Façade of ‘Commercial Decision’

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’"

Dialogic Jurisdiction I

Policy-making continues to be in sole domain of Executive. Judiciary does not possess authority or competence to assume role of Executive, which is democratically accountable for its actions and has access to resources which are instrumental to policy formulation. However, this ‘separation of powers’ does not result in Courts lacking jurisdiction in conducting a judicial […]

Read more "Dialogic Jurisdiction I"

Gradual Implementation

The theme of ‘gradual implementation’ of law or legal principles, was also spoken about in Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369 which held, there is no constitutional imperative that a law or policy should be implemented all at once: “when the policies have far-reaching implications and are dynamic in nature, their implementation […]

Read more "Gradual Implementation"

Exaggeration

There is no bar on High Court’s power to re­appreciate evidence against acquittal [Sangappa v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 686]. Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘exaggeration’ as “fact of making something larger, more important, better or worse than it really is.” Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as “enlarged or altered beyond normal proportions.” These expressions […]

Read more "Exaggeration"

Repugnancy I

Repugnancy can be looked at from three distinct perspectives. The first is where provision of a State enactment is directly in conflict with a law enacted by Parliament. Compliance with one is impossible along with obedience to the other. The second is where regulation of subject matter by Parliament is so complete as a code, […]

Read more "Repugnancy I"

Permissible School Fees

Constitution Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC 481 has expounded, private unaided school management must have absolute autonomy to determine school fees. The consistent view has been restated and enunciated by Constitution Bench in Modern Dental College and Research Centre, (2016) 7 SCC 353 in Paragraph 75. Though fee can be fixed by […]

Read more "Permissible School Fees"

Rule of Alternate Remedy

It becomes necessary for this Court, to dwell on the ‘rule of alternate remedy’ and its judicial exposition [Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1; Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107]. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes remedy or procedure for […]

Read more "Rule of Alternate Remedy"

Seat of Arbitration II

My Lord, Indian-Companies can Arbitrate outside India? Yes. It is clear, there can be more than one ratio decidendi to a Judgment. Jacobs v. London County Council, (1950) 1 All ER 737 has been followed in State of Gujarat v. M.P. Jadeja, (2013) 2 SCC 300 and in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) […]

Read more "Seat of Arbitration II"

The Revival of Ray LXIII

Over the last five decades, several decisions have dealt with the fundamental issue of when the process of an examination can stand vitiated. Essentially, the answer to the issue turns upon whether the irregularities in the process have taken place at a systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of the process. There are […]

Read more "The Revival of Ray LXIII"

The Copyright Act, 1957

The expression ‘copyright’ has to be understood only as is stated in Section 14 and not otherwise. It is an exclusive right, which is negative in nature, being a right to restrict others from doing certain acts. The ownership of copyright in a work is different from the ownership of the physical material in which […]

Read more "The Copyright Act, 1957"

Civil Sheep & Criminal Wolf

A reading [State of Assam v. Ranga Mahammad, (1967) 1 SCR 454; Jagdish Chander Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd., (1964) 8 SCR 50; Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, (1967) 3 SCR 377; CBI v. Braj Bhushan Prasad, (2001) 9 SCC 432; Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2005) 2 SCC […]

Read more "Civil Sheep & Criminal Wolf"

The Question of Apparent Conflict

One of the meanings of the expression ‘inconsistent’, as approved by this Court, is: mutually repugnant or contradictory. Constitution itself has used the words ‘inconsistency’ and ‘repugnancy’ interchangeably. Things are inconsistent when they cannot stand together at the same time and one law is inconsistent with another law when the command or power or provision […]

Read more "The Question of Apparent Conflict"

Examination of Disasters

25.03.2020 – The Disaster Management Act, 2005 was invoked in India, for the first time, to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic that was then in its initial stages of spreading. LOCKDOWNS varied in scope and nature, depending on the situation on the ground. Disasters are testing times for institutions and individuals, processes and procedures, and policies […]

Read more "Examination of Disasters"

The Revival of Ray LX

State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., (1974) 4 SCC 656 has laid down certain principles relating to under-inclusive and over-inclusive classification. This is, no doubt, apart from holding, a law which contravenes fundamental rights of citizens may continue to be valid as regards non-citizens [See, Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788]. […]

Read more "The Revival of Ray LX"

Ratio Decidendi II

It is settled law, only the ratio decidendi is binding as a precedent. Thus, in B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory, Pondicherry, (1967) 2 SCR 650 Majority Judgment of Shelat J, speaking for himself and other Two Learned Judges held: “It is trite to say, a decision is binding not because of its conclusion but […]

Read more "Ratio Decidendi II"

Referred to Larger Bench XXV: Doctrine of Separability of Arbitration Agreement

It is well settled, an Arbitration Agreement is distinct and separate; independent from the substantive commercial contract in which it is embedded. Autonomy of Arbitration Agreement is based on twin concepts of separability and kompetenz – kompetenz; which, though inter-related, are distinct. Doctrine of Separability of Arbitration Agreement connotes, invalidity, ineffectiveness or termination of the […]

Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXV: Doctrine of Separability of Arbitration Agreement"