02-11-2018 – 15-05-2023
The rule flowing from the maxim ‘generalia specialibus non derogant’ has been i) considered in Hari Shankar Jain, (1978) 4 SCC 16 and ii) explained in Mary Seward v. Owner of “Vera Cruz”, (1884) 10 AC 59, 68. Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts, [Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 87-101 of 2014].
Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by State Government merely because it feels another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 476 of 2020].
Lawyers have no right to go on strike or even token strike. They cannot abstain from appearing in Courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. District Bar Association, Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya, [SLP (Civil) No. 5440 of 2020].
It is to be considered whether the word ‘shall’ used in Section 12 of The Disaster Management Act, 2005 is required to be interpreted and considered as ‘shall’ or ‘may’. The word ‘shall’ is used twice. To construe the word ‘shall’ as ‘may’ and as directory/discretionary, the very object and purpose will be defeated. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 554 of 2021].
What Court says, and how it says it, is equally important as what Court decides. Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2021].
As per settled proposition of law, mere mentioning and using of word ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ is not sufficient to satisfy test of ‘fraud’. Electrosteel Castings Limited v. UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, [Civil Appeal No. 6669 of 2021].
There is no difference and/or distinction between those whose names are recorded under The Sikkim Subjects Regulations, 1961 and those whose names were not recorded. Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 59 of 2013].
This Court, in a series of Judgments, has exercised its inherent powers under Article 142 for dissolution of a marriage where Court finds that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which the divorce could be granted. R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha, [Civil Appeal No. 4696 of 2013].
It is nobody’s case, holding post of a Vice Chancellor cannot be said to be holding a post of public office. It is correct to say, a Vice Chancellor is the kingpin of a University’s system and a keeper of the University’s conscience. Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1525 of 2019].
Unless there is concrete material and it is established there was any fraud and/or collusion or land in question was sold at a throw away price, sale pursuant to public auction cannot be set aside at instance of ‘strangers’ to auction proceeding. K.R. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markandeya & Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple, [Civil Appeal No. 791-792 of 2022].
My Lord, Writ Petition before High Court under Article 227 against National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s Order in an Appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
Yes. Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, [Civil Appeal No. 3072 of 2022].
We are of the opinion that there is no alternative punishment suitable, except the Death Sentence. Khushwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1433-1434 of 2014].
It is required to be noted, illicit drugs are seldom sold in a pure form. They are almost always adulterated. Hira Singh v. Union of India, [Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2017].
A contrary decision of this Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, [Criminal Appeal No. 1880 of 2011] and any other decision taking a contrary view are not good law and they are specifically overruled. Mukesh Singh v. State, [SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 39528 of 2018].
Courts may take into account “such factors as it may deem fit” [Rafiq Qureshi v. Narcotic Control Bureau, Eastern Zonal Unit, (2019) 6 SCC 492]. Quantity of substance would fall into “such factors as it may deem fit”. Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab, [Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 2021].
As observed and held by this Court, nobody can enter into a mind and intention has to be ascertained from weapon used, part of body chosen for assault and nature of injury caused. Sadakat Kotwar v. State of Jharkhand, [Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2021].
Putting a First Information Report on a website cannot be equated with putting a Charge Sheet on a public domain and on websites of State Governments. Saurav Das v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1126 of 2022].
We are of firm view, for purpose of considering actual imprisonment, period of parole is to be excluded. Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 12574-2577 of 2022].
A mere filing of Charge Sheet and framing of charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation, if facts so warrant. Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra, [Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2023].
The bail in favour a person, who is released on default bail under Section 167(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot be cancelled on mere filing of Charge Sheet. Central Bureau of Investigation v. T. Gangi Reddy, [Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2023].
High Court committed a grave error in holding, the offence under Section 63 of The Copyright Act, 1957 is a non-cognizable offence. M/s. Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, [Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2022].
It was not open for Learned Single Judge of Gauhati HC [*Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy*] to interfere with punishment imposed. Learned Single Judge did not appreciate, misconduct committed by a Male Head Constable cannot be equated with misconduct committed by a Female Constable. Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, Sashastra Seema Bal, [Civil Appeal No. 2707 of 2022].
Whether financial crunch/financial constraint can be a valid ground to fix a cut-off date for purpose of granting actual benefit of revision of pension/pay has been dealt with by this Court in State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal, (2005) 6 SCC 754. State of Tripura v. Smt. Anjana Bhattacharjee, [Civil Appeal No. 5114 of 2022].
Mahatma Gandhi University v. Gis Jose, (2008) 17 SCC 611 observed, misplaced sympathies should not have been shown in total breach of rules. Dental Council of India v. Sailendra Sharma, [Civil Appeal No. 7611 of 2022].
Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 2 SCC 309 observed, academic matters are best left to academics. Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh, [Civil Appeal No. 8037 of 2022].
Parmar Construction Company (2019) 15 SCC 682 and Pradeep Vinod Construction Company, (2020) 2 SCC 464 cannot be said to be per incuriam and/or in conflict with Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 287. M/s. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief, Military Engineering Service, [Civil Appeal No. 3461 of 2023].