The locus classicus is State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCC 19. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud elaborated on extent of judicial review in matters of classification in public employment. On whether Educational Qualifications can be recognized as a criterion for classification, State of Mysore v. P Narasing Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349; Ganga […]Read more "Educational Qualifications in Promotion II / The Revival of Ray LXXI"
The question has engaged (us) since the enactment of IPC. The use of the term ‘likely’ in several places in respect of ‘culpable homicide’, highlights the element of uncertainty. Section 300, which defines ‘murder’, however refrains from use of the term ‘likely’. This reveals absence of ambiguity left. The accused is for sure, his act […]Read more "Likely"
Section 106 constitutes an exception to Section 101 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, (1956) 1 SCR 199 has stood the test of time. Thus, Section 106 will apply to those cases where prosecution has succeeded in establishing facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding […]Read more "Section 106 of The Indian Evidence Act"
Section 9 as originally enacted, has been renumbered as Section 9(1). 2015 Amendment Act has also incorporated Sub-Section (2) and Sub-Section (3). Section 9(1), as amended, enables a party to an Arbitration Agreement to apply to a Court for interim measures of protection before or during Arbitral Proceedings, or at any time after an Arbitral […]Read more "Section 9 of The Arbitration Act"
The meaning of the phrase “heard and finally decided” was considered in Krishan Lal v. State of J&K, (1994) 4 SCC 422 where it was held, matter must have been heard on merits to have been “heard and finally decided”. Erach Boman Khavar v. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat, (2013) 15 SCC 655 has held, res judicata […]Read more "Heard & Finally Decided"
Ssangyong Engineering, (2019) 15 SCC 131 has in clear terms delineated the limited area for judicial interference, taking into account amendments brought about by 2015 Amendment Act. As has been held in Ssangyong Engineering, mere contravention of substantive law as elucidated in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49 is no longer […]Read more "Section 34(2A) of The Arbitration Act II"
‘Judgment’ means a judicial opinion which tells the story of the case; what the case is about; how the Court is resolving the case and why. ‘Judgment’ should be coherent, systematic and logically organized. It should enable the reader to trace the fact to a logical conclusion on the basis of legal principles. Many times […]Read more "Judgment"
Philips India Limited v. Labour Court, Madras, (1985) 3 SCC 103; Balasinor Nagrik Cooperative Bank Limited v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya, (1987) 1 SCC 606; Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594; Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 373; Jagdish Singh v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, (1997) 4 SCC […]Read more "Backdrop of Dominant Purpose"
Chief Justice A.N. Ray, speaking for a Two-Judge Bench of this Court, in K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, (1974) 2 SCC 506 observed, Municipality functions for public benefit and when it “acts in excess of the powers conferred by the Act or abuses those powers then in those cases it is […]Read more "Unauthorized Constructions / The Revival of Ray LXX"
I do not think there is any serious contestation. Constitution of Kenya, 2010 has a Basic Structure. Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill, 2020 violates certain components of our Constitution’s Basic Structure. [Mr. Justice D.K. Musinga, President of Court of Appeal] Constitutions, like human beings, are never perfect. Judges were agreed, Indian Constitution has a Basic […]Read more "The Doctrine of Basic Structure II"
Constitution Bench of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, (1990) 3 SCC 130 had an occasion to examine, whether Scheduled Castes in relation to a particular State would be entitled to benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Castes in matters of education/employment in another State. Court observed, if such a contention is to be […]Read more "Relation to State"
Majority of a Constitution Bench in Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 74 held, it would be far-fetched to conclude from mere presence of blood-stained earth that that earth was stained with human blood and that human blood was of victims. Also see, Two-Judge Benches in Kansa Behera v. State […]Read more "Blood of Human Origin II"
In Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. v. Girdhar Sondhi, (2018) 9 SCC 49 a question arose under the pari materia provision contained in Section 34 as to what the expression ‘proof’ means therein. After referring to a number of High Court Judgments, and Section 34, in which the expression “furnishes proof” is now substituted by […]Read more "Section 48 of The Arbitration Act"
The nation continues to wait, and is losing patience. A political party can always give a reason, a candidate with criminal antecedents is found to be more suitable than a person who does not have criminal antecedents. If the political party is of the prima facie opinion, a candidate has been falsely implicated, it can […]Read more "Monstrosity of Winnability II"
“Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin, (1980) 3 SCC 47 was clarified and held in part to be obiter by a Three-Member Bench in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (2006) 11 SCC 114. Rama Narang pointed out, the distinction between two categories of cases covered by Section 2(b) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – (i) wilful disobedience to […]Read more "Contempt Jurisdiction VIII"
Recently, Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh of Delhi High Court in Sulphur Mills Limited v. Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited, [CS(COMM) 1225/2018 & CC(COMM) 9/2019] said, to argue on the basis of submissions made before Commissioner of Customs, there is no novelty or inventive step in Indian Patent Number 282429, would lead to an anomalous situation […]Read more "Red Herrings"
Court has referred to party autonomy as being one pillar for Arbitration [Antrix Corporation Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 560; Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2016) 4 SCC 126; Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., (2017) 2 SCC 228; PASL Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. […]Read more "Emergency Arbitrators"
The confirmation of Death Sentence by High Court was under challenge in Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202. Chief Justice Gajendragadkar, speaking for a Four Judge Bench, observed: “It may be conceded, if a point of fact which plainly arises on record, or a point of law which is relevant and […]Read more "Article 136 and Criminal Appeals IV"
We may hasten to clarify, the fact of last seen should not be weighed in isolation or be segregated from other evidence. Courts have to not only consider the factum of last seen, but also have to keep in mind the circumstances that preceded and followed. State appears to be right in relying upon State […]Read more "Last Seen Theory"
Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra, (1980) 2 SCR 1095; Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 3 SCC 14; Union of India v. Yumnam Anand, (2007) 10 SCC 190; Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur, (2012) 2 SCC 176; Mungala Yadamma v. State of A.P., (2012) 2 SCC 386. In an […]Read more "Preventive Detention Statute / The Revival of Ray LXIX"