Jagir Singh & Ors. etc. etc. versus State of Bihar & Anr. etc. etc.
How later courts have used it
- The authority holds that under the Bihar Taxation Act, the permit-holder is the 'owner' liable for tax, and operational arrangements like letting out the vehicle do not affect this liability.1
- The 'in-charge' test under the Bihar Act requires control connected with realising freight and paying tax, not mere physical custody.2
- The inclusive definition of 'owner' was applied to hold a financier in possession liable for tax under the U.P. Act, even without registration in the certificate.3
- The interpretation that an inclusive definition is not controlled by an exhaustive limb was applied to the term 'Central Government'.4
- The principle was applied to hold that 'disability' in Section 47 of the PWD Act is not limited to the enumerated list in Section 2(i).5,6,7
- Estoppel or waiver cannot be pleaded against statutory protection merely because an employee accepted benefits under regulations or circulars.8,9,10
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The authority's own headnote establishes that under the Bihar Taxation on Passengers and Goods Act, 1961, the definition of 'owner' is inclusive and exhaustive, making the permit-holder the liable owner in all cases, and that a permit-holder cannot escape tax liability by letting out the vehicle, since operational arrangements are irrelevant to taxation and permits are non-transferable. This proposition was distinguished in a later Supreme Court decision concerning the same statute, which held that 'in-charge' under the Act's definition of 'owner' does not mean mere physical control during movement, but control connected with realisation of freight and the fulfilment of the obligation to pay tax, turning on the facts of each case.2
The authority's principle that definitions using inclusive and exhaustive language, and the inability to evade liability through operational arrangements, was relied upon in decisions concerning other statutes. In a case on the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, the Supreme Court held that a financier taking possession of a vehicle upon default is an 'owner' liable to tax from that date, even if not named in the Certificate of Registration, applying the 'pay the tax and use' principle. In a case on the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, the Court held that the restrictive 'means' limb of a definition is not controlled by an inclusive limb.3,4
The interpretation of inclusive definitions was also applied outside the taxation context. In a case on the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Court held that a definition using 'means and includes' is exhaustive, and that a non-obstante clause in one special Act does not preclude competing rights under another. A decision on the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 similarly treated an inclusive definition of 'land' as having wide connotation. Several decisions on Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 relied on the same reasoning to hold that the word 'means' in the definition of 'disability' is not exhaustive where the context requires otherwise, protecting employees with un-enumerated disabilities.11,1,5,6,8,12,9,13,10,14,15,7,16,17,18
Citing judgements
State of Maharashtra v. Reliance Industries Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1699 of 2007 (SC, 15.09.2017, Arun Mishra and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar JJ.): validity of acquiring a floor/part of a building under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without acquiring the underlying land where the State or Port Trust owns the land;
AllowedDistinguishedOpenA transport company without its own fleet hired trucks to carry cement and realised freight from stockists, paying truck owners only hire charges. The Supreme Court held it was 'in-charge' of the vehicles and thus an 'owner' liable to pay passenger and goods tax, dismissing the appeal.
DismissedDistinguishedOpenSmt. S. Vanitha versus the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors.
Outcome: AllowedReferredSupreme Court (Chandrachud J for Chandrachud, Malhotra and Banerjee JJ) harmonised the Senior Citizens Act 2007 with the PWDV Act 2005: a daughter-in-law cannot be evicted from a 'shared household' through summary proceedings under the 2007 Act;
AllowedReferredOpenPuducherry nominated MLAs; nomination of members to Legislative Assembly; Section 3(3) Government of Union Territories Act 1963; “Central Government” means the President; General Clauses Act 1897 s.3(8)(b)(iii); administrator; Article 239; Article 239A; Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act 1962;
AllowedRelied onOpenMedically unfit drivers were held entitled to Section 47 protection even for disabilities outside Section 2(i). The Court dismissed the Corporations’ appeals, permitted recovery of benefits already paid, and barred reliance on the judgment to reopen settled claims by drivers who had not approached the Court.
DismissedRelied onOpenBatch of writ appeals by two State Road Transport Corporations against orders granting medically unfit drivers the protection of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act.
DismissedRelied onOpen
Show 2 more
Transport corporation drivers declared medically unfit challenged their retirement and claimed protection under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act. The court held that Section 47 protects any employee who acquires a disability during service rendering him unfit for his post, whether or not it is…
DismissedRelied onOpenMedically unfit drivers were held entitled to Section 47 protection even for disabilities outside Section 2(i). Acceptance of Corporation benefits did not bar protection. The appeals were dismissed, subject to recovery of benefits already paid and exclusion of stale claims by drivers who had not approached the Court.
DismissedRelied onOpen
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. versus State of U.P. and Ors.
Outcome: DismissedReferredFinancier-in-possession; 'owner' definition; hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement; repossession on loan default; U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1997 ss. 2(h), 4, 4(2-A), 9, 10, 12, 20; Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ss. 2(30), 39, 50, 51; advance payment of tax ('pay the tax and use'); non-use and refund of tax;
DismissedReferredOpenBatch of writ appeals by the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana State Road Transport Corporations against orders holding that drivers declared medically unfit are entitled to Section 47 protection under the Persons with Disabilities Act even where their disability is not enumerated in Section 2(i).
DismissedRelied onOpenMedically unfit drivers were held entitled to Section 47 protection even for disabilities outside Section 2(i). The court dismissed the Corporations’ appeals, permitted recovery of benefits already paid, and barred reliance on the judgment for stale claims by drivers who had accepted benefits without approaching the…
DismissedRelied onOpenDrivers of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana State Road Transport Corporations, declared medically unfit for disabilities not enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, claimed protection under Section 47.
DismissedRelied onOpenDrivers rendered medically unfit by disabilities outside Section 2(i) were held entitled to Section 47 employment protection. The court dismissed the Corporations’ appeals, permitted recovery of benefits already paid under service regulations, and barred reliance on this judgment for stale claims by drivers who had…
DismissedRelied onOpenAndhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mushirab Vs M.Venkateswarlu
Outcome: DismissedRelied onMedically unfit drivers were held entitled to Section 47 protection even for disabilities not enumerated in Section 2(i). The Court dismissed the Corporations’ appeals, permitted recovery of prior regulatory benefits, and excluded future claims based on this judgment by drivers who had accepted benefits without…
DismissedRelied onOpen
Show 4 more
Appeals by two State Road Transport Corporations against relief granted to medically unfit drivers under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, though their acquired disabilities were not enumerated in Section 2(i).
DismissedRelied onOpenWrit appeals by the State Road Transport Corporations against orders granting medically unfit drivers the protection of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act.
DismissedRelied onOpenMedically unfit drivers were held entitled to Section 47 protection even for disabilities outside Section 2(i). The employers’ appeals were dismissed, subject to recovery of regulatory benefits already paid.
DismissedRelied onOpenMedically unfit drivers were held entitled to Section 47 protection even for disabilities outside Section 2(i). The Court dismissed the Corporations’ appeals, permitted recovery of benefits already paid, and barred reliance on this judgment by drivers who had accepted benefits without previously approaching the Court.
DismissedAppliedOpen