An insurance contract by its very nature mandates disclosure of all ‘material facts’ by both parties. Manmohan Nanda v. United Insurance, (2022) 4 SCC 582 summarizes same. A contract meant to cover a shop situated in a basement had an exclusion clause which specified, the contract did not cover the basement. Tata AIG General Insurance […]Read more "The Doctrine of Blue Pencil"
Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine Ltd.,  RPC 59; England and Wales Court of Appeals in Pozzoli Spa v. BDMO SA,  EWHC 1398 (Ch); F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2016 (65) PTC 1 (DEL); Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd., (2020) SCC OnLine Del 1700; […]Read more "Simplicity in Invention"
The principle of ‘ex debito justitiae‘ has been emphasized. No man should suffer because of mistakes of Court. To err is human and Courts including Apex Court are no exception. It has been held, rules of procedure are handmaidens of justice and not mistresses of justice. The principle of ‘ex debito justitiae‘ cannot be given […]Read more "Ex Debito Justitiae II"
HTC Corporation v. L.V. Degao, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 953 has held, where there are two registered trademarks, registration of the later trade mark may be refused or cancelled: (i) when deception or confusion results, (ii) there is a dishonest user, (iii) subsequent use is without due cause, (iv) there is bad faith, or (v) […]Read more "Star"
Court must examine ambit of Doctrine of Group of Companies. Ever since expounded in Chloro Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., (2013) 1 SCC 641 it has been utilized in a varied manner. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Canara Bank, (2020) 12 SCC 767 observed, Group of Companies Doctrine can be […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXVIII: Chloro Controls"
The principle for binding Non-Signatories as laid down in Chloro Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., (2013) 1 SCC 641 was applied in context of a Domestic Arbitration in Ameet Lalchand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprises, (2018) 15 SCC 678. Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Cheran Properties Ltd. v. Kasturi & […]Read more "Non-Signatories to Arbitration III"
It is fundamental, whenever a material alteration takes place in terms of the original contract, on account of any act of omission or commission on part of one party, it is open to the other party not to perform the original contract. This will not amount to abandonment. Moreover, abandonment is normally understood in context […]Read more "Abandonment"
Phrases – such as: ‘question of law’ – are open textual expressions, used in statutes to convey a certain meaning which Legislature would not have intended to be read in a pedantic manner. When words allow narrow as well as wide interpretations, Courts have developed art and technique of finding correct meanings by looking at […]Read more "Question of Law"
Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by exigencies of service; an employee has no fundamental right or a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice; individual convenience of persons who are employed in service is subject to overarching needs of administration. Court […]Read more "Proportionality in Culture of Justification II"
My Lord, District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can appoint and authorize an Advocate under Section 14(1A) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002? Yes. It is well established, an Advocate is a guardian of constitutional morality and justice equally with a Judge. He bears responsibility towards […]Read more "Subordinate Officer"
Court notices, medical practitioners have a quasi-fiduciary relationship with their patients. A doctor’s prescription is considered final, even if cost of such medication is unaffordable or barely within economic reach – such is level of trust reposed. Therefore, it is a matter of great public importance and concern, when it is demonstrated, a doctor’s prescription […]Read more "Freebies"
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 I"
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"