State of Mizoram issued an invitation for ‘Expression of Interest’, through Institutional Finance and State Lottery, inviting bids for appointment of lottery distributors and selling agents for Mizoram State Lottery to be organized by Government of Mizoram in terms of The Mizoram Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2011 framed under The Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998. A purchaser […]Read more "Competition in Lottery"
The main departure of The Companies Act, 2013 from statutory regime of The Companies Act, 1956 is specific inclusion of fraud ‘directly’ as a circumstance in which a Company could be wound up [See, Section 271 of 2013 Act, as it now stands after 2016]. Section 271(c) of The Companies Act, 2013 covers three circumstances […]Read more "Fraud II"
The question had been floating for a while. It was January 1, 2019 when I wondered who amongst then Chief Justices of HCs, if elevated, could be our 51st CJI. January 18, 2019 – we finally received an answer. CJI No. 51 would be Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna who wasn’t ever a Chief Justice of […]Read more "The Nature of Judicial Power: Article No. 1101"
Court has propounded several tests for determining reasonableness for purpose of Article 19(1)(g). These have ranged from testing restrictions for arbitrariness [Dwarka, AIR 1954 SC 224; Shree Meenakshi Mills, AIR 1974 SC 366], excessiveness [Chintaman Rao, AIR 1951 SC 118] and discerning their objective of compliance with Directive Principles of State Policy [Saghir Ahmad, (1955) […]Read more "Proportionality in Culture of Justification"
Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.H. Mehta, (1971) 3 SCC 189; State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand, (1981) 2 SCC 335; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, (1983) 1 SCC 1; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala, (1983) 1 SCC 9; National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 […]Read more "Vicarious Liability"
Two-Judge Bench of Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar, (2014) 5 SCC 610 has heavily relied on Three-Judge Bench of Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam, (1977) 3 SCC 247. Court held, there was no reason as to why general principle laid down in Narandas Karsondas, with reference to Section 60 of The Transfer of Property […]Read more "The Revival of Ray LXXII"
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"
Senior Advocate, Sanjoy Ghose argued for Captain Arvind Kumar Sharma, Captain K Sai Sashanka, Captain Jeetender Yadav, Captain Jitender Singh Randhawa, Captain Adish M. Chavan, Captain Reuben James, Captain B Sujimon, Captain Vishal V Chandorkar and Captain Vijay Kumar Dahiya before Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Singh of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The common thread was […]Read more "Façade of ‘Commercial Decision’"
As has been held in Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., (1980) 3 SCC 719 every argumentative novelty does not undo a settled position of law. Section 19 of The Limitation Act, 1908 corresponds to Section 18 of The Limitation Act, 1963. Khan Bahadur Shapoor Freedom Mazda v. Durga Prasad, (1962) 1 SCR 140 […]Read more "The Plea of Limitation XVI: Section 18 of The Limitation Act, 1963"
Though retrospectivity is not to be presumed and rather there is presumption against retrospectivity, it is open for the Legislature to enact laws having retrospective operation. “Where a statute is passed for the purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former statute or to ‘explain’ a former statute, the subsequent statute has relation back […]Read more "Explanatory Legislations"
This Court in Madhusudan Gordhandas v. Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd., (1971) 3 SCC 632 observed: If the debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, Court will not wind-up the Company [London and Paris Banking Corporation, (1874) LR 19 Eq 444; Brighton Club and Horfold Hotel Co. Ltd., (1865) 35 […]Read more "Disputed Company Debt / The Revival of Ray LXIV"
In Lau v. Chu,  1 WLR 4656 House of Lords indicated, “just and equitable winding up may be ordered where the Company’s members have fallen out in two related but distinct situations, which may or may not overlap.” The first of these is labelled as “functional dead lock” of a paralyzing kind, clearly recognized […]Read more "Functional Dead Lock"
See, Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5th Edition. The concept of ‘absurdity’ in the context of interpretation of statutes is construed to include any result which is unworkable, impracticable, illogical, futile or pointless, artificial, or productive of a disproportionate counter mischief. Logic referred to herein is not formal or syllogistic logic, but acceptance that enacted law […]Read more "Cadaveric Consequences in Interpretation"
A transaction which is sham or collusive would only create an illusion that money has been disbursed to a borrower with the object of receiving consideration – when in fact the parties have entered into the transaction with a different or an ulterior motive. In other words, the real agreement between the parties is something […]Read more "Sham Transactions"
It is well settled, an Arbitration Agreement is distinct and separate; independent from the substantive commercial contract in which it is embedded. The autonomy of the Arbitration Agreement is based on the twin concepts of separability and kompetenz – kompetenz; which, though inter-related, are distinct. The Doctrine of Separability of Arbitration Agreement connotes, the invalidity, […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXV: Doctrine of Separability of Arbitration Agreement"
The disqualification under Section 8 of The Representation of People Act, 1951 is relatable to Article 191(1)(e). Therefore, any interpretation to Section 8 should be in sync with the constitutional scheme. Once the period of disqualification starts running, the seat, hitherto held by the person disqualified, becomes vacant by virtue of Article 190(3). His name […]Read more "Timing of Votes"
Mr. Peter Leaver [Queen’s Counsel], Justice V.K. Gupta [Retd.] and Mr. Anthony Houghton [Senior Counsel] delivered their International Arbitral Award in New Delhi, on 12.05.2014. Majority Award [Mr. Peter Leaver and Mr. Anthony Houghton] was in favor of Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty Ltd. and Dissenting Award [Justice V.K. Gupta] dismissed the claim of Anglo […]Read more "Section 34 of The Arbitration Act IV / Arbitral Award Dissent"
Samir Agarwal sought, by an information filed, CCI to initiate an inquiry, under Section 26(2) of The Competition Act, 2002, into the alleged anti-competitive conduct of Ola and Uber. Shri Rajshekhar Rao, appearing on behalf of Ola, submitted, Samir cannot be said to be a ‘person aggrieved’ for the purpose of sections 53B and 53T. […]Read more "Section 53 of The Competition Act / Aggrieved Person II / The Revival of Ray LVII"
See, Frame v. Smith,  2 SCR 99. Hospital Products Ltd. v. United States Surgical Corporation Ltd., (1984) 156 CLR 41 rightly observed, the scope of fiduciary duties is moulded according to the nature of the relationship and facts of the case. Principles of Fiduciary Relationships are equitable. Equity never operates in an absolute manner […]Read more "Principles of Fiduciary Relationships"
There can be no doubt, the principle which appears to have evolved over a period of time is, the law frowns upon determining a day with reference to its fractions. The principle, ‘fractions of the day’ are eschewed from consideration, is not a universal principle which knows no exceptions. Clearly the context and the purpose […]Read more "Day-Fraction"