‘Judgment’ means a judicial opinion which tells the story of the case; what the case is about; how Court is resolving the case and why. A ‘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"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 I"Chief Justice A.N. Ray, speaking for a Two-Judge Bench of this Court, in K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, (1974) 2 SCC 506 observed, Municipality functions for public benefit and when it “acts in excess of the powers conferred by the Act or abuses those powers then in those cases it is […]
Read more "Unauthorized Constructions / The Revival of Ray LXX"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"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"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"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"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"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"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"“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, distinction between two categories of cases covered by Section 2(b) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – (i) wilful disobedience to a […]
Read more "Contempt Jurisdiction VIII"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 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 and […]
Read more "Red Herrings"Court has referred to party autonomy as being one pillar for Arbitration [Antrix Corporation Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 560; Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2016) 4 SCC 126; Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., (2017) 2 SCC 228; PASL Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. […]
Read more "Emergency Arbitrators"The confirmation of Death Sentence by High Court was under challenge in Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202. Chief Justice Gajendragadkar, speaking for a Four Judge Bench, observed: “It may be conceded, if a point of fact which plainly arises on record, or a point of law which is relevant and […]
Read more "Article 136 and Criminal Appeals IV"We may hasten to clarify, the fact of last seen should not be weighed in isolation or be segregated from other evidence. Courts have to not only consider the factum of last seen, but also have to keep in mind the circumstances that preceded and followed. State appears to be right in relying upon State […]
Read more "Last Seen Theory"Constitution Bench in Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 considered the scope of Article 161 of the Constitution. Also, Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1. The power under Article 161 can be exercised by State Governments, not by Governor on his own. The prisoner, convicted on 25.3.2010, […]
Read more "Pardon Jurisprudence I"K.T.M.S. Mohammad v. Union of India, 1992 3 SCC 178; Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel, 2017 1 SCC 113. _____ The present case relates to 151 K.R. Pura Legislative Assembly Constituency. We do not see any deliberate falsehood uttered, much less is there any inconsistency. Mere reference to inconsistent statements alone is not sufficient […]
Read more "Deliberate Falsehood"Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra, (1980) 2 SCR 1095; Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 3 SCC 14; Union of India v. Yumnam Anand, (2007) 10 SCC 190; Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur, (2012) 2 SCC 176; Mungala Yadamma v. State of A.P., (2012) 2 SCC 386. In an […]
Read more "Preventive Detention Statute I / The Revival of Ray LXIX"State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703 [Also, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in A.N. Perera v. D.L.H. Perera, 1982 SCC SL SC 20]; Alok Kumar Roy v. Dr. S.N. Sarma, (1968) 1 SCR 813; A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, (1990) 2 SCC 533; Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, […]
Read more "Expunging Observations"In Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps, (1899) AC 99 Privy Council, dealing with a definition which incorporated the word ‘include’, said, “The word ‘include’ is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used these […]
Read more "A “Means and Includes” Definition VII"
The Last Word 
You must be logged in to post a comment.