The Revival of Ray XLII

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 that, the law casts a heavy burden on the person alleging mala fides.

Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. had referred to Ajit Kumar Nag, (2005) 7 SCC 764 to declare that, 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 that, “we must not also overlook that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the 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 that, 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 that, the conceptual difference has been succinctly stated by Lord Haldane in Shearer v. Shields, 1914 AC 808 (HL).

ADM Jabalpur.