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"

Intersectionality

K. Crenshaw has been credited for coining the term ‘intersectionality’. “Discrimination, like traffic through an intersection, may flow in one direction, and it may flow in another. If an accident happens in an intersection, it can be caused by cars traveling from any number of directions and, sometimes, from all of them. Similarly, if a […]

Read more "Intersectionality"

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"

Explanatory Legislations

Though retrospectivity is not to be presumed and rather there is presumption against retrospectivity, it is open for Legislature to enact laws having retrospective operation. “Where a statute is passed for the purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former statute or to ‘explain’ a former statute, the subsequent statute has relation back to […]

Read more "Explanatory Legislations"

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"

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 State with an 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 State, it can never be a case of personal ill will or spite on part of […]

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"

Section 11(6) of The Arbitration Act IV

The 1996 Act has been framed for expeditious resolution of disputes. Various time lines have been provided [Section 8; Section 9(2); Section 13; Section 16(2); Section 34(3)]. The 1996 Act was amended by The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 to incorporate further provisions for expeditious disposal of Arbitral Proceedings [Section 11(13); Section 29A; Section […]

Read more "Section 11(6) of The Arbitration Act IV"

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"