Moral Turpitude III

The employer terminated services on non-disclosure of pending criminal case. B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746 observed, when a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false information, he cannot claim any right for appointment or continuance in service. Daya Shankar Yadav, (2010) 14 SCC 103 observed, purpose of seeking information with respect to antecedents […]

Read more "Moral Turpitude III"

Likely

The question has engaged (us) since the enactment of IPC. The use of the term ‘likely’ in several places in respect of ‘culpable homicide’, highlights the element of uncertainty. Section 300, which defines ‘murder’, however refrains from use of the term ‘likely’. This reveals absence of ambiguity left. The accused is for sure, his act […]

Read more "Likely"

Condonation of Delay: 44

Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction at all to condone the delay exceeding 15 days from the period of 30 days, as contemplated under Section 61(2) of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It cannot be said, Learned Appellate Tribunal committed any error in not condoning the delay of 44 days.   Unless the Parliament has […]

Read more "Condonation of Delay: 44"

Section 9 of The Arbitration Act

Section 9 as originally enacted, has been renumbered as Section 9(1). 2015 Amendment Act has also incorporated Sub-Section (2) and Sub-Section (3). Section 9(1), as amended, enables a party to an Arbitration Agreement to apply to a Court for interim measures of protection before or during Arbitral Proceedings, or at any time after an Arbitral […]

Read more "Section 9 of The Arbitration Act"

Heard & Finally Decided

The meaning of the phrase “heard and finally decided” was considered in Krishan Lal v. State of J&K, (1994) 4 SCC 422 where it was held, matter must have been heard on merits to have been “heard and finally decided”. Erach Boman Khavar v. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat, (2013) 15 SCC 655 has held, res judicata […]

Read more "Heard & Finally Decided"

Judgment

‘Judgment’ means a judicial opinion which tells the story of the case; what the case is about; how the Court is resolving the case and why. ‘Judgment’ should be coherent, systematic and logically organized. It should enable the reader to trace the fact to a logical conclusion on the basis of legal principles. Many times […]

Read more "Judgment"

Backdrop of Dominant Purpose

Philips India Limited v. Labour Court, Madras, (1985) 3 SCC 103; Balasinor Nagrik Cooperative Bank Limited v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya, (1987) 1 SCC 606; Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594; Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 373; Jagdish Singh v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, (1997) 4 SCC […]

Read more "Backdrop of Dominant Purpose"

The Doctrine of Basic Structure II

I do not think there is any serious contestation. Constitution of Kenya, 2010 has a Basic Structure. Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill, 2020 violates certain components of our Constitution’s Basic Structure. [Mr. Justice D.K. Musinga, President of Court of Appeal] Constitutions, like human beings, are never perfect. Judges were agreed, Indian Constitution has a Basic […]

Read more "The Doctrine of Basic Structure II"

Relation to State

Constitution Bench of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, (1990) 3 SCC 130 had an occasion to examine, whether Scheduled Castes in relation to a particular State would be entitled to benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Castes in matters of education/employment in another State. Court observed, if such a contention is to be […]

Read more "Relation to State"

Blood of Human Origin II

Majority of a Constitution Bench in Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 74 held, it would be far-­fetched to conclude from mere presence of blood­-stained earth that that earth was stained with human blood and that human blood was of victims. Also see, Two-Judge Benches in Kansa Behera v. State […]

Read more "Blood of Human Origin II"

Registered Instruments of Tenancy

Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 1 has categorically held, if the tenancy claim is for any term exceeding one year, the tenancy can be made only by a registered instrument. Three-­Judge Bench of this Court in Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India, (2019) 9 SCC 94 […]

Read more "Registered Instruments of Tenancy"

Binding Precedent

Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan, (2005) 6 SCC 243 and Tulsi v. Chandrika Prasad, (2006) 8 SCC 322 were not brought to notice of this Court in Vanchalabai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankarrao Baburao Bhilare, (2013) 7 SCC 173. In absence of consideration, we find Vanchalabai Raghunath Ithape will not lay down a binding precedent. – […]

Read more "Binding Precedent"

Section 48 of The Arbitration Act

In Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. v. Girdhar Sondhi, (2018) 9 SCC 49 a question arose under the pari materia provision contained in Section 34 as to what the expression ‘proof’ means therein. After referring to a number of High Court Judgments, and Section 34, in which the expression “furnishes proof” is now substituted by […]

Read more "Section 48 of The Arbitration Act"

Monstrosity of Winnability II

The nation continues to wait, and is losing patience. A political party can always give a reason, a candidate with criminal antecedents is found to be more suitable than a person who does not have criminal antecedents. If the political party is of the prima facie opinion, a candidate has been falsely implicated, it can […]

Read more "Monstrosity of Winnability II"

Contempt Jurisdiction VIII

“Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin, (1980) 3 SCC 47 was clarified and held in part to be obiter by a Three-Member Bench in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (2006) 11 SCC 114. Rama Narang pointed out, the distinction between two categories of cases covered by Section 2(b) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – (i) wilful disobedience to […]

Read more "Contempt Jurisdiction VIII"

Red Herrings

Recently, Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh of Delhi High Court in Sulphur Mills Limited v. Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited, [CS(COMM) 1225/2018 & CC(COMM) 9/2019] said, to argue on the basis of submissions made before Commissioner of Customs, there is no novelty or inventive step in Indian Patent Number 282429, would lead to an anomalous situation […]

Read more "Red Herrings"