Tender Law V

Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, Paragraph 94 states: “Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.” Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) […]

Read more "Tender Law V"

The Doctrine of Indirect Discrimination

High Courts in India as well as Supreme Court recognize Doctrine of Indirect Discrimination. Only by exercising close scrutiny and exhibiting attentiveness to the possibility of alternatives can a Court ensure, full potential of Doctrine of Indirect Discrimination is realized and not lost in its application. _____ In a case of direct discrimination, judicial enquiry […]

Read more "The Doctrine of Indirect Discrimination"

Act of 1986 v. Act of 2019

NCDRC dismissed a Consumer Case, instituted under Act of 1986 on 18.06.2020, on the ground, after enforcement of Act of 2019, pecuniary jurisdiction of NCDRC has been enhanced from Rupees One Crore to Rupees Ten Crores. The decision has been set aside. _____ A change in forum lies in the realm of procedure. Accordingly, in […]

Read more "Act of 1986 v. Act of 2019"

Legal Malice II

It is well settled, actions of the State with oblique or indirect object will be attributed to ‘malice in law’. Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania,(2010) 9 SCC 437 has summarized as follows: “Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill will or spite on the part […]

Read more "Legal Malice II"

Quasi-Judicial II / The Plea of Limitation XV: Causes of Justice II

The conditions that are required to be fulfilled for invoking the provisions of Section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963 have been succinctly spelt out in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, (2008) 7 SCC 169 . The question as to whether Section 14 would also be applicable to Quasi-Judicial Forums as against […]

Read more "Quasi-Judicial II / The Plea of Limitation XV: Causes of Justice II"

Arising Out Of / Relating To

Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Company, (1984) 4 SCC 679 held, “expressions such as “arising out of” or “in respect of” or “in connection with” or “in relation to” or “in consequence of” or “concerning” or “relating to” the contract are of the widest amplitude and content.” Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain v. Eknath Vithal […]

Read more "Arising Out Of / Relating To"

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 Revival of Ray LXI

“In every case where a statute inflicts a penalty for doing an act, though the act be not prohibited, yet the thing is unlawful, because it is not intended that a statute would inflict a penalty for a lawful act. It is a question of construction in each case whether the Legislature intended to prohibit […]

Read more "The Revival of Ray LXI"

The Question of Apparent Conflict

One of the meanings of 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 in […]

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 Hurt Locker

Unfortunately, there is no substantive domestic legislation or sector­-specific regulations which may throw light upon the issue of whether banks are responsible for loss of articles placed inside the locker. This requires factual findings on knowledge of the contents of the locker; or whether the locker holder had prepared any receipt or inventory of the […]

Read more "The Hurt Locker"