“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"