“Doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio is applied as a guide to the interpretation of a statute or even document by referring to the exposition that the same had received from competent authority at the relevant point of time. An exposition standing for a long length of time is considered to be a law settled and is […]Read more "The Doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio II"
“In Chandler v. Webster,  1 KB 493 Mr. Chandler rented space from Mr. Webster for viewing the coronation procession of King Edward VII to be held on 26th June, 1902. Mr. Chandler had paid part consideration for the same. However, due to the King falling ill, the coronation was postponed. As Mr. Webster insisted […]Read more "The Doctrine of Frustration of Contract II"
“The Doctrine of Mutuality traces its origin from the basic principle that a man cannot engage into a business with himself. “When a number of individuals agree to contribute funds for a common purpose and stipulate that their contributions so far as not required for that purpose shall be repaid to them, I cannot conceive […]Read more "The Doctrine of Mutuality II"
“This Court in Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., AIR 1954 SC 44 considered the applicability of Sections 32 and 56 while considering the Doctrine of Frustration of Contract. Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khyaliram Jagannath, AIR 1968 SC 522 held, if the contract contains implied or expressly a term according to which it […]Read more "The Doctrine of Frustration of Contract I / Section 56 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 III"
Kasinka Trading v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 274. Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 398. STO v. Shree Durga Oil Mills, (1998) 1 SCC 572. State of Rajasthan v. Mahaveer Oil Industries, (1999) 4 SCC 357. Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2011) 3 SCC 193. “This […]Read more "Promissory Estoppel V"
“The maxim is quite well-known. 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. “Where there are general words in a later legislation capable of reasonable […]Read more "Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant"
“By specifically enacting a provision under Sub-Section (3) of Section 13, with a specific clarification that violation of the Principles of Natural Justice shall not be called in question where the procedure prescribed under Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been followed or complied with, the intention […]Read more "The Plea of Limitation XII: Written Statements, District Consumer Forums II"
Five Judges in Dr. Shah Faesal v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2019] have decided the following. “The rule of per incuriam means a Judgment passed in ignorance of a relevant statute or any other binding authority [See, Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., 1944 KB 718 (CA)]. The view that […]Read more "Per Incuriam III"
Supreme Court of India understands, Mahatma Gandhi > Bharat Ratna. Once upon a time, specifically on 23.01.1992, a press communique was issued from Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi to the following effect: “The President is pleased to confer the award of Bharat Ratna posthumously on Shri Subhash Chandra Bose.” It was contended before SC that, when […]Read more "123 Netaji 123"
Section 2(33), The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: “heinous offences” includes the offences for which the minimum punishment under The Indian Penal Code, 1860 or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for 7 years or more; xxx xxx xxx Learned Senior Counsel, Siddharth Luthra submitted that, […]Read more "Section 2(33), The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015"
Justice Mookerjee held the following in Pulin Behari Das v. King Emperor, 16 CWN 1105. The acts of officers de facto performed by them within the scope of their assumed official authority, in the interest of the public or third persons and not for their own benefit, are generally as valid and binding as if […]Read more "The De Facto Doctrine"
“Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 had postulated two conditions which must be satisfied for a classification to withstand a challenge under Article 14, namely: i) the classification should be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) the differentia […]Read more "The Nature of Judicial Power: Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna"
Tata HDCL proposed ‘Project: Camelot’ in Revenue Estate of Village Kansal, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, State of Punjab. “The Doctrine of Public Trust has been considered by this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 the Court considered […]Read more "The Doctrine of Public Trust"
“The same set of judicial precedents were cited and debated before us by both the sides. The first in the sequence is the Judgment of the Constitution Bench in Mohammad Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76. While referring to the observations of Justice Brewer, “the very idea of classification is that […]Read more "The Revival of Ray XXXI"
Sudhir Krishnaswamy taught me at National Law School of India University, Bangalore in 2006. This book, first published in 2009, grew out of his Doctor of Philosophy in Law dissertation at Oxford University. Extensively researched. Magnificently written. Excerpt, follows. _____ The Basic Structure Doctrine evolved in the context of challenges to the constitutionality of land […]Read more "The Doctrine of Basic Structure"
“Retail outlets for sale of arrack were started by Kerala State Beverages Corporation Limited in the year 1995, in view of the decision taken by the Government of Kerala to abolish arrack shops which were hitherto run by private parties. There is no dispute that a number of abkari workers lost their livelihood due to […]Read more "The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation IV"
Kedar Nath Motani, (1960) 1 SCR 861 had an occasion to consider the question of application of the maxims ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio‘ and ‘ex dolo malo non oritur actio‘. The Three-Judge Bench, speaking through M. Hidayatullah, J. (as His Lordship then was), observed thus: “The correct position in law, in our opinion, […]Read more "Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio"
A. “Albert Einstein spoke of change when he said, ‘the world as we have created is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking’.” – Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice T.S. Thakur, Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2016) 8 SCC 535. B. “We would […]Read more "Albert, Albert Einstein"
“The most significant impact of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers is seen and felt in terms of the institutional independence of the Judiciary from other Organs of the State. Judiciary, in terms of personnel, the Judges, is independent. Constitutional Bench Judgments have uniformly ruled that the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, though not specifically […]Read more "The Doctrine of Separation of Powers"
Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao in State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Hemalathaa, Civil Appeal No. 6669 of 2019 quoted Chief Justice John Roberts in Caperton v. A.T. Massey, 556 U.S. 868 (2009). “Extreme cases often test the bounds of established legal principles. There is a cost to yielding to the desire to correct the […]Read more "Hard Cases Make Bad Law"