The Revival of Ray XLII

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar, [Civil Appeal No. 2103 of 2020] referred to Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 1 SCC 524 to understand, law casts a heavy burden on a person alleging mala fides.

Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. had referred to Ajit Kumar Nag, (2005) 7 SCC 764 to declare, allegations of mala fides need proof of high degree.

Ajit Kumar Nag had referred to E.P. Royappa, (1974) 4 SCC 3 where Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray declared, “we must not also overlook, burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on a person who alleges it; allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved and very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility.“

_____

Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar, [Civil Appeal No. 2103 of 2020] also referred to Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 1 SCC 524 to understand, there is a conceptual difference between ‘malice in fact’ and ‘malice in law’.

Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. had referred to ADM Jabalpur, (1976) 2 SCC 521 to declare, the conceptual difference has been succinctly stated by Lord Haldane in Shearer v. Shields, 1914 AC 808 (HL).

ADM Jabalpur.

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.