did not seriously dispute when the trial Judge put the question to him regarding that circumstance during his examination under section 313 of th Code of Criminal Procedure (question no. 25 related to the evidence that gun was produced by Sheela Devi and was taken into possession by the police. The answer was taken into possession by the police. The answer given by the appellant to that question was “I do not know”). Examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code is not a mere formality. Answers given by the accused to the questions put to him during such examination have a practical utility for Criminal Courts. Apart from affording an opportunity to the delinquent to explain incriminating circumstances against him, they would help the court in appreciating the entire evidence adduced in the court during trial. Ex PI – gun- admittedly belongs to the assailant. Therefore, when PW 10 said in court that she succeeded in snatching it from the assailant and she surrendered it to the police, we see no reason to disbelieve her, particularly in view of the evasive answer given by the appellant to the question concerned”

Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulaben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997(9) SCC 552, issue was regarding the omission on the part of the local authority to remove a tree from a public road. The tree later fell on the plaintiff's husband who was passing by the road resulting in his death. The High Court had decreed compensation but this court allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim holding that no breach of statutory duty was involved.The decree of liability depends on degree of mental element. The elements of tort of negligence consist in - (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the law exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Negligence would in such acts and omissions involve an unreasonable risk to harm to others. The breach of duty causes damage and how much is the damage should be comprehended by the defendant. Remoteness is relevant and compensation on proof thereof requires consideration. The element of carelessness in the breach of the duty and those duties towards the plaintiff are important components in the tort of negligence. Negligence would mean careless conduct in commission or omission of an act connoting duty, breach and the damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the plaintiff owes. Duty of care is, therefore, crucial to understand the nature and scope of the tort of negligence. The degree of carelessness in breach of duty would, therefore, vary from case to case and it should not unduly be extended or confined or limited or circumscribed to all situations.What constitutes carelessness is the conduct and not the result of inadvertence. Thus negligence in this sense is a ground for liability in tort. There is a distinction between failure to exercise a statutory power giving causation for damage by positive act of negligence by another and some accidental occurrence or by omission. The general rule is that the public authorities are liable for positive action (misfeasance) but not for omission (non-feasance).